Objectivist Culture

[Nicky]

These "schisms" (at least the ones that keep getting mentioned in this thread) aren't about people being "excommunicated from Objectivism", they are about people being fired from ARI. I still don't understand what's wrong with an activist group picking and choosing the people it employs, based on:

1. their views (which should be in line with the message being promoted)

2. how well they are able to follow the direction set by the group's leadership (for instance, when they disagree about a small point with the message the organization is trying to disseminate, have the commons sense to shut up about it while employed by ARI).

It seems like, a lot of times, people tend to ignore the hierarchy that exists and serves a purpose at ARI, and go into any potential disagreement with the expectation that they should, at least, be met in the middle. They shouldn't.

But, like I said, I don't really care about the internal politics of ARI, that's their business. I bore myself just talking about it, plus any outsider talking about how ARI functions internally comes across as presumptuous. We don't really know what goes on, that leads to there firings, now do we? Your complaints and analysis are based on second hand information.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Nicky

[bluecherry]

"when they disagree about a small point with the message the organization is trying to disseminate, have the commons sense to shut up about it while employed by ARI" (emphasis = mine)

ARI cares about truth. The truth doesn't need to silence the opposition in order to prevail. Also, since ARI supports people thinking for themselves, (and 1) people have different contexts of knowledge, 2) we're not born knowing everything and have to learn 3) learning takes time 4) integration takes time) and it's normal and expectable that everybody will have at least some points of contention with other people at some point, I would expect there to be some disputes among ARI staff whether anybody talks about it or not. I don't/wouldn't like ARI trying to act like these disputes just don't exist.

[CriticalThinker2000]

It seems like a large part of the reason that Objectivism is so prone to schisms - on large scales and small scales - is that Objectivism, unlike many other movements, is so specific.

 

Wait a minute. It's not just Objectivism that's prone to schisms but all radical ideological movements- from Communism to the founding fathers (some of whom hated each other).

 

The fact is, disagreements in these movements are almost always of a moral nature meaning that the disagreements are particularly vehement. And the opportunity for disagreement is large when you're applying an abstract principle to practice. I just don't agree with the idea that Objectivism is more prone than any other movement.

[Nicky]

"when they disagree about a small point with the message the organization is trying to disseminate, have the commons sense to shut up about it while employed by ARI" (emphasis = mine)

ARI cares about truth. The truth doesn't need to silence the opposition in order to prevail.

Straw man. ARI doesn't silence people. It doesn't have the power to do that, even if it wanted to.

Also, since ARI supports people thinking for themselves

Every employer in the history of employment wants their employees to think for themselves. It does not follow that it also wants them to do their jobs however they feel like. You can ask someone to follow guidelines and think at the same time, there's no contradiction there.

And, when there is a contradiction, and it becomes impossible for someone to do the job they're paid to do, then the collaboration should end.

ARI is an NGO which collects money from donors, and uses it to pay contributors to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy according to certain guidelines its leadership put in place, is it not? Why would someone who works there have a problem with being fired, if they fail to follow those guidelines?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Nicky

[splitprimary]

Boethius, what fighting are you referring to that is not philosophic disagreement? what is it in particular that’s happening that you’re criticizing? i haven’t been following more recent controversies closely, but haven’t all of them been about personal and political relationships?

[bluecherry]

"shut up about it while employed by ARI"

"ARI doesn't silence people."

How does the former not equate to silencing? It's fine I think if you don't have employees permitted to use ARI's resources for ideas that aren't the position of the organization as a whole officially and don't permit them to claim to be speaking for ARI when expressing these ideas elsewhere/with other resources. What good would it do though to not allow employees to express such ideas they've had *at all*, anywhere, as long as they have that job at ARI?

 

Keep in mind we're still talking about stuff that isn't big like whole sale rejecting one of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. Just not being a supporter of Objectivism would make it not make sense to be doing advocacy in the name of Objectivism. Why not apply that to every and any little thing ARI may put forth officially as their position on any given thing? ARI is supposed to be about advocacy for *Objectivism*, one can dispute how to apply it in certain instances without rejecting the basic purpose ARI has of advancing Objectivism in the culture.

 

"It does not follow that it also wants them to do their jobs however they feel like."

There are things that "shut up about it while employed by ARI" includes which are not part of somebody doing their job.

[Nicky]

"shut up about it while employed by ARI"

"ARI doesn't silence people."

How does the former not equate to silencing?

Ok, I guess I'll play the "let's state the obvious" game. When someone is silenced, that means force was used to prevent them from talking. ARI, on the other hand, does not use force, and the people they ask to conform to the conditions of their employment are free to refuse.

There are things that "shut up about it while employed by ARI" includes which are not part of somebody doing their job.

I didn't mean "shut up about it" literally, I just meant "don't publish articles/speak publicly" about it.

If someone paid by an organization to publicly promote their agenda publishes views that contradict that agenda while "off the clock", that clearly undermines the job they're being paid to perform. ARI is right to set conditions that prevent its contributors from doing that.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Nicky

[bluecherry]

For big, fundamental issues? Yes. "Why not apply that to every and any little thing ARI may put forth officially as their position on any given thing? ARI is supposed to be about advocacy for *Objectivism*, one can dispute how to apply it in certain instances without rejecting the basic purpose ARI has of advancing Objectivism in the culture." Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it isn't every conclusion of application some ARI staff may make. Who to vote for for president (if you vote at all) in some particular election when, as usual, both major candidates are clearly awful, for example isn't something with an official part in Objectivism. If not all staff agree with the official ARI position on who to vote for for president, rather than not let one staff member express disagreement or fire them, why not just post some info on the ARI website with a basic summary of why the official ARI position is to support Candidate A and what mistakes they contend are in the arguments of that one other employee that supports Candidate B in their off time? It's quite likely outside of ARI there are other people who support Candidate B too whether an ARI employee says something in favor of Candidate B or not, so they may as well address the concerns that those people have.

[Boethius Newman]

I think two points from posts are best addressed to better illustrate what I am advocating. 

 

First:

"There are two threads to this discussion. One: about schisms etc., the other about being involved in politics. I'm not sure how these two are related."

 

They are related in that schisms are divisive.  They result in less effectiveness in politics due to fewer relationships.  Schism among Oists (side note:  Harriman is off this list)  should be avoided.  You don't have to like the guy or agree or even pretend, but rubbing his nose in it is a bad choice. 

 

The "we" I am addressing are or ought to be working for political power; not defining a philosophy; that is for the pros.  To that end, our primary if not only measure of success is winning a vote when we set out to do so.  That takes building relationships. Those will be among Oists, and before the vote, with others who will be voting, regardless of their reason for voting with us.  You find your allies for this vote; the next vote, your allies will be a different set; some the same ones, some different, some old allies will now be opponents.  Through all that, it takes building relationships for the day when that one vote by one guy you don't really like will make the difference between your success or failure. 

 

That is why schisms are so damaging.  Oists need each other to succeed politically.  You don't have to like each other, or invite him to your parties, but maintaining a polite relationship beats snubbing him so he ends up voting against you just for spite (which happens all the time - human nature). 

 

Would another Oist really do that?  Of course; not all your votes will be earth-shaking.  He'll snub you on something unimportant.  So why care?  Because politicians judge you by the fact that you are consistently a winner (or not).  Other politicians are more prone to agree beforehand to vote with you -or even whether to vote with you at all - if you are viewed as a winner.  That is human nature. 

 

That is (some of) the nature of building relationships.  You sacrifice the little value of the pleasure of telling a jerk that he is a jerk, for the greater value of winning a vote because he decided you were the right side to vote with. 

 

"if Objectivist do not get involved in politics, they'll never achieve political change."

This is spot-on.  Politics is the tool we must use to effect change.  Change does not just happen.  We have to make it so.  Not every job is pleasant 100% of the time; but it is the mounting successes that make everything worth it.  I really like the increasing number of evenings that I come home to my wife, and say, "I got everything I wanted today."

 

Second:

"what fighting are you referring to that is not philosophic disagreement? what is it in particular that’s happening that you’re criticizing? i haven’t been following more recent controversies closely, but haven’t all of them been about personal and political relationships?"

 

If you have a PhD in philosophy, write books, articles, etc., as a philosopher and are making new contributions to Oist thought, then keeping Oism to its original definition is part of your job; dilution is something you must snuff out; it is black-and-white.  The list of people in this group I could count on one hand, and possibly not even need all of the fingers (ps: have not tried actually counting; hope I am wrong). 

 

The rest of us fall under what I said above about schisms and relationships.  It is not what I think about what happened to McCluskey, or the related actions of some of the people within ARI; it is that, regardless, we have to focus on political success.  That means stressing our similarities by building our relationships on those.  The bad guys will laugh at any divisiveness we display all the way to the bank (who do you think won the vicious 2012 debates between Gingrich and Romney?). 

 

We do have a lot of similarities:  AR's Oism, for example, covers a lot of it. There are inevitably going to be Oists I like better than others because of mutual opinions, hobbies, attitudes - whatever - but there are not enough of us that we can afford to split our efforts (I am not sure there would ever be enough for that; the Republicans are being illustrative of that issue very well at the moment). 

 

We should be building relationships among Oists as the bedrock for bringing about an Oist culture.  The generation that does that, and simultaneously builds appropriate relationships beyond Oists, will be the one that succeeds.  There is no reason that cannot be done by our generation(s), right here, right now. 

 

Third point (a thought of my own): 

How do politics and education (re ARI) tie together? 

An educated populace is needed for the freedom / rights-based end of the political spectrum to win.  Ignorant people tend to fall under the spell of would-be dictators.  ARI grows the people we need to address and to win the support of if we are to win politically.  We win support by building relationships. 

 

Philosophy is for humans.  It gets implemented to ascend to cultural dominance via relationships.  The adherents who do that best win.