Devils_Advocate Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Is Objectivism a sub-culture? First, and predominantly, it is a philosophy, of course. But, I'm going to make the argument that it can also be considered a sub-culture. We have our own way of life (guided by reason, values), our own political ideals, our own literature, our own music - Romantic Classical (we don't all like it, true, but I have trouble believing all hippies liked Led Zeppelin), our own art, our own religious beliefs (not believing in something is still a belief about something) we even have our own symbology ($). We actively seek to change the culture. Admittedly, we didn't come up with all of this ourselves, but we're synthesizing it all in our own lifestyle, which is independent of the mainstream culture or cultural ideals. However, this is something I've recently come up with, and am fully prepared to see my argument destroyed. What do you think? Is Objectivism a sub-culture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicsSon Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I looked up the definition of subculture: "A group within a society that has its own shared set of customs, attitudes, and values, often accompanied by jargon or slang. A subculture can be organized around a common activity, occupation, age, status, ethnic background, race, religion, or any other unifying social condition, but the term is often used to describe deviant groups, such as thieves and drug users." (dictionary.com) Deviant groups aside, it seems that Objectivism could definalty be considered a subculture. Going by the above definition, Objectivists do share a set of attitudes and values, and express them with terms that are a part of the group. I suppose many philosophies, ancient and modern, could easliy fit a subculture classification, cynics and existentialist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Some good points were raised on this topic on a back-thread ("Cultural Objectivism" - page 3, Questions about O'ism). But it is an evergreen subject, and I think an important one, as it brings up the cohesiveness, or lack of, in our philosophy. I'll watch this thread with interest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Fits the definition but I think in most places there are too few O'ists to be considered a counter culture. One lone guy on a Harley doesn't make a Motorcycle gang either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Fits the definition but I think in most places there are too few O'ists to be considered a counter culture. What about online? Does it count as a place? One lone guy on a Harley doesn't make a Motorcycle gang either... No, that would be a motorcycle individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 What about online? Does it count as a place? Yeah, I'd say so. I mean we talk about going online we meet people online, socialize, chat, keep touch... A friend (whom I've never met in person ironically enough) suggests that Galt's Gulch should be established online as an underground economy before it is ever made a physical reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 But, I'm going to make the argument that it can also be considered a sub-culture. We have our own way of life (guided by reason, values), our own political ideals, our own literature, our own music - Romantic Classical (we don't all like it, true, but I have trouble believing all hippies liked Led Zeppelin), our own art, our own religious beliefs (not believing in something is still a belief about something) we even have our own symbology ($). We actively seek to change the culture. Admittedly, we didn't come up with all of this ourselves, but we're synthesizing it all in our own lifestyle, which is independent of the mainstream culture or cultural ideals. Many of the things you mentioned are simply not exclusive to Objectivism. Other than a few modern works, especially Rand's writings, none of the Romantic music and literature belongs to Objectivism, and Objectivists should definitely abstain from claiming those achievements are "Objectivist values". Atheism is also not exclusive to Objectivism, nor is the $ symbol, obviously. As for the future, I hope Objectivism never becomes a subculture, but that might very well happen, mainstream culture might break down to the point where Objectivists are forced to band together, separate from the rest of the World, and even keep their values and meetings secret, the way champions of Reason often had to in the past, in Western Europe. Then, if the values Objectivists hold dear or create become values only to Objectivists (like heavy metal was a value only to members of one specific sub-culture, before it became main-stream, and everybody else considered it annoying noise: a non-value), Objectivism will rightfully be considered a subculture. But right now, very few non-Objectivists consider Romantic music and literature a non-value, same with all the other things that Objectivism values, including Reason. When they will, then those values will define a subculture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would say its probably an online subculture. Objectivists are way to rare and argumentative in the real, except maybe in an large urban setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I think one crucial thing is absent that prevents Objectivism being a subculture; a lack of a shared set of customs. There is no "Objectivist music", Romantic Classical has no *particularly* special value nor does it have a "cultural relevence" so to speak to Objectivism. I think Romantic Classical is good music, but I'm not a fan of most of it. When I think subculture, I think a very distinct group with an easily defined preference for particular genres of music/movies/food/activities. Objectivists are probably too individualistic to be truly part of any subculture. The "rarity" of an Objectivist wouldn't be relevant, since it normally would be rare to come across anyone of a particular subculture. I've never seen a Satanist in real life and most people probably haven't either, but they certainly are a subculture. What matters is if a cohesive group is formed and identifiable (certainly collectivist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Like there is no Objectivist science, there is no Objectivist culture. Clearly principles of Objectivism inevitably lead to certain aspects of a culture but it doesn't decide everyday practices, clothing etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicsSon Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Fits the definition but I think in most places there are too few O'ists to be considered a counter culture. One lone guy on a Harley doesn't make a Motorcycle gang either... Too few objectivists? So in other words, the definition of a subculture does fit with Objectivism, but it just lacks enough people to make it one? Doesn't that sound silly? There are enough Objectivists aparently to have an ARI, an internet forum, dozens and dozens of college clubs, etc. And yet its still not enough? What is 'most places'? It only has to be one place to qualify, for instance, America. Your second statement about a lone rider and a motorcycle gang is a bit spurious. Even if he doesn't belong to any immediate gang or group, if he chooses a 'motorcycle' lifestyle he is most certainly a part of a subculture classification. Go back to the definition I provided earlier, it fits. To be classified under a subculture group does not mean that an individual has to be directly in contact with a club or community, it merely means that the individual exhibits charateristics which are also seen in other individuals within the same society. The individuals need not know each other, or be numerous in number, or have club like affiliations, it is the likeness of their individual characteristics and lifestyles that allows them to be classified as a subculture. Given this, Objectivism can be seen as a subculture, whether you participate in clubs, the ARI, or just sit at home and read Ayn Rand without ever having met another Objectivist, makes no difference. "Many of the things you mentioned are simply not exclusive to Objectivism." Why does each characteristic have to be exclusive? Are we really saying that a group doesn't qualify as a subculture until all of their beliefs are exclusive? Moreover, can Objectivists (Ayn Rand included) stress the originality of Objectivism without admitting that many of the beliefs are in fact exclusive? What sense would it make to maintain the opposite? And I would say that its true that romantic art, the dollar symbol, atheism etc are not exclusive to Objectivism... however... the way that we estimate them are!! Being a subculture is not a bad thing, or a good thing. It just simply means that we have a veiw of the world, it contents and meaning which do not match with the prevailing trends of society, (liberalism, pragmatism, altruism...). I hope my ideas are clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Too few objectivists? So in other words, the definition of a subculture does fit with Objectivism, but it just lacks enough people to make it one? Doesn't that sound silly? There are enough Objectivists aparently to have an ARI, an internet forum, dozens and dozens of college clubs, etc. And yet its still not enough? What is 'most places'? It only has to be one place to qualify, for instance, America. Your second statement about a lone rider and a motorcycle gang is a bit spurious. Even if he doesn't belong to any immediate gang or group, if he chooses a 'motorcycle' lifestyle he is most certainly a part of a subculture classification. If he is actually a lone rider, he is exactly that. He would not be part of a group. A subculture is most definitely a group, and people of that group interact. Of course, that group doesn't even have to give itself a name. Go back to the definition I provided earlier, it fits. To be classified under a subculture group does not mean that an individual has to be directly in contact with a club or community, it merely means that the individual exhibits charateristics which are also seen in other individuals within the same society. But what are the shared customs? That is an extremely important part. The individuals need not know each other, or be numerous in number, or have club like affiliations, it is the likeness of their individual characteristics and lifestyles that allows them to be classified as a subculture. Given this, Objectivism can be seen as a subculture, whether you participate in clubs, the ARI, or just sit at home and read Ayn Rand without ever having met another Objectivist, makes no difference. Having any culture where none of the members know each other is not possible. To have any common customs, you would necessarily need to observe customs and follow them. "Many of the things you mentioned are simply not exclusive to Objectivism." Why does each characteristic have to be exclusive? Are we really saying that a group doesn't qualify as a subculture until all of their beliefs are exclusive? Moreover, can Objectivists (Ayn Rand included) stress the originality of Objectivism without admitting that many of the beliefs are in fact exclusive? What sense would it make to maintain the opposite? And I would say that its true that romantic art, the dollar symbol, atheism etc are not exclusive to Objectivism... however... the way that we estimate them are!! What Jake seems to be describing is more like a counterculture (which is a subculture still, though). But the values and beliefs of a subculture should be unique. *What* is valued isn't so important as *why* and *how* it is valued. If the way of valuing a particular value is unique and distinct from society at large, those values can be considered part of a subculture. Romantic art may be a common value with many Objectivists, but it isn't valued in a particularly special way. Name any subculture and I'm sure you can list at least one of their values and what is special about how they value it. This "specialness" would be what creates any customs within a subculture. Being a subculture is not a bad thing, or a good thing. It just simply means that we have a veiw of the world, it contents and meaning which do not match with the prevailing trends of society, (liberalism, pragmatism, altruism...). I'm not sure how any subculture could be anything but collectivist, which is bad. It requires individuals have values of the group rather than their own (whether it be explicit or implicit). It is more than just "things in common". It's like those punk rock type kids that try to show individuality through nonconformity but only end up conforming to a smaller group anyway. Or insert any other stereotypical "rebel teenager". At best you can call Objectivism a community. A community does not necessarily require any customs and usually only a couple common values (i.e. a bunch of people are a fan of a particular musician, nothing more). Edited October 13, 2009 by Eiuol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Why does each characteristic have to be exclusive? Are we really saying that a group doesn't qualify as a subculture until all of their beliefs are exclusive? Moreover, can Objectivists (Ayn Rand included) stress the originality of Objectivism without admitting that many of the beliefs are in fact exclusive? What sense would it make to maintain the opposite? And I would say that its true that romantic art, the dollar symbol, atheism etc are not exclusive to Objectivism... however... the way that we estimate them are!! We don't estimate two of those three things at all, they have very specific meanings. And yes, they have the same exact meaning for plenty of non-Objectivists. For instance atheism means the absence of the belief in God. (and people know what Romantic art is) I don't think that one symbol, from AS, of the dollar sign, that some Objectivists might adopt, makes a subculture. Moreover, can Objectivists (Ayn Rand included) stress the originality of Objectivism without admitting that many of the beliefs are in fact exclusive? Beethoven is original. That doesn't mean people who like him have exclusive beliefs that make them members of a subculture. So yes, if it's possible for one person, it must be possible for another too to be original without creating a subculture. I think Euiol expalined what a subculture is, from the perspective of their members' values. That's what I was driving at, only I didn't think it through well enough in my previous post. But I disagree that the conclusion of that explanation is that a subculture is by definition "collectivism". Edited October 13, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWEarl Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Is Objectivism a sub-culture? First, and predominantly, it is a philosophy, of course. But, I'm going to make the argument that it can also be considered a sub-culture. We have our own way of life (guided by reason, values), our own political ideals, our own literature, our own music - Romantic Classical (we don't all like it, true, but I have trouble believing all hippies liked Led Zeppelin), our own art, our own religious beliefs (not believing in something is still a belief about something) we even have our own symbology ($). We actively seek to change the culture. Admittedly, we didn't come up with all of this ourselves, but we're synthesizing it all in our own lifestyle, which is independent of the mainstream culture or cultural ideals. However, this is something I've recently come up with, and am fully prepared to see my argument destroyed. What do you think? Is Objectivism a sub-culture? Why a sub-culture? Why not a culture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicsSon Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Although I disagree with some of the objections made, I may have to recant on considering Objectivism a subculture. It could be one, based on certain things I have considered, but then other things make me doubt. I wonder about how important the presence of customs were if the other similarities matched. For instance, I mentioned Cynics and Exististentialism. I dont know of any Cynic customs, seeing as how anti-custom they were, yet their striking contrast to the prevailing society and their communities should qualify them to be considered as a subculture. Maybe I'm wrong about their lack of customs. But if such things were absent, yet the rest of the referents of that subculture concept fit the movement, then it seems to apply. My other example, I'm not sure if it is valid. Heres a clip from Art and Popular Culture.com: "The Existentialists had a profound influence upon subcultural development. Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus transferred their French resistance underground campaign to the context of a cultural revolution and the American beat scene joined the movement. (See article: Underground culture) The emphasis on freedom of the individual influenced the beats in America and Britain and this version of existential bohemianism continued through the 1950s and into the 1960s under the guise of the beat generation. Beards and longer hair returned in another attempt at returning to the image of peacetime man and the normality which had existed before the two wars. At the same time, as a result of American post-war prosperity, a new identity emerged for youth subculture: the teenager." So is it right to consider Existentialists as a whole a subculture, or only those who were influenced by the beat movement? In which case could we only identify Existentialism as a philosophical school of thought which influenced a particular subculture? Has Objectivism influenced any subcultures? Can you think of any other philosophy which you think would qualify as a subculture? "I'm not sure how any subculture could be anything but collectivist, which is bad. It requires individuals have values of the group rather than their own (whether it be explicit or implicit). It is more than just "things in common." For the most part, this is true. I'm not sure if its always the case. Edited October 13, 2009 by LogicsSon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.