There's no arguing that neoliberal ideologues have pushed libertarian individualism - most notably across the political sphere since 1981 and I agree that they were organizing that push for at least 15 years before Reagan's election. At the same time, the neoliberals succeeded, electorally, by combining with neoconservatives who sought to advance the exact opposite agenda... Christian romanticism, nationalist anti-communism, nativist anti-immigrantism and militarist anti-terrorism. There are two New Rights, no? But didn't fascism do the same thing, simultaneously embrace and advance superhuman individualism and bowing down to authentic tradition?
Furthermore, the majority of the folks I've known who were drawn to Rand were not from my comfortable professional managerial class, they were strivers, up-and-coming folks seeking to escape lower income and lower status positions. If there's a greater interest in Rand among folks from my basic background it would seem to me to arise from the new insecurity, produced by neoliberalism, we all feel. Its not by any means simply an age thing, it's the combination of a particular background, a particular age and a particular era.
Another reason I think Wojtek is, at least overstating the case is because the greatest growth in evangelical/mega-church participation has come from the middle class - and not from the older middle class of my parents but from the younger middle class of my generation (I turned 20, late in 1981). And this happened to them in their twenties. Now it could be that such folks are Randian in their professional lives and Religious in their personal lives - though I bet that doesn't always turn out so well - but that's not the argument Wojtek made.
But even more than all this, I have no idea what "the middle class" means in this context. If we are talking about the upper reaches of the professional managerial classes then I think there's at least as much of the split personality I just proposed as there is anything like a Randian cosmopolitianism. If we are talking about the middle class of middle management and (fairly) high wage (once unionized) blue collar workers then - since I teach their children - I see very little Randian individualism. Most of what I see from these folks, and the wannabe strivers, is confusion... they know they aren't superhuman and most celebrate their connection to extended family and community... they are far more depressively romantic than aggressively individualist.
Last, if the assertion is that Rand is ever more attractive to elite twenty-somethings, I'd love to see that played out. Is libertarianism more robust at Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Smith, Colgate, Harvard, Wesleyan, Yale, Columbia, Bard, Skidmore, Princeton, Penn, Haverford, Swarthmore, Johns Hopkins, William and Mary, Duke, Davidson, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Kalamazoo, Carelton, Northwestern, University of Chicago, Colorado College, Reed, Stanford, any of the Claremont Colleges or the UCs than the tendency for folks to head for Teach for American, NGO work, green tech, etc? Admittedly without any data, I just don't think it is.
A
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Woj's account wasn't completely ahistorical, because the mission presented
> to the young post 65 lacked certain features that had traditionally been
> there before: the importance of society and community; the notion that
> individual achievement was only the circumstantial crowning of a larger
> drive; and the desirability of equality and democracy in an age where the
> franchise had indeed become universal. In fact, there is a growing elitist,
> meritocratic, hyper-individualistic movement starting in the early seventies
> and Rand's ravings were tailor made for times which insisted that there
> wasn't enough to go around, that democracy lowered or destroyed cultural
> values, and that any notion of social obligation was nothing other than the
> tyrannical rule of the weak over the strong. Moreover, the relentless
> deskilling of all blue-collar work made it "obvious" that the creators and
> leaders were the only ones who knew anything. In fact, if you look at Rand's
> heroes, they're all Stakhano!
> vite, skilled workmen: Dagny Taggart can build railroads with her bare
> hands, Howard Roark literally breaks the rocks that builds the buildings he
> designs, etc., Dominque Francon is a journalist....they work their way from
> the bottom up even if they start rich and inherit the stairs they're
> climbing. (She did grow up during the Russian revolution and did pick up
> some interesting notions that she married to her idea of a heroic elite.)
>
> For all the talk of the lone creator, all of Rand's novels are really about
> the distinction between an elite and a hoi polloi, and the elite is quite
> communistic in its way. They just play at competition, they enjoy free love,
> and they are generous with one another. In fact Atlas Shrugged paints a
> pretty good picture of communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
>
> No wonder her "philosophy" touched a nerve. This is why it's worth a few
> hours to actually read one of her books and, as I mentioned before, The
> Fountainhead is probably the most representative of her cosmology.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319