Edwin A. Locke is a professor of organisational psychology, with a large number of articles and books to his credit over a lengthy career. He is also, judging from his recent comments on Jennifer Burns' "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market", a fully spec'd, boilerplated, T-1000 series Randroid.
In my own review of Burns' book, I identified a number of standard Randroid responses to non-Objectivist views on Rand.
1. First, they begin with the pro forma objection that the critic is "biased" against Rand, “doesn’t understand Objectivism”, doesn't respect ideas etc. This is despite the fact that, given endless series of intellectual schisms the movement produces, that it is not clear who really does understand Objectivism in the first place.
2. Invoke the Objectivist Double Standard. This means that when Rand makes a wild, evidence-free claim or uses the most malicious, unsympathetic interpretation possible of another thinker’s work (eg Kant), this is ok because with her millennial genius she is in fact grasping the “essentials” of her opponents’ arguments. On the other hand, anyone who criticizes Rand must have read everything she ever wrote or said about anything, and allow her any concession and sympathetic interpretation demanded, no matter how obscure or unlikely.
3. Simply limn the piece in question for the hint of various Thought Crimes such as “determinism”, “pragmatism” or “subjectivism”, and then condemn the author's intellectual and moral standing due to their allegedly underlying commitment to one or all of the above.
And we should add:
4. Garnish each review with standardised ARI talking points about Rand's millennial intellectual and moral qualities and achievements, the evil of the Brandens, the evil of David Kelley, the evil of all "other intellectuals" etc.
Locke's comments admirably fulfill all of the above. Sample Randroidisms include:
"Ayn Rand took logic seriously; overwhelmingly, other intellectuals did not. This is why, as Burns says on p. 188, at a certain point it became “impossible for her to communicate with contemporaries” (e.g., modern intellectuals)."
"Aristotle tried to defend egoism, but only Ayn Rand fully validated it."
"...Ayn Rand revolutionized the field of ethics, rejected the entire Judeo-Christian moral code (altruism), replaced it with a totally unique approach to ethics..."
"The closest thing to a solution to all ills would be her entire philosophy."
"The closest thing to a solution to all ills would be her entire philosophy."
ReplyDeleteOf course, by killing the patient.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI've been doing some posting on the Locke piece over at SOLOPassion.
While Dr. Locke is not on the level of Jim Valliant, his method of interpretation reminds me of Mr. Valliant.
I love the claim that Burns doesn't care about ideas and thinks all ideas are pretty much the same. I guess that's why she has a degree in intellectual history, writes books on the subject, and spent years in the Ayn Rand Archives not knowing if Peikoff would even let her publish her findings.
-Neil Parille
The funniest one is that Rand's feelings of rejection over her unfulfilled crush on Levy in Russia are to be explained by the characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead!
ReplyDelete-Neil Parille
I'm not going to duplicate my posts over at solo here, but I'll just mention one that gives the flavor of Locke's analysis:
ReplyDelete_______
15. p. 90: Burns describes The Fountainhead as “a strange book . . . moody, and feverish.” No reasons are given for these assertions. In contrast, Burns presents quotes showing why people loved the book. Somehow readers failed to see the book in the snide way Burns did. No explanation for these conflicting views is given.
Here is what Burns wrote in full:
That Bobbs-Merrill failed to anticipate the book's success is understandable. The Fountainhead is a strange book, long, moody, feverish. Even after Rand's last-minute editing it took up nearly seven hundred pages.
What was it that readers found in The Fountainhead's pages? At the most basic level told an exciting story, and told it well. When freighted with Rand's symbolic connotations, architecture became exciting and lively.
1. Looking at the material that Locke omits it's clear that "strange" isn't equivalent to bad, as Locke implies. It's more like "unusual."
2. There is no contrast between an allegedly negative evaluation of the book by Burns and a positive evaluation of the readers. Burns likes the book and shares Rand's readers' admiration for it.
_____
-Neil Parille
When I was part of the Penn State Objectivist Club, twenty years ago, we brought in Dr. Locke as an ARI-approved speaker against animal rights. He gave the standard Objectivist position -- man is unique as a rational animal, rights are necessary for man's rational faculty to operate, animals do not have the capacity to reason, so animals have no rights. In any case, the fact that he's been ARI-approved for at least twenty years should indicate what a doctrinaire AIR-ian he is. The nature of his review does not surprise me in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteWow, Neil, the reaction to your comments at SOLOPassion are wildly entertaining. I see there is, shall we say, some resistance to your criticisms. I'm amused by those calling you a "termite" -- eating away at the foundation of Objectivism. (Although it seems like your focus is more on fact-checking Objectivist writers, be they Locke or Valliant).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.solopassion.com/node/8185
Dan and I got banned from Solo when it was still being run by Joseph (can't remember his last name). How do you get away with it, Neil, or is Perigo more liberal in principle?
ReplyDeletePerigo claims he's the Last Honest Man, so alowing me to post fits into that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the site has been dwindling in members and impact over the last several years since Perigo constantly splits with people. My posts gather some attention.
-Neil Parille
I gathered my comments on Locke's review here --
ReplyDeletehttp://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/edwin-locke-critiques-goddess-of-market.html
-Neil Parille
Interesting comments, Neil. I was particularly struck by this statement of Locke's:
ReplyDelete"Burns presents no evidence that Ayn Rand was anything but 100 percent honest."
I assume Locke is referring not only to the split with the Brandens, but to Rand's life in general. If so, I can think of numerous instances in which she was not honest. One of the most egregious is her afterword to Atlas Shrugged, when she boasted that no one had ever helped her during her early struggle. This is certainly untrue, as Burns (and even more so, Heller) documents in detail. Rand's family in Russia sacrificed mightily to send her abroad; her Chicago relatives gave her considerable financial assistance they could ill afford; Rand took found lodgings at a charitable institution that provided low-cost housing for recent arrivals to Los Angeles; Cecil D. DeMille hired her even though her imperfect command of English hampered her in her job; one of her movie-studio associates was instrumental in getting The Fountainhead to Bobbs-Merrill; Archie Ogden, the editor of The Fountainhead, risked his job to ensure the book's publication; etc.
Would Rand have achieved all she had if she wasn't somewhat dishonest about the help she received in life?
ReplyDeleteFood for thought.
Michael, this was certainly dishonest and one of the most unattractive qualities she ever exhibited, that of ingratitude. But she was an all-or=nothing kind of gal, and in her own rationalization it was probably true in a way: her family gave her money and sacrified, but they didn't give her everything - all the love and understanding she deserved ; and her Chicago relatives gave her what they could, but not everything they could have given, to ensure what she deserved. She was still unsuccessful and probably uncomfortable during that time; Peikoff describes it as one of "bitter poverty". To her hungry heart and soul (when was there ever enough?) I'm sure it was bitter.
ReplyDeleteStuart, you may well be right about how Rand rationalized it. But to be consistent with her philosophy, she shouldn't have believed that her relatives ought to "give her everything." In fact, she should have believed that they weren't obliged to give her anything.
ReplyDeleteMichael,Yes, she should have believed that. Was this a case of "blank out"?
ReplyDeletecaroljane