Rand Vs. Benjamin Barber, As Seen Through Anthem

[Toolboxnj]

This was an assignment for a political theory course on democracy I took over the summer. The assignment was vague, but I'll attempt to reconstruct it. We could take any comicbook, novella, novel or other non-fiction writing and apply at least one of the theories of democracy discussed in class. The paper had to be no longer than seven pages and summary had to be kept to a minimum (ergo, the footnotes). I thought I'd share it with the community here. I'm willing to take any criticism, comments, questions, etc. It's already been handed in and graded (I got an A in the class overall), but I'd like to see what you guys think about it. The professor's focus throughout the class was on rhetoric and I thought this provided a good chance to impress her or entertain her interests (Anthem, of course, provides an excellent chance to exploit this).

---------------------------------

John DeMarco

Democratic Political Theory

August 17, 2005

Ayn Rand’s Anthem can be interpreted as a stinging critique of communitarianism even though the book was published decades before Benjamin Barber’s Strong Democracy. The stark contrast between Putnam’s lamenting of the decline of American civil society and Barber’s socially constructed reality against Rand’s promotion of reason and egoism is clearly apparent in the rhetoric, theme and message of the novel. Forged during a new dark age, the individual is abrogated in favor of the collective; “We” has supplanted “I”, “their” for “her” as any trace of the radical individual to which Barber bemoans as “exploitive” is annihilated. Through art, Rand has fashioned (and reproached) the society which Barber intellectually defends nearly fifty years later, offering a possible re-creation of strong democracy. This paper will ignore the many philosophic differences between the two writers, since that would require perhaps a volume of writing. Instead, the focus will be on the common rhetoric between Barber and Rand while forging the similarities within Rand’s “Dark Age” communal world and Barber’s ideal one. Also, we will tend to the problems of democracy that were addressed by Rand in Anthem by focusing on a modern form discussed in class keeping with the overall rhetorical theme of the paper.

Even the casual student of linguistics can delineate the motives of speakers and writers by the words they use. For instance, when Plato writes that the soul is “imprisoned” within the body it implies the soul is held there against its will, struggling to be released. The rhetoric in Anthem may be puzzling at first to those not familiar with Rand’s other works. The narrator uses the plural pronoun when referring to himself or others because the collective has superior value than the individual in “The City” where the novel takes place. This is exemplified through a mantra that is to be repeated whenever one would doubt in his “brothers”: “We are one in all and all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, one, indivisible and forever (Rand 19).” This is certainly an indictment of Communism and the Soviet Union from which Rand escaped from in her young adulthood, but Barber appears to be supportive of this communal conception of man. “[Men] can only overcome their insufficiency and legitimize their dependency by forging a common consciousness,” Barber writes, “The road to autonomy leads through not around commonality (216-7).” The reference to a common consciousness appeals to the Marxist conception of human nature found within the rhetoric of Anthem’s narrator.

This rhetorical gap is not limited to Barber and other communitarian authors studied in class share the same proclivity for it. Putnam bemoans the fact that in today’s more liberal society world we’ve the lost social capital which is supposed to enrich us. Putnam writes in Bowling Alone that, “[Dense] networks of interaction probably broaden the participants’ sense of self, developing the ‘I’ into the ‘we’, or enhancing the participants’ ‘taste’ for collective benefits (2).” In Anthem, the enforcement of the communitarian ethos is different – those guilty of ethical infractions are punished in the Palace of Corrective Detention (19) – than what I democratic theorist would propose, but the premise is still the same. Putnam and Barber appear to support the voluntary absolution of the self, not using overt force to reach their goal (Putnam proposes more research in the area of social capital, community involvement and capital formation) and this differentiates them from the fictional Councils in Anthem. It’s important to note that while the Communists destroyed all egoism, this voluntarily sense of mutual, neighborly community-led democracy has some egoistic elements. After all, Barber notes, “altruists do not need government (237)” perhaps correctly, but Rand would ask “why should individuals be altruists in the first place?”

Barber is not peddling Marxism or Communism, but rather is attempting to forge an ancient form of democracy that opposes modern, liberal conventions. After the narrator’s renaissance in Anthem, he proclaims, “I need to warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction (Rand 94).” Man is an end in himself according to Rand [1] , and Barber is in stark opposition to this claim. Barber writes, “Thus the radically individualist community is populated by competitors whose commonality is understood as nothing more than an ‘efficient means of achieving individual objectives,’ whereas in the organic community of status and hierarchy the individual is altogether sublimated (231).” The individual is sublimated under Communism and other faith-based systems comparatively to the community of Anthem and with disastrous results according to Rand. Love, work, friends and the pursuit of knowledge are all marginalized by the communitarian structure where “common work”, “common seeing” and “common vision” (Barber 232) are of greater importance. Rand’s creations include the “Council of Vocations” and the “Council of Mating” where individuals cannot choose on their own what vocations or mates to pursue, but are compelled by community’s authorities who use the common good as justification. It is quite possible under strong democracy that similar conditions may exist. For instance, licensing and accreditation boards may install quotas on professions in order to encourage individuals (or prevent their entry) into certain industries in order to foster “social capital” or commonality. While the extent of such a “council’s” power may not be all-encompassing as it is in Anthem, once again the premise is still there.

After the novel’s turning point [2] there is a violent, but welcoming shift in the philosophical viewpoint. Again, there is this divide created between the ancient and modern forms of democracy; the ancient “communitarianism” yields to a more liberal, modern political formulation although the democratic elements are less evident [3] in the second part of the novel. Still, we can take representative democracy and its liberal base in order to describe Anthem’s “renaissance” by reading Madison’s Federalist Paper 10 and de Tocqueville’s statements concerning the tyranny of the majority. Also, the rhetorical change in the novel will be discussed as it concerns representative and strong democracy [4].

Starting with the words “I am. I think. I will (Rand 94) [5] ” the rhetoric changes from the plural “we, their, they” of the communitarian sense to the “I, she, my” singular. Rand initiates the liberal, individualistic tone of the conclusion just by changing the rhetoric which is not only a clever literary technique but it also draws a distinction between communitarianism and liberal democracy that’s been discussed in this paper. No longer is the individual submissive to the needs and desires of the community, but rather the individual trumps what is called the “common good” [6] .

Madison prophetically addresses the problem of factions as it relates to Barber’s strong democracy in Federalist Paper 10. Madison writes, “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction (130)” by eliminating liberty or as Barber would, “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interests (Madison 130)”. This is impractical to Madison since – in Rand’s interpretation – man has the ability to use reason and therefore will form interests and opinions which are in the individuals’ self-interest. Government’s job, according to Madison, is to protect individuals in order to enable them to use their faculty of reason and carry out their interests (131). Even though de Tocqueville appears to not fall directly within this line of reasoning he adds: “I think that liberty is endangered when [majority] power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence (302).” Rand explicitly accepts Madison’s few on factions and adapts it to the novel. In retaliation of Barber’s communalism, Prometheus says, “I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey (96).” Putnam would cringe at Prometheus’ lack of respect for social capital; Barber would claim that human nature commits man to the collective since he creates his own reality (Kant’s influence) and that to save himself he must save the race (215, 217). Barber claims that modern liberalism makes for exploitive relationships and radical individualism; Rand’s message in Anthem posits that individualism (like capitalism) is not zero-sum: rational men all always seek to advance their values [7] .

One can belabor the conflict between Rand’s Anthem and Barber’s strong democracy, but the important rhetorical differences as they relate to the conflict between the ancient and modern forms or democracy have been discussed. While Barber’s democratic theory is not fully comparable to Communism or other statist political systems, it is apparent that the Marxist theory of human nature is something that Barber himself agrees with both explicitly (214) and implicitly. Anthem rejects the communal form of democracy and accepts liberalism and modern democracy as the only way to insure the protection of the minority – the individual. The paragraph’s noted in Madison’s Federalist Paper 10 serves as the basis for Rand’s political views. Madison claims that man’s ability to use reason enables him to form his own tastes and opinions; government’s job is to protect the individual from force that would curtail his ability to reason and pursue goals. The stark difference between the ancient communitarianism and modern liberalism is illustrated in Anthem through the rhetoric, the author’s conception of human nature and her determination of how individuals should interact in a moral society.

[1] Rand repeats this theme in her over novels, most notably through John Galt in her last novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt exclaims “I swear – by my life and my love for it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to like for mine (979)”

[2] The Golden One and The Unconquerable (later Prometheus and Gaea) expel themselves from the society by running into the Uncharted Forest. The two discover love and knowledge and face the contradiction that’s inside themselves due to the communal aspect of their society. In their new settings, the characters can be individuals and not just parts of the organic whole.

[3] The first part of the novel can be construed as a political, not ethical statement of affairs which is more the focus in the second part. Rand writes that politics is merely personal morality applied to the greater social sphere. Objectivism, her philosophy, therefore takes a systematic approach concerning ethics and politics (also from the metaphysics and epistemology, but that is beyond the scope of this paper). If man is to live for his own sake (self-interest), then a government must be created in order to protect the individual from force (laissez-faire capitalism). To this day, Objectivism is the only systematic moral philosophy that can defend laissez-faire capitalism.

[4] Rand held great distain for “democracy” as it is properly defined “rule of the masses”. She likened this to anarchy and mob rule which was not capable of defending the rights of the minority. The minority, in Rand’s case, is the individual, not some splinted group of a collective (either on racial or other grounds) as it is commonly viewed today.

[5] Again, the philosophical system is displayed here. I am: metaphysics of objective reality. I think: the epistemology of reason. I will: the ethics of self-interest and politics of laissez-faire capitalism. While one may disagree with or attempt to find issue with Objectivism one cannot deny its systematization.

[6] Rand notes that society is only a collection of individuals in her non-fiction which is clearly distinctive from the “organic community” of Plato and communitarianism.

[7] This topic is the subject of an essay called “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” which is the pb version of The Virtue of Selfishness p. 68

---------------

Barber, Benjamin. Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy In America. Trans. Henry Reeve. New York: Bantam Dell, 2004.

Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist Papers. Editor Benjamin F. Wright. New York: Friedman/Fairfax Publishers, 1961.

Putnam, Robert D. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital” Journal of Democracy 6:1 (Jan 1995): 65-78.

Rand, Ayn. Anthem. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1995.