Outreach to academia

[Roger Bissell]

Chris Sciabarra's editorial policy in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and the more general approach of outreach to academia, has taken some hard raps from the more insular, cloistered folk in the Objectivist movement. In reply to one of them just a little shy of two years ago, I wrote the following comments:

[An academic's] "nod of approval" might just get the ideas you champion a chance for a hearing in a college classroom, even if they regard YOU as wrong. "Reaching minds" does not necessarily entail the brass ring of agreement with the CONTENT of your ideas. It may involve the still considerably valuable agreement that your ideas merit a HEARING.

John Hospers did not swallow all of Ayn Rand's ideas -- not by a long shot. Yet, he liked and agreed with some of them. And probably more important, he recognized the challenging, intellectually stimulating nature of her writings, and he engaged with her ideas and included excerpts and references to her ideas in his own philosophy books.

And this happened, even with Rand's abrasive, heavy-handed manner of communicating with him. (See their correspondence in The Ayn Rand Letters.) Think of how much more Rand could have accomplished with Hospers (and other academics), if she had eased off of the intellectual strong-arm tactics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

If Objectivism is being taken seriously in universities these days, it is because of Chris Sciabarra's Ayn Rand the Russian Radical, which set a standard of research and scholarship that I have only seen equaled in two other books on Objectivism: The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden and The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker. (There are probably others I have not been able to look at yet.)

Despite painstaking high-quality research, neither of these last two books were written for the academic world, the first being a partial memoir in addition to a biography and the second being too biased for textbook use.

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is probably the most important scholarly periodical on Objectivism that has ever existed.

Michael

[Reidy]

Walker's book was a disgrace. The best review was Bradford's in Liberty, aptly titled Ayn Rant. Their site seems to be reorganizing at the moment, so it's not online, but it may be back up eventually. See also the 1999 postscript to http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...aspx?ct=24&h=53.

I'm inclined to give more credit to Rand than to Sciabarra for her emerging academic respectablity, which was getting underway well before ARRR hit print (on the other hand, her hostile, unscholarly tone gets some of the blame for the fact that it took so long). The book was clearly an attempt to market her to leftists and postmodernists. If it had been a big influence, they'd be the ones jumping on the Randian bandwagon; I don't see much evidence of this (come to think of it, I don't see any).

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pete,

Your comment about Walker's book in your article on Wright and Rand is too charming to not cite:

Also beyond me is the full awfulness of Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult (Chicago, Open Court), which cites an earlier version of the present article (Journal of the Taliesin Fellows, Spring 1997) as one of its sources. What Walker has to say about architecture does not inspire confidence in the rest of his book.

• I am not an architect (pp. 318, 319). One of the most unattractive features of Walker's book is its snobbish double standard about people's professional and academic qualifications. Speak well of Rand and you can't have quite enough degrees, from quite the right schools, to satisfy him; speak ill of her and you are thereby an expert. I dismissed the designs for the movie version of The Fountainhead (of which more later) and brought to light an unacknowledged (but likely) source, Comrade John, so Walker rewards me by fabricating an entire career.  
  
• Eli Jacques Kahn, an art-deco specialist who flourished in the 1930s and in whose office Rand typed when she was researching her novel, and Louis I. Kahn, an Internationalist who flourished in the 60s, were two different people. Thus the question of what Wright might have thought of Rand's associations with the latter (p. 317) is moot; there weren't any. (Here the mistake is Meryle Secrest's, not the only one in a generally excellent book.)  
  
• Richard Neutra, whose von Sternberg house Rand lived in during the 40s and 50s, was briefly an employee of Wright's but never a student (317). He was in the office around 1925, several years before Wright had anything resembling a school.  
  
• The St. Mark's Tower was to be a luxury apartment-hotel, not a housing project (318). How Walker came to think this is anyone's guess, but my own is that he misread the earlier article's reference to "the St. Mark's project". In architectural parlance, a project is an unbuilt design. It is not a housing project.  
  
• Screenwriters are not set designers or art directors and thus are not responsible for these aspects of the finished movie (319 - 320). This mistake is especially hard to excuse in the case of The Fountainhead, since the author's efforts to engage Wright for the job have been on record for fifty years.
  

He sure is biased against Rand as all get out. (I am reading the book now and I have to use mental blinders and "turn off" when he gets on his anti-Rand roll. However, there is a strong element of truth in many of the cult-like aspects and considerations he raises, and some trends I have noticed over the last year of online interactions. This deserves serious attention if Objectivism is to grow. I really wish people who wrote these kinds of criticisms weren't so prejudice. This makes it hard to use the good parts of their works.)

I do think Walker's quotes of people, facts, dates, etc., are generally accurate, though. His bibliography is a veritable shopping list of literature and resources. I imagine he had a large research staff to help him (especially during the pre-production phase of the CBC radio broadcast he made in 1992, Ideas, The Legacy of Ayn Rand), so that would be a source of unevenness, but that is my own speculation.

I haven't gotten to the architecture part yet, but your comments convinced me that the part on architecture is not good.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do think Walker's quotes of people, facts, dates, etc., are generally accurate, though.

Michael, I'd advise exercising a high degree of skepticism about thinking that. I can't estimate from personal knowledge what percentage of the material he gets right, since I haven't read or even seen the book. However, in various reviews and other contexts, I've read quotes he attributed to people I know which I doubt those people would have said, as quoted. And several people I know whom he quoted have reported that he got part of their remarks wrong, or left out significant context which would color the implications.

Reader beware.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I am certainly taking much with a grain of salt. (As I said, I have my BS blinders on a lot.) It's a damn shame so much research has been marred by Walker's overwhelming attempt to prove that Objectivism is a cult by presenting only negative and negatively slanted information. (Also, as I said, from looking at the volume of sources, I believe he had a large research staff and he probably accepted many conclusions from staff members without checking them if they aligned with his thesis.)

Since this is the Sciabarra Corner, it is fitting at least to provide a link to Chris's review of this book.

Here are a couple of others. I intent to address some points raised in this book later that I believe are valid (although Walker's rhetoric make these points hard to discern at times), so I will have a longer list of reviews and comments for that discussion, but so far, here are two more reviews:

Review by Richard Lawrence

Review by Phil Elmore

Michael

[JennaW]

Some people will say that Objectivism is a cult based on a few unfortunate individuals who act like it's a cult. They're the ones giving the whole thing a twisted spin, and causing the rest to react. And some people react in such a way that the person who called it a cult has even more of a reason to say it.

Personally, I see a whole spectrum of how people interact with it. I think the healthiest takes on Oism are those people who are able to emotionally distance themselves from it and take an academic approach. I specifically love Sciabarra's way of handling Oism so far.

[Robert Campbell]

Hi folks,

I just posted an essay on SOLOPassion, analyzing a nasty critique of Chris Sciabarra's work by a particularly zealous recent convert to the Ayn Rand Institute's point of view.

You can see it here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798

Particularly galling to me was the way that Ms. Hsieh's blog entry was intended to signal that Chris Sciabarra, and the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, are guilty of "pseudo-scholarship" and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand's ideas--without naming either party.

I will admit to having a vested interest, as Associate Editor of JARS.

But I've gotten fed up with this crap. If any of the ARIans want to take an article from JARS and dissect it, more power to them. If they want to start their own journal to compete with JARS, hey, bring it on. Competition is good. But they apparently don't want to be caught reading JARS, or making specific criticisms of its contents and taking responsibility for them.

Robert

[JennaW]

JARS

Just to let you know, Robert, I like JARS and maybe one day I'll contribute when I'm done with my first PhD

I enjoy the stance that JARS takes; I would also look forward to a Journal of Objectivism with a similar "fair and balanced" approach.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I just read through the article and the thread.

All I want to say about that thread is, "What an amazing amount of bitching against you and TOC by so few!"

Well, they have have to save the world, I guess...

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Do they really think they can convince independent minds with such completely cult-like behavior, like the really endless bashing of the False Prophets who threaten to destroy the True Faith? Imagine the harm those False Prophets can do if they get young people into their clutches! They will be forever lost for the Eternal Truth of Objectivism!

And that is supposed to be a rational philosophy?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Er...

A slight correction to my previous comment. Now the annointed few are bitching about me and Dragonfly too! (Thank goodness. I was feeling left out...)

Dayaamm!

Michael

[JennaW]

Well, I'm probably going to go into academia and I've observed how professional (i.e. staff, tenured, etc. at a university/college) philosophers think of Rand's philosophy: most don't. I can correlate it to scientific academia, where most scientists are not going to pay attention to a thesis unless the person publish their experiment in a peer-reviewed journal. It's called quality control. As far as the normal professional scientist knows, the person just went into their own garage-lab and tinkered around. Therefore, scientifically, even Dembski's and Behe's Intelligent Design agenda is not taken that seriously on the scientific front. I get the same feeling from professional philosophers about Oism.

Of course, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is going to help academia take note because of its approach. If a Journal came out that sounds like a book of psalms, only theologians are going to notice. In the science world, there is no "Journal of Reductionistic Neuroscience" because no one is going to take that seriously! Buuuuut... protestors against JARS aren't going to have a positive appeal if, 1) honest critique from individuals (Oist or not) cannot be published and 2) mistaking a critique for an attack.

Critique is part and parcel of the academic world. If critique is not allowed, academics are not going to like it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jenna,

You might be interested to know that before an article is published in JARS, it has to be accepted through a double blind peer review. That is one of the reasons JARS has been accepted so widely in the academic world. JARS also has quietly been meeting other strict academic requirements.

I don't remember offhand the names of the organizations that sanction academic standing for periodicals, but recently JARS was included in one of the world's top ones and is already in several. This was posted on Chris's Notablog.

Chris & Co. have been doing marvelous work in putting Ayn Rand on the academic map.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Jenna,

Thank you for your support. Chris Sciabarra has worked incredibly hard to get JARS listed by all of the relevant citation services. The biggest breakthrough took place this year when, after several years of pressing the case for the journal, Chris secured us a listing with Social Sciences Citation Index and the Humanities Index.

Dragonfly,

Your remark is priceless. The ARIans hate it when anyone describes their behavior in religious language--they make sour remarks about going to Laguna Beach to kiss Pope Lenny's ring--but all too often it's the only language that could apply.

Michael,

I've just put up my first substantive reply on SOLOPassion--an examination of Mike Mazza's defense of Don Watkins. I don't think Mr. Mazza's defense is particularly good--but the amazing thing is that amongst 40 or so posts complaining about my blog entry, Mr. Mazza's is the only one to defend Mr. Watkins. And he gives Watkins half of one paragraph in one post!

Robert

[Roger Bissell]

Robert, if you would be so kind -- please include a link to the pieces you would like us to see. It's a little more work for you, but it would save many people the work of having to look for it. Thanks!

And thanks also for taking on Mazza and Watkins. Watkins, as you know, is the new editor for ARI's monthly Impact. How he qualifies for that gig, I can't guess.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This post is an aside about the Walker book, The Ayn Rand Cult. I just finished reading the chapters on NB, Peikoff and Alan Greenspan.

Dayaamm! I didn't think is was possible to talk worse about NB in a book than Valliant did, but Walker managed to do so. Valliant paints NB as highly competent but immoral. Walker paints him as both immoral and a less-than intelligent and less-than talented piker. (Neither view reflects my thinking, though, which is more attuned to NB's achievements and how he came out of the crises.)

Walker's insinuation that Peikoff, with whom I admit to not having much sympathy, was a closet gay (in order to highlight what the Randian hero looks like in real life) is just too much to swallow. There's bias and there's bias, but that's the pure thing. LOLOLOLOLOL...

There is a chapter on Greenspan with lots of talk about indexes, crises etc., and not one mention about the dot-com explosion being a cause for part of the stock market woes. He managed to say that Greenspan was a failure because he followed Rand's views, and he was a failure because he didn't follow Rand's views all in the same breath.

However, it was the Greenspan chapter that made something jump out at me. I translated a total of about 35,000 pages of text in Brazil. Much of this was public bids in telecommunications, but there were also long legal papers, technical manuals in all kinds of areas, laws, etc. What happens with long technical texts is that a single work usually has several authors, each taking a chapter or two. When you translate as much as I did, you get a feel for different writing styles in the same work.

That really jumped out to me in the Greenspan chapter. You get the impression that suddenly you are reading a textbook on economics. I would have to do a survey of typical expressions, etc., but there it is. I'm not saying that Walker didn't do the final writing, but I would stake my reputation on the fact that he copy-pasted much from different research assistants (instructed to write with a specific slant), then added a phrase here and there and a few paragraphs. That is one of the things that has been bothering me about this book without being able to put my finger on it.

Thus there was probably an assistant for Greenspan, another for NB, another for Peikoff, and others for specific areas of expertise. (Now I am fully aware that I have even felt a change in style in mid-chapter when going from one topic to another. What was a nagging feeling now has been identified - and this should help make reading the rest of the book easier.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I saw the thread. Only after you called attention to the issue was it discussed. Meanwhile some of the most amazing reasoning was presented: (1) Randroid meant only ARI people, (2) The real issue was a about some kind of attack on ARI, and (3) If you look at it correctly, the TOC people are overly judgmental, rude, etc. (Then I think they went off into blaming some kids or something, I stopped reading.)

Still, soon we might be hearing about Tocroids...

Thus an easily observable prejudice-type mentality get assigned to one organization or another, or one class of people or another. That's so typical of that kind of mentality - always seeking a scapegoat.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Roger,

Thanks for bugging me about this issue. I'm still learning the unfamiliar interface over at SOLOPassion. There was a technoglitch with my blog entry at first because I hadn't mastered their baby HTML. And I was wondering how to link to individual comments--just now figured it out (you click on the title in black at the top left).

The one comment (out of the first 45!!!) that briefly defends Mr. Watkins--

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5606

Mr. Parille's comment about what he intended in writing "Ayn Rand and Evolution"--http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5631

My response to all the "cut and run" talk: http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5715

My reply to Mr. Mazza's defense of Mr. Watkins:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5771

Mr. Mazza's rebuttal:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5782

Mr. Parille's challenge to Mr. Mazza to address Rand's speculations about "missing links" and "pre-humans" living among us:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5788

Robert

[Kat]

prehumans living among us can be found at www.solopassion.com

What a mean-spirited bunch! Unbelievable!

For those going on a slumming safari, thank you for standing up for truth and honor. It is appreciated.

Kat

[Robert Campbell]

Kat,

The spectacle continues...

When Neil Parille directly asked Mike Mazza what he thought of Rand's speculations on "prehumans" and "missing links" living among us, Mr. Mazza declared that he wasn't interested in rereading Parille's SOLO HQ essay, Watkins' critique of it, and Hsieh's blog entry endorsing Watkins.

Check it out right here:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5798

None of these pieces are long. And I announced that I wouldn't take objections seriously unless the commenters actually read all 3.

Mr. Mazza could have read, or reread, all of these items in the time that it took him to write 4 or 5 of his voluminous posts.

Unbelievable!

Can tomorrow's exchanges get any worse?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Here's my last reply to Mr. Mazza's defense of Don Watkins:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/798#comment-5844

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I cracked up with this from you post:

PS.  I couldn't resist saying that Mr. Watkins was thundering, because in that passage he reminded me of a stern fundamentalist preacher.  As for me, I don't care whether you say I roared it, squeaked it, burped it, yelped it, or sang it in the manner of Howlin' Wolf, as long as you quote me straight.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I fear you may be asking the impossible, though. The whole manner of reasoning of people with a scapegoating "us against them" agenda is to quote you out of context so he can then "trounce" you. This guy may surprise me and start concentrating on the issues and facts, since he does display some intelligence at times, but he obviously is still young and full of piss and vinegar.

Congratulations on showing solid facts and scholarship through all the hostile rhetoric over there. One good thing about reason and facts, they do sink in over time to the audience.

Michael