I cannot and do not attempt to speak to Ayn Rand's intentions with this post. I can only speak to my interpretation of Atlas Shrugged, which allows me to enjoy the book when so many others like me do not.
Atlas Shrugged is something of a controversial novel. It focuses on Dagny Taggert, an heiress and second-in-command (though, realistically, in charge) of a railroad company, founded by her grandfather and run by her brother. A key fact in why it's disliked is that it describes a world in which people's value comes from what they create and provide for others, and in which people can be split into creators and 'second-handers' who only take from the creators and do not provide value to others in any way. Looking at it from our culture, that's an incredibly harsh viewpoint. It has the unstated assumption that everyone is born with the same opportunities, which isn't the case in our society, and it doesn't address cases in which people are elderly, or ill, or lacking in opportunities. That simply never comes up in the book.
The interpretation that allows me to enjoy the book is the assumption, firstly, that Atlas Shrugged is a work of science fiction set in a similar but non-identical world, and, secondly, it isn't intended to describe the entire population; instead, it's intended to describe a specific set of highly privileged people who could and should be doing more with their privilege instead of taking it for granted. People who should be taking responsibility, doing what they say they will, and doing it to the best of their ability. I find that inspiring, as a goal for me personally. Dagny is also contrasted with her brother James, who has had the exact same privilege as her plus that of being born male, and older, and automatically the heir to Taggart Transcontinental. That support my interpretation; Dagny's accomplishments are built on her privilege; the contrast is with why James didn't try to achieve the same, not why someone less privileged didn't.
I also like that Dagny is proud of her accomplishments. People should be proud of what they achieve. I got excellent grades last term, because I worked hard for them. The fact that other people also worked hard and didn't achieve those grades may speak to their lack of privilege compared to me, which I should be careful not to forget, but that doesn't mean I didn't deserve my achievements and shouldn't be proud of them. I intend to do even better this semester; I've been getting up early and sticking to a schedule which allows me to achieve what I intend to achieve each day, as well as attending workshops at my university's learning commons to learn how to do things better.
The story, for me, seems to be about the spirit of communism overtaking America, a country Rand saw as the very antithesis of it. Not communism as intended, and as people hope it will be; communism as it was in China and in Russia, where Ayn Rand grew up. One of the symptoms of this infection is incompetence, and I can definitely relate to that. Dealing with call centres where people don't associate cause and effect and literally just say random words that they don't understand and no one seems to think that this is a problem. That's only a tiny level of what people in communist countries experience, but even on that level, I can understand why Rand dreamt of competence, of people who knew what they were doing and just got on with it. I've also read a little on communist China and North Korea; civilisations where you were/are expected to act as if the most ridiculous things are true, and the goal wasn't to get things done but to shift the blame. I get why you'd want to get as far away from that as possible, if you'd grown up with it.
Another factor, for me, may be that I grew up in an abusive household where, again, the goals were to shift the blame and what happened wasn't based on reality or facts but on shifting moods and outright lies. I think, because of that, I get a great deal of satisfaction when Rand's characters say the equivalent of "no, that's bullshit, this is true". Within the confines of Rand's imagined world, their statements are true and clear and simple, and that is such a relief to me.
I also like some aspects of how romantic relationships work, in Rand's world. You go for the people who like you back and who inspire you to be a better person. That's lovely. Dagny isn't ashamed of her sexuality or of being a mistress, and although I'm not really cool with the idea of adultery, I do like that she is open about her sexuality. I do think Ayn Rand is mistaken in writing as if the specific submissive fetish she and Dagny (and, full disclosue, I too) share is universal for all women. It isn't. I get it though; it's a combination of being submissive but also proud; submitting to someone 'unworthy' isn't satisfying or enjoyable, it's just degrading and fake. So, again, because of my specific circumstances, I can relate to it on that level. However, I do feel that Rand glosses over how difficult it can be for women, especially at the time, to rise to the top economically. Dagny doesn't go out of her way to help other women, and there are very few other women in the same position. Rand seems to prescribe to the theory that the reason women aren't in positions of power is because most women just aren't as good as men, because if they were, they would be. That isn't true, and I really dislike that opinion. But, because I'm used to a world in which men are in power and women are invisible, its not an excessive hardship to ignore that specific element here, either. The same goes for people of colour; they just don't really exist in Rand's world, but then, they don't exist in lots of fictional worlds so, while it's not okay, it's not a problem unique to Atlas Shrugged.
So, thoughts? Do you like or dislike Atlas Shrugged? Why or why not? What troubles you about it? What do you enjoy?
No comments:
Post a Comment