| | CHANGING THE WORLD
Social species survive in part because some individuals move from one group to another and mitigate in-breeding. When salmon and sheep do it, we believe that the cause must be chemical. When people do it, we call them "individualists" and identify the cause as "ideas." A strong signal -- a good argument -- can cause a social group to splinter, with some following the new call and others staying with the old. Whether an idea seems "reasonable" depends more on the chemistry of the person learning of the idea than on the merits of the idea. Most people are collectivists. Humans associate in tribes and nations and internet chat groups. Let someone say something "unpopular" and voices rise up to drown out the signal.
Not all new calls are good ideas. Splinter groups do not always survive and even among those that do, the survivors do not always thrive. By whatever mutation, individuals with new calls arise in each generation. Sometimes, following a new call will save the collective from extinction. The caller becomes a hero.
Are humans more complicated than this? Of course, we are. We have tremendous brains. Laying in bed, doing "nothing" we consume thousands of calories a day just mentating. Do people "change their minds"? We say we do. We discover or learn a new idea and accept or reject it immediately. Sometimes we later adopt a new idea we rejected initially.
History is loaded with easy examples. Roman numerals gave way to Arabic and the algorists replaced the abacists. Rather than overbuild for the centuries the way the Romans did, we now calculate stresses with vector arithmetic and build with the least material necessary for the intended purpose. Good ideas travel rapidly and take hold firmly.
Some people reject obviously good ideas. Ignorance and cruelty survive and thrive because they are comfortable in the first place and not completely unworkable in the second. Even as commerce thrived as a result of Arabic numbers and decimal arithmetic, the council of Florence passed a law against their use. The law did not last. Good ideas do survive and do thrive. Some individuals pursue their own goals often (though not always) in despite of popular opposition. Eventually, an unpopular idea is repeated often enough to become accepted. It took 300 years for algorists to spread their Arabic decimal numbers. Even so, we still use Roman numerals.
If Objectivists were to begin a very specific and targeted campaign to completely eliminate Roman numerals, we would only create an equal and opposite group of dedicated opponents. This is because seeing Roman numerals (like hearing a patriotic song) causes a chemical response of gratification. Even deeper than this, some people are so constructed that they resist any change. Then, the battle is engaged. Ideas are exchanged. Abstractions are lobbed back and forth. If a wider audience hears the opposing calls, some members of that audience will choose one side or the other, while others ignore both, and others repeat both calls, and inevitably, several someones will come up with (n+1) alternatives, such as "Base-57 Arithmetic as God's Law."
Does Objectivism have value? I believe so. Does it make a difference? It does to me. Do I think it does to others? Yes, I do. I have read Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology at least twice through, and many parts of it several times over. It has made me a better teacher and a better learner. In applying the work of Ayn Rand to my tasks as a trainer and technical writer, I "change the world." The people who leave my sessions or rely on my manuals or tutorials are better able to control and improve their work and their working environments.
The reason that I am able to achieve these small changes is that I do not threaten people. Rather, I consciously work to make them feel safe and satisfied. In that mood, they are open to new ideas -- ideas they have already made an investment in gaining: they are predisposed to success. Sometimes, I fail. People get sent to me against their will. Maybe they are having trouble at home. Whatever the reason, learning does not always take place, and I do not have control over those inner processes or external contexts.
So, too, do people who want to "change the world by spreading Objectivism" meet with greater or lesser success. I have found that the greatest success comes from giving The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged (or rarely a non-fiction collection), to someone who is already a genetic "outsider" or "individualist." However, that is no guarantee of success. Such people tend to be independent thinkers, not likely to join causes. More than completely satisfied with the efficacy of their own judgment, they are not likely to assimilate mine or Ayn Rand's. On the other hand, it can be pretty easy to find a "True Believer" of one cause and convert them to another. Whether they stay converted is one question. Whether they actually profit from the new ideas or merely feel good about them is another question. Whether their acceptance of Objectivism actually "changes the world" is easy to answer: it does not.
The SOLO General Forum post "Trouble with Choices - Social Security Privatization" is a perfect example of why Objectivists cannot "change the world." The writer of the cited op-ed essay is certainly literate. Furthermore, the op-ed is supported by statistical polls that show that many people agree with the writer's viewpoint. In the responses to this post, Ethan Dawe said: "I emailed this writer and told him just what I thought about his article. It's bloody disgusting." My own assessment of that interaction is that Dawe failed to show the writer the error of his ways.
Furthermore, deeper consideration reveals to me that the writer of the op-ed piece made a very valid point, one based on empirical observation and both deductive and inductive reasoning. Many people in America feel that they suffer from "choice overload." The op-ed closed with this: "In the absence of the moral-superiority claim, a reform that adds to the stresses of the modern world must hold out the compensating hope of more prosperity. There's no case for Social Security privatization unless it brings a serious economic payoff." That seems like a definable challenge. In my estimation, any advocate of social security privatization would take heed. The issue is real in the minds of those who will oppose security privatization. Rather than do that, however, some Objectivists prefer to condemn, oppose, denounce, and then congratulate themselves on their intellectual superiority.
You cannot change "the" world. You can change "your" world. If the president of the United States wants to spend $3.3 billion on a mission to Mars, there is not much you can do about it. If your neighbors want to pass a bond proposal to build a new park, you can stop them. You can prevent the park and you might even be able to create a privatized park for public enjoyment at a profit. You cannot undo "modern art." You can create your own art and sell it to people who appreciate it. You cannot write a book that will convince everyone in the world that you are right. You can write a letter to the editor that will tell someone who already agrees with you why both of you are right. You cannot create a new nation of rational individualists who are immune to the looters of the world. You can marry someone who shares your values and the two of you can find a good accountant.
It is true that when some arbitrarily large number of people makes these kinds of individual choices for themselves, the world does change. Attempting to "change the world" transposes cause and effect.
Each person does what they believe to be in their self-interest. We here all have computers connected to the internet. It did not take much to convince us. Eyeglasses, ballpoint pens, and all-weather windshield wiper blades all sold themselves quite well. Morality is a harder sell. Ayn Rand did an excellent job of it. She invested a lifetime of hard thought in the problems and their solutions. Her goal, however, was not to "change the world" but to validate herself in her own eyes in order to write the novels she wanted to read. Other people agreed with her. She did not create them -- and she did not remake them in her own image -- at least, not at first. When she actually tried to do that, she failed. It was inevitable from the nature of man qua man that she would fail. It is just as inevitable that she would succeed in finding millions of people who already were in their own eyes exactly the kind of people she created in her novels: the kind of people who really do change the world.
|
|
