| | Thank you Russ. I still think there is meaningful discussion here. I was just about to make another argument, this time for the "subversive" role Objectivists may have within academics, specifically with regard to Queer Theory. Although for the most part, Queer Theory seems to be emphasizing "differences" that exist as they relate to human experience, there is a way in which Objectivists can contribute to the forum. One of the strongest arguments that Queer Theorists make is that the "traditional canon" excludes writers from different backgrounds. Rand is a victim of this exclusion. Why is she not included in the canon? Perhaps because she goes against the grain. Her blasting of such anti-concepts as "tradition" and "family-values" along with a list of other items, would make her a radical not a traditionalist.
I recently had the opportunity to take a course on the Victorian novel in which we discussed, among others, George Eliot. Someone wrote a post on the electronic Webboard, about similarities between Rand and Eliot to which the participants responded with scathing remarks about Objectivism. Someone out of ignorance, actually posted that she was an "eighteenth century rationalist philosopher" :) Mind you the same people who refuse to discuss Ayn Rand are willing to discuss Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida!!
Why? Rand like these others was strongly anti-traditional, anti-conservative, and equally political. I think the problem lies in the fact that her followers, for the most part have refused to comment on the application of Objectivism to literature for FEAR of being ostracized. I am by no means ignorant of the many Objectivists who have and continue to apply Objectivism to academic questions (I have in mind Mimi Gladstein, Sciabarra, Cox, Khamy and Torres, among others), nevertheless those who do so openly and courageously, encounter the cultural conservatism of many Objectivists as well as the frigidity of the academy.
Now can you imagine what a GAY OBJECTIVIST might say about the canon? Can you imagine what a traditionalist or a student of deconstruction might say about a Gay Objectivist? My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that Objectivism should clear a space within the "movement" for discussion of gay experience, after all it does exist. If Objectivists were to univocally embrace GAYS, they would probably attract a huge following within the academic world, and THAT would be subversive. Objectivism can provide gay people with the tools that are necessary for reforming the academic world from within. But Objectivism cannot ossify into an institution, a tradition, or a cult. It must remain fluid, promote open discussion, and allow for difference.
Sorry so long-winded. Care to comment?
|
|
