Objectivism Schism Form Letter
I’ve noted before Randians’ bizarre practice of “officially” “breaking” with one another (other comments on this).
Now some Objectivists who actually have a sense of humor have made up an “Official Solo Schism Form Letter”. Funny stuff. The letter is lampooning Objectivist nobody Diana Mertz Hsieh, who felt compelled to Officially, Publicly Break with a former Objectivist friend, the brilliant Chris Sciabarra (who is a decent, sincere, honest person who did not deserve to be treated like this), and to justify it by printing his private correspondence to her and a set of charges to any normal person would appear very bizarre (strange for a Randian, eh?). One of many critiques of Hsieh’s dishonorable actions is found here; another.
Correction: I have been informed that the letter was originally a spoof on Objectivist Lindsay Perigo and his site Solo; but that it works just as well with Hsieh, as Kelly’s filling in the blanks for a letter to Chris shows (later in the thread linked). Update: Just came across the latest Official Objectivist Denunciation: Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute has apparently been pestered into apologizing for having =gasp= published a short piece in the “Journal of Ayn Rand Studies”. Bernstein’s apology states “I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it.”
Well, then, Dr. Bernstein–it’s official–and more than that, irrevocable! Thanks for letting us know!
He goes on: “To all who are sincerely concerned with Objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any and all of Mr. Sciabarra’s work.”
Okay! I hereby repudiate and boycott Sciabarra.
And now I take it back! ha ha, I forgot to make it irrevocable!
***
A former Objectivist wrote me with this theory:
The only other thing I can say about the Club’s obsession with excommunicating people is that it strikes me as an initiation ritual of sorts–like how the Cosa Nostra makes you whack a guy to “make your bones.” It’s also an obvious way of generating false self-esteem, which is something I see a lot of in O’s. After all, most of their lives revolve around taking credit for the work of a dead philosopher who in turn borrowed heavily without attribution.
***
I break for Randians
Okay, bad pun. I refer here to their odd, pompous, self-important, silly habit of offically “breaking” with people who were once in the fold but who start to think for themselves. But I guess, like Muslims, it’s worse to be a former Randian than never to have been one at all. As Rush (another favorite group of young Randians) say, “For you the blind who once could see/The bell tolls for thee”.
Now our own Skip Oliva is the latest to be “broken” with by Official Objectivists. On the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s Rule of Reason blog (are Objectivists trying to parody themselves with the stilted, cloying, predictable overuse of such Randian catch-phrases?), some Nicholas Provenzo character washes his hands of the Skipster. Oliva’s sin? A former supporter of the CAC, he has–gasp!–published on LewRockwell.com. Treason! Heresy! Writes P-dog:
…I must publicly indicate my disappointment that in the time since he left CAC, Mr. Skip Oliva, a former policy expert, has chosen to become a contributing writer to libertarian organizations such as lewrockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
… The logical outcome of the libertarian position—the position of trying to secure capitalism without a legitimate philosophic base—is anarchy. I don’t understand why Mr. Oliva has chosen to align himself with such an untenable intellectual position. I can find no innocent explanation. … I can only think that during that period of unrewarded hardship and effort, Mr. Oliva turned on the movement that he felt had abandoned him. This is tragic, but if so, the mistake lies with him. One’s ultimate justification for being cannot be the sanction of others. The alternative to the current lack of Objectivist political and legal activism is not to make one’s bed with the libertarians, simply because they are anti-state. The alternative to being ignored is not to embrace one’s spiritual enemies as an act of revenge.
… Accordingly, while I wish Mr. Oliva my best, I must properly disassociate this organization with him on the above grounds.
Oh my God, it’s so melodramatic! Hey, Provenzo–you forgot to portentiously add, “For the Record–”My reply to Provenzo’s response, in case they delete it on grounds they should not “sanction a sanctioner” or some other Randroid weirdism:
Want to enrage a Libertarian? It’s easy. Just have standards. Consider lewrockwell.com blogger Stephan Kinsella’s response to my “Off the Reservation” post.
Enrage? Ha. Far from it. Just amused. BTW I am an Objectivist, by any reasonable standard, unless lack of sense of humour, dourness, and being Serioso about everything is a requirement.
Kinsella’s response is interesting because he refers back to an earlier article he wrote attempting to eviscerate Diana Hsieh for realizing that her previous support for David Kelley’s Objectivist Center was misplaced. Hsieh, an Objectivist graduate student in philosophy, grew weary of the Objectivist Center’s lack of scholarship. Upon re-examining the break that led to Kelly’s ostracism from Objectivism, Hsieh concluded that he and his organization’s approach to philosophy was substantively flawed and dishonest. Because her participation in the Objectivist Center was often held up as an example of the organization’s efficacy and because she knew her determination would sever many of her personal relationships, Hsieh felt compelled to make her declaration of independence public.
I was criticizing not her decision to break but her compulsion to publicly announce it. It’s so Randian.
Kinsella’s response? Venom.
Not “blank-out”? Shame.
Off putting, because it reflects a standard? Probably. It certainly explains the miles of hatred heaped upon Hsieh since her break with her former allies.
Not hatred–ridicule; not for breaking, but for feeling a need to Publicly, Officially Declare It Be So.
And perhaps (going back to my post) that’s why Kinsella can’t stand the fact that I indicated my disappointment with Mr. Oliva. Never mind that Mr. Oliva was a personal friend, going back to college. Never mind that I battled with him over the very issue that severed our friendship for hours on end, only to be told that he didn’t want anything to do with me or my philosophy. Never mind that I have my standards. The Libertarian mantra Kinsella echoes is that you must simply get along with everyone, whatever they think, say or do, or shut the hell up.
Again–don’t fault you for being disappointed in or not feeling close to someone, but this Randian tendency to Publicy Break with people is just hilarious and silly.
Yeah, right. And that’s going to lead to capitalism . .
What’s going to lead to capitalism is a radical improvement in the economic understanding of the average person. Which is to say–nothing. Ain’t gonna happen. Deal.
And a reply to a subsequent post by him:
Are you saying Oliva “hates” Rand and her philosophy? Even I am not guilty of that. Quite the contrary.
Surely you guys are aware how normal people deal with these things. If they have a dispute with someone, they limit their contact with them or even stop dealing with them. But they don’t feel compelled to make an “Official Announcement” about it, as if the world cares. I think in the future all you dudes should title your public “breaking” missives something like:
“Why I Am Hereby and Henceforth Breaking with _____ (And Why You Should Care (And Why I Should Care That You Should Care)–And If You Don’t I’ll Break With You Too”
Incidentally, no Objectivist has ever officially “broken” with me yet. Sigh.
I usually go to annual Austrian Scholars Conference meetings of the Mises Institute (and good ole’ George Reisman is there–having been booted out of ARI and found a tolerant, “benevolent” home where people are not insane); if I one day lose interest and stop going, need I “officially” declare this Once and For All to the World?
Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket. You people can’t even see that you have become living parodies, can you?
Breaking, Broken, Broke: Silly Objectivist Tendencies
As noted previously, Objectivists often use cliched and oddly stilted pet Objectivist terms and turns of phrase, such as “moral subjectivism”. I’ve long found these and other Objectivist tendencies to be amusing, or silly, including: psycho-epistemology (she sure has a nice set of psycho-epistemology!); over-use of “altruism”; overkill on the “Kant is the ultimate evil” thing; over-use of–em-dashes–and italics; “second-handers”; over-use of “qua”; boorish, in-your-face insistence on using “man” as much as possible to represent both genders; saying, “Observe: ” at the beginning of a sentence; the classic “whim-worshipper”; Frank is my “top value”; “stolen-concept fallacy”; and, one of my favorites, “blank-out”. This whole dour, humorless, serioso, robotic cult of personality has arisen around her.
The more I read Objectivists trot out their ridiculous stock phrases, the more I realize this aspect of the philosophy is really inapplicable to the real world. Who talks like that? Who even thinks like that? Who goes around talking about “psycho-epistemology” or saying their husband is their “top value”? What the hell is a “top value”? Jeez. In my view, this cliched, robotic reasoning is useless and off-putting.
Last but not least, is the Objectivists’ habit of O-So-Officially “Breaking” with people. In my experience, people tend to drift apart if they no longer like each other or find other interests more compelling. There is no official moment of “breaking”. But not for Objectivist. They act as if there is some official record book of relationships (which squares with the Objectivists’ obsession over having an Official Final Authority to settle disputes–can’t have the messy unpredictability of a private market solution); and the act of “breaking” implies that the status of your personal relationships are so important to others you have to Officially Notify them of it. Give me a break.
Lo and behold, it turns out that this Objectivist chick Diana Hsieh recently felt the need to do the same thing: she “officially” recants her previous criticisms of the orthodox Ayn Rand Institute, and “breaks” with David Kelley’s The Objectivist Center. Jeez H. In a post entitled, appropriately enough, A Public Statement, she writes:
Some of you may wonder why I am disassociating myself from TOC in such a public fashion, rather than merely drifting away in private discontent like so many others over the years.
No, I don’t wonder–it’s b/c it’s common among Objectivists to “announce” their “decision” to “break” with someone in such a serioso fashion.
For these and other reasons, I am pained by the end of my ten year relationship with IOS/TOC.
Okay, hereby noted; will the Official Secretary of Rational Relationships please record in the Official Record Book of Official Relationships that Ms. Hsieh has Officially Broken with IOS/TOC.
Egads. This chick used to be anti-ARI; now she has switched, and Officially Denounces her pre-ARI work as “pseudoscholarship.”
Objectivists are not even worth taking seriously if they continue to trot out these weird, robotic phrases and engage in these bizarre habits.
BTW, lest people think I am just bashing Objectivists indiscriminately, let me say I believe I am actually an Objectivist if you go by the short summary of her views, on politics, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I just don’t go for the dour, humorless, robotic cult of personality that has arisen around her. And you know what, I don’t even feel guilty about it–the face without pain or fear or guilt, and all that, ha ha.
***
See also The “Benevolent Rape” Scene?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
You sound like a libertarian sympathetic to Libertarians. Keep laughing and see whether you can be happy.