The Ayn Rand Institute has made it it’s goal to change the culture. They specifically have chosen young people (high school through college aged) as their main target for spreading Objectivism, as these are the years when people form their belief systems. It’s much easier to try to convince a 19-year-old of new modes of thinking than a middle-aged person set in their ways. I think ARI is right to do this.
To reach young people ARI offers essay and video contests, supports campus clubs, has a summer internship, finances books for teachers, runs the Objectivist Academic Center, and supports the Clemson summer conference on Atlas Shrugged. I might be missing some others, but it’s clear that the ARI does put a lot of time, effort, and money into spreading Ayn Rand’s ideas to young people. Without those efforts I’m sure thousands of kids never would have read Ayn Rand.
It’s certainly nothing to sneeze at. But I don’t think it’s all that can be done.
Since ARI goes through teachers and academic clubs to promote Ayn Rand, most of their materials center around academic subjects: philosophy, economics, science, history, and politics. There are countless pamphlets about environmentalism, government policies, socialism, economics, etc. And that’s great!
But where are the pamphlets about getting a girlfriend? Where are the guides to choosing a major? What about all the other things in our life that go on outside the classroom: art, parties, relationships, movies, sex, hobbies, shopping, parenting, and so on? If Objectivism is a philosophy for living, shouldn’t there be pamphlets for all aspects of our lives, not just the political side of things?
Even non-ARI Objectivist sources such as The Objective Standard or The Undercurrent (which is specifically for college students) focus mainly on those topics. There’s definitely a wider breadth on Objectivist blogs. Diana’s weekly practical ethics webcast and the advent of mini-conferences across the country is certainly changing the tide as well, but it still only represents a small amount.
I’m not saying that what ARI, The Objective Standard, and The Undercurrent are doing is wrong. I’m glad they exist and the should keep on keeping on. I just think there should be other sources to balance them out, especially if we want more young people.
I think that if you want to get the message out to a group, you need to speak their language. Today’s generation speaks in tweets, Faceook updates, YouTube videos, magazine articles, and blogs. I think the best way to spread Objectivism is to make a lot of noise on these platforms. And not just noise, interesting noise!
I think that we need to put forth answers to young people’s questions from an Objectivist point of view. We need blogs, magazines, and YouTube channels giving advice on everyday problems with school, parents, sex, time management, and friends. There should be a magazine for young Objectivists with reviews of good books, movies, and music.
I think we need to intrigue young people. We need more art based in rational values. We need teen novels with selfish characters, movies that have romantic plots, and music with a good sense of life. I think the Atlas Shrugged movie might be a step in that direction, but I’m not sure.
I think Ayn Rand should pop up on social networking. We need an Objectivist video to go viral. Atlas Shrugged needs to be common among people’s favorite books on Facebook. #OCON should be a trending topic. Dominique needs a Sassy Gay Friend. Can you imagine how many people would read Rand if there was a meme about it?
Objectivism needs to look good. We should have kick ass clothes. Not just lengthy quotes screen-printed on t-shirts, but clever and cute designs that even people who haven’t read the books would like and wear. (And Rearden Metal bracelets!) Our websites should be dynamic and easy to navigate. There should be a photo calendar of hot, selfish boys with their shirts off on dorm room walls.
I think most importantly Objectivism needs to be fun. We’re happy people, right? We should be inviting college kids to our interesting and fun conferences. We should have lots socials that bring rational people together for brunches and karaoke and laser tag. There should be laughter and dancing!
I think if we are truly going to change the culture, Objectivism needs to be in more than just classrooms, academic journals, and John Stossel. It needs to be in all areas of life, on platforms that a majority of normal people access. After all, it is a philosophy for life!
I’m not suggesting that ARI or other Objectivist institutions change their ways. I think it would be disastrous if ARI tried to to start an internet meme or The Objective Standard had a “Dear Abby”-esque column. That’s not their function and they should stick to the academic stuff. What I’m suggesting is that other Objectivists step up and fill the gap. I see it already with Jenn and Kelly in regards to parenting, ATLOS in regards to socializing, and Diana Hsieh in regards to doling out practical advice. Some of the Atlas Shrugged video contest entries were fresh and interesting calls to activism that truly speak to young people. I try fill the gap with my own blog by presenting instructional, funny, inspiring, and benevolent content. I try to do it in my work with ATLOS. It’s what I hope to do in the future through whatever work I do, whether it be design, photography, or nude modeling. 
What are you going to do?
Please send this to the carnival!!!!
Remember that Objectivism is a philosophy. It covers what a philosophy covers — metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, esthetics a few other bits. It doesn’t cover how to get a girlfriend. Labeling something as an “Objectivist” guide to such is at best confusing. At worst it strains at the sort of thing there has been so much objection to in recent years at attempting to stretch the term so far beyond what Rand wrote about. There is value, I think, in using the term to refer to a specific set of philosophical thought.
There are “good” ways to choose a major. There are “rational” approaches to hobbies. There are “objective” principles, small-0, to parenting. On the other hand, most people who label their ideas about parties “Objectivist” actually muddy the waters about what the philosophy is and isn’t and I believe more often than not hinder the process of actually spreading the philosophy. I remember too well in college being associated with those who saw Objectivism as dying your hair red and “not going to parties” with concrete-bound associations with The Fountainhead.
I agree that there is much to culture other than philosophy. By all means produce or wear great clothes, make great art, throw great parties and share the joy that so obviously bubbles forth every time you write. But I’d suggest being circumspect about labeling everything you do as Objectivist.
I agree with you on the points you make, but while it’s true that philosophy can’t choose your values for you, it does play a critical role in value judgments themselves. As far as this is true, I think there is value in discussing an ‘Objectivist’ approach to romance.. that is (at least the way I view it), all the ways in which philosophy impacts the value judgments made towards a romantic relationship. Everything else is optional values, and clearly can not be expounded upon by philosophy alone. The impact of one’s philosophy in this realm (and others) is important enough that it merits discussion.
So long as it is presented clearly in this fashion, I don’t think there would be any ambiguity or confusion of meaning as to what Objectivism is.
Having myself began Objectivism with OPAR , ITOE, and Virtue of Selfishness, I’ll say honestly that I didn’t really begin to understand Objectivism until I met some great friends in ATL who helped me to ground the concepts in reality. While it might be hierarchically correct to begin with the philosophy and work up, it’s pedagogically unsound. Seeing many examples of its application makes the philosophy concrete, and once one has seen enough of this, the abstract presentation will make much more sense.
(How do I do an arrow pointing up?) This. What Reid said. Spot on.
The people who traffic in memes are probably not the types that would read a massive book because of one. Just saying.
While it may seem like ARI et al. aren’t reaching out to young people in “their language,” you have to remember that this is not a recent issue. In my high school days, things were much worse and Ayn Rand was practically unheard of. But I found her and digested Objectivism. And so has every other Objectivist out there today.
The better sort will find Ayn Rand and Objectivism no matter what. What ARI is doing is exposing the culture to Ayn Rand to let the better sort know she exists. To put it another way, when I was in college, the Internet took off and suddenly there was a swell of new Objectivists and students of Objectivism. It’s just gotten better and better since then.
A lot of liberal (sort of), superficially anti-capitalist art tends to have a very good sense of life. These movies, novels, and TV dramas, amongst other things, are available, they just need to be understood properly. One example is the movie “There Will Be Blood,” which is claimed to be an anti-capitalist movie about a greedy, vicious oil industrialist. Other than two actions of his in particular (they strike me as out of character; you’ll know what I mean if you watch it), he has this exceptional sense of life. He’s this great thinker and producer, surrounded by simpletons. And instead of a boxy, explicitly idea-spouting (“making money is great!”) or unexcited (e.g., Roark in the Fountainhead movie) characterization, which most pro-Objectivist type of stuff has, he has this wonderful sense of nervousness and anxiety around people.
He’s sweaty, though not too much, and when he talks he projects this great mental strain. He’s so playful and excitable, in a nervous way. I keep mentioning his nervousness because it’s normal to be nervous when in a simple-minded culture. One should feel somewhat uncomfortable in it, and it’s rare to see this conveyed visually.
Liberal art tends to project a serious, playful sense of life well. More analysis and appreciation of this type of art would do wonders in spreading a good mentality.
Are you kidding me? Really? He hates everyone, thinks all other people are just competition, sees the goal of his life’s work as just to crush other people, and only goes from being cunning and deceptive to a snivelling wretch.
I ain’t denying that film is pretty – it was probably the best shot film that year (next to ‘No Country For Old Men’). But jesus…. yeah, his sense of life is “exceptionally” something – it’s vicious, spiteful and mean.
Here’s the trailer, where you can get a taste of what he, the character Daniel Plainview (played by Daniel Day-Lewis), is like, and of the epic, gorgeously naturalist cinematography:
Having come from two college visits today, I’m kind of partial to the idea of “hot, selfish boy” dorm room posters. “Selfish is sexy.” Rather than attempt to be a slogan for Objectivism, it might simply invite conversation about why selfishness is good.
An artist’s eye is now need to capture just the right image of selfishness.
Pingback: Erosophia
You’re right. Let’s do it – AND NOT TALK IT TO DEATH!
Sorry about the shouting, but it’s been a pet peeve for some time.
Just sayin’.
PS: Talking about the movie will probably be a good start.
+1
I love the spirit of this post. It would be great to communicate the notion of happiness as an ideal by the use of more concretes. I think it should be possible to do this while avoiding the pitfall of identifying some particular concrete with the more general philosophy of Objectivism. (Just as Paleo diets, Little’s TEW theory, or the parenting techniques popular among Objectivists are not Objectivism, nor would particular advice about career choice. I think it is easy enough to make that distinction once one is aware of it.)
Miranda, you comment that “If Objectivism is a philosophy for living, shouldn’t there be pamphlets for all aspects of our lives, not just the political side of things?”
I agree that there should be more literature on all aspects of our lives, not just politics.
The Undercurrent actually does have some articles on psychological topics that are very relevant to college students and young people. There’s an article on why guilt isn’t a healthy emotion (http://the-undercurrent.com/blog/from-guilt-to-good) and one about why students need to understand that studying can be a way to enjoy life (http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/studying-your-way-to-ecstasy).
I wish The Undercurrent and other organizations would write more on these types of topics. And hopefully in years to come current organizations will expand and write more on these topics, and new organizations will spring up and deal with this unmet need.
Also, bring on the calender full of hot selfish boys!
Pingback: Awesome Sauce Magazine |
Pingback: ATLOSCon 2012 Ads |