|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 | The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar Posted by Ed Hudgins on 1/17, 1:11pm | |
| The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar I am writing in response to the controversy on several online discussion boards about The Atlas Society’s 2008 Summer Seminar, and the inclusion of Lindsay Perigo as a speaker on the program. I want to explain our Summer Seminar policies, to place the current controversy in context, and to address real concerns about the wisdom of that invitation. Our Purpose The purpose of The Atlas Society is to make Objectivism a recognized and respected perspective or view of life, culture, and politics. In the same way that Cato, Reason, and others have made “libertarianism” a political alternative distinct from liberalism and conservatism, we want to make Objectivism the positive philosophical alternative (using David Kelley’s categories) to the religious, pre-modern worldview and the value-relative, degenerate, postmodern worldview. We do this specifically by (1) calling attention to Objectivism and TAS, by (2) promoting understanding of Objectivism, and by (3) promoting a commitment both to Objectivism and to TAS. We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest. Consistent with this goal, our approach to promoting Objectivism is to do so in an open, rational, and civil manner. Here’s what that approach entails. Our Open Approach We do not consider Objectivism to be some fragile, delicate flower-of-a-philosophy that must be protected from any questions, challenges, or engagement with other ideas. Rather, it is a robust philosophy that can withstand criticism and profit from open discussion about its implications and applications. Thus, we use our events and other venues to explore deeper issues concerning the philosophy and its applications. Our open approach means that we wish to look at how Objectivism fits with new, cutting-edge thinking and discoveries in various disciplines. An excellent example is how Robert Campbell, Jay Friedenberg, Walter Donway, and others have addressed recent work on the brain, mind, and psychology. We believe that such insights strengthen Objectivism rather than undermine or dilute it. “Open,” however, does not mean that we will engage in any debate over any issue—or that we do not approach issues from a settled, principled framework. We do come from an Objectivist perspective. Therefore we do not wish to squander our resources debating issues, arguments, or discussions that have already been heard and decided. Our Civil Approach Consistent with our open approach to discussion is civility in discussion. A civil approach to discussion and debate entails treating others with respect, and it assumes that we have a common purpose—in our case, the understanding and promotion of Objectivism. It also assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals. Thus, we recognize that many intellectual disagreements are honest ones and not an indication of moral failing, justifying anger and vilification. We even recognize that critics who have fundamental disagreements with their interlocutors can be civil; I have seen Christopher Hitchens, one of the harshest critics of religion, having civil exchanges with religious right leaders at social gatherings. Civility is not an end in and of itself out of all context; rather, it is an approach to dealing with others that facilitates goals that are in our rational self-interest. We also believe that it is possible in particular cases for civil people to have strong personal differences yet agree about intellectual matters or acknowledge intellectual contributions; one might have personal issues with Nathaniel Branden while acknowledging his pioneering work on the psychology of self-esteem or with Leonard Peikoff while acknowledging his fine work in the taped series “Understanding Objectivism.” I have tried to stay out of the personal infighting on the various discussion boards. And as an institution TAS has focused on the battle for ideas. This has meant that we are not neutral concerning the contributions that individuals have or might make to our institutional goals of promoting Objectivism. For example, I invited Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden to speak at our Atlas 50th event and we posted online a clip of Barbara’s moving remarks. I also have been an admirer the work of Chris Sciabarra, another target of a nasty personal smear campaign, and wish in the future there were some way for him to participate in our events. TAS has also hosted at its public events speakers on the opposite side of these personal feuds. That’s because our aim has been to focus on the ideas that are of shared interest to all, and to stand above this infighting—even as some have tried their best to draw us into it as raging partisans. Two Sources of Incivility Sadly, there has been a propensity among too many Objectivists to reduce intellectual differences to the personal level and to bring the most intemperate forms of incivility to highly visible public arguments. That propensity has been evident largely from two quarters: from individuals prominently associated with the Ayn Rand Institute and also from online discussion boards, notably Lindsay Perigo’s SOLO-Passion. Most of us know the reaction of many associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, including its co-founder Leonard Peikoff, to David Kelley’s widely discussed address to a libertarian social group in the late 1980s. That group’s libertarian outlook alone was considered by Peikoff and other ARI spokesmen to be prima facie evidence of its intellectual dishonesty or evil; and they further claimed that Kelley was immorally “sanctioning” that dishonesty simply by addressing the group—even if only to tell its members why he believed they were wrong. For that bizarre reason, Kelley was banned from further involvement with ARI. Ten years ago, U.S. News & World Report published a major article on why Objectivists can’t seem to get along, focusing on the Peikoff-Kelley split. While Rand and Kelley came off okay in the article, the cause of Objectivism was not helped by Peikoff’s comment, “I’d rather blow up the entire Objectivist movement than deal with this slime.” A second source of this incivility—where juvenile name-calling and vulgar insults are characteristically equated with a commitment to “passion”—has been the website SOLO-Passion. The appalling childishness so often expressed by individuals on that website makes a mockery of the term “rational.” Yes, there are also intelligent comments and rational discussions mixed in with the vitriol, which makes it all the sadder as pearls are trampled beneath the swine. Even Lindsay Perigo, the principal of that website and, sadly, a chief practitioner of and tone-setter for that approach, admits that some of those who post on his site go too far. The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy. Fostering Openness and Civility To further our objectives, I have been trying in recent times to bring more reason and civility to the Objectivist movement. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible task, but a pursuit worth continuing. For example, last year I met with Yaron Brook of ARI at a meeting of the libertarian Atlas Economic Research Foundation. At the event, BB&T chairman and ARI supporter John Allison gave an excellent talk, and Brook stayed on and attended a meeting put on by the conservative Heritage Foundation. I congratulated Brook on this new openness and I pointed out to him that it was for this very sort of thing—addressing “enemy” conservative and libertarian groups—that ARI denounced David Kelley. I insisted that it is time to abandon such practices, which have been to the detriment of Objectivism as well as ARI. Where my initiative will go, I don’t know, but I have tried. And I do believe that among more responsible organizations, the notion of civility is starting to gain currency. While I have not, especially of late, been a regular poster on discussion boards, I have tried to remain on civil terms both in public and private with Lindsay Perigo and, as he says, without any pretenses, he has generally remained civil as well. I hope this mutually civil approach continues. Using the Summer Seminar to Restore Civility At the Summer Seminar, we seek to develop our understanding and application of Objectivism in an open and civil environment. This certainly influences the talks and speakers we choose. Thus, we would not be averse to having an ARI speaker discuss why Objectivism should be considered a “closed” rather than “open system.” That is a topic about which honest Objectivists might differ, and one that should have been discussed in such a forum, and in a civil manner, nearly twenty years ago. However, it would be more problematic to invite someone to speak against intellectual tolerance as such, on the premise that those like Kelley—who hold opinions different from those of Peikoff—are not merely wrong but dishonest or evil. Though such a speaker no doubt would not wish to “sanction” our “evil” by attending such a forum, in any case we would not provide them a platform to denounce us and the policies of openness and civility that we champion. In fact, we have hosted presentations at the Summer Seminar about strife within the Objectivist movement that were both civil and constructive. Two years ago, I gave a talk on what I call “mature Objectivism.” I argued that the error of mistaking insults for passion or commitment comes, in part, from an intellectual error. Objectivists understand that all actions must have an aim, and that they must be rational, moral, and efficient within a particular context. Thus, if one decides to insult someone, one must ask, “What is the point?” For the most part, Objectivists who indulge in such behavior fail to ask themselves whether their aim is rational and moral and whether the action is actually effective. To take another example, in 2006 Barbara Branden gave a Summer Seminar talk on “Objectivist Rage.” When she proposed the topic, I was skeptical. I did not want “flame wars” from online discussion boards to spill over into the Summer Seminar. I didn’t want Barbara to bash Lindsay any more than I would want Lindsay to bash Barbara at our events. But she explained to me her proposed approach and we let her go ahead. The result was a thoughtful, reasoned, impressive, and civil approach to the topic. We posted her remarks on our website and remain grateful for her intellectual contribution to the movement. So, if our Summer Seminar can be used to promote civility and end needless discord, I’m more than happy to use it as such. However, in light of the TAS commitment to the principles discussed above, I don’t intend to let the Summer Seminar be used to perpetuate the very incivility against which we have been fighting. The Current Controversy In the past Lindsay Perigo has given quality presentations at Summer Seminars that were well-received by attendees. With this in mind and hoping to promote greater harmony within the Objectivist movement, Will invited Lindsay Perigo to the Summer Seminar to speak on music and on “Objectivism's Greatest Enemy: Objectivists.” I have not seen the summary of this talk; however, Lindsay did write to Will that “I’ll speak about something non-fratricidal.” In the aftermath that invitation, controversy has exploded—much of it fueled by Lindsay’s comments. For example, about participants on the competing Objectivist Living discussion board, Lindsay writes that that “crowd … are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.” About statements posted on that discussion board—which he always refers to as “Objectivist Lying”—he writes: “It makes my second talk on ‛Objectivism’s Worst Enemies’ as easy as my first on music. I just have to read out this stuff, say ‘I rest my case’ and get bundled off by my bodyguards.” This propensity for incivility is alarming. Such remarks are clearly “fratricidal,” in my judgment, and they cause me to worry that his talk will not promote the civility that TAS seeks. Now, we face the very real prospect that the very sort of fratricidal conflict that we have been working hard to overcome will in fact be perpetuated at our Summer Seminar—ironically—by our very attempt to end it. While some might argue that the posters on other discussion boards started the current controversy, those posters have also dredged up many of the past insults by Lindsay, many of which I and certainly Will Thomas probably missed. Thus, in hindsight, we at TAS should have expected such a storm of controversy. More alarming, we also have been made aware of discussions on SOLO-Passion by some who have led personality-based jihads, who are proposing to host a participant-sponsored session at the seminar to ventilate their divisive views—and even to invite other outsiders who have expressed their contempt for TAS. But to be clear, participant-sponsored sessions are open only to those who pay to attend the Summer Seminar. And while we leave the topics of those sessions open to almost any intellectual interest of the participants, we will not permit them to be used merely to perpetuate the personal ill-will they foment on discussion boards. Civility is the watchword at those sessions, as well. Lindsay challenges those who oppose him to “come to my two presentations anyway. At the very least, you won’t be bored. My aim will be not merely not to bore you but to thought-provoke and uplift you also. Who knows, I might succeed? What have you to lose?” However, given the post-invitation discussions he’s led at SOLO-Passion, we now wonder whether we are about to be blind-sided. In that event, we would have plenty to lose. Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.” This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event. But the challenge goes further. If all the energy and—yes—passion that has gone into internecine battles among Objectivists were expended instead on developing and promoting the philosophy in a constructive way, we would be much further along than we are today. Therefore I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals. No, I do not expect him to withhold honest criticisms about ideas he considers mistaken. I do not expect him to become less of the colorful character that he is. I do not expect him to feign friendship with individuals with whom he has had personal fallings-out. I do not expect that he will make up with Nathaniel Branden and Barabara Branden, Sciabarra or others from whom he is estranged, nor is it my purpose to get in the middle of such relationships. Rather, it is my purpose to influence the direction of the movement—and that is where Lindsay’s help, and everybody else’s, can be useful. We at TAS have worked very hard both to promote an open, civil Objectivist movement. We have insisted on high-quality work. I hope our friends appreciate our past successes. We have future plans to make Objectivism a powerful philosophical force to be reckoned with. I hope our efforts can convert to friends from foes those who share our commitment to Objectivism. If to achieve our goals we must make changes to any of our programs and activities, we will do so. We’re committed to ruthless self-examination, and open to constructive criticism. To those ends, I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes. Sincerely, Dr. Edward Hudgins, Executive Director, The Atlas Society | ||
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
