A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, December 11, 2009 Robert Mayhew Reviews Jennifer Burns By Diana Hsieh @ 4:00 PM Dr. Robert Mayhew reviews Jennifer Burns' new book Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right in the latest issue of The Objective Standard Regarding the book, Mayhew writes: What readers might have expected--what such a book could have been--is a presentation of the development of Ayn Rand's political thought and its basis in her more fundamental philosophy, a history of her political activities and interactions with others on the right explained largely in terms of her philosophy, and a discussion of how she compares to others on the right in terms of essentials. The successful execution of such a project would not require agreement with Rand's philosophy or political views; but it would require at least a basic understanding of, and interest in, her philosophical fundamentals and her arguments for her political ideas. Burns, however, has no grasp of or interest in Rand's philosophical ideas or arguments, and chose to write a different sort of biography. Mayhew then details a variety of major problems with the book stemming from that lack of serious interest in and understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas. Go read the whole thing for free. Labels: Ayn Rand Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 17:55:16 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Richard It seems wrong to call her book a "biography". Isn't the book more about Rand's effect on Republican thought over the years? I haven't read the book yet, and his essential criticisms are still noted.
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 18:57:21 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Daniel URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com Richard: That's what it's supposed to be about--or at least what one might infer from the title--but isn't. Has anybody else read the footnotes to the review? This quote from Burns is worthy of attention and might go a way toward explaining why it retained a title that seems to focus on a particular issue while containing content that goes far beyond: "The primary stipulation [of the Ayn Rand Archives] was that I not use the archival material to write a full length biography, since the Ayn Rand Institute had commissioned an Objectivist literary scholar, Shoshana Milgram, to write an authorized biography. Because my focus was on Rand in relationship to a particular aspect of American historyâ€"the American rightâ€"my work was classified as a 'special study' . . . In fact, her book is as much a biography as it is such a special study (especially with respect to selectivity." I wonder if ARI will make a public statement that it's regrettable Burns gained access to the archives dishonestly--or at the very least didn't stick to her stated intent. In any case, Burns seems to have pulled the same sort of stunt with readers.
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 20:30:57 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Michael Caution E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com I wouldn't say that she gained access to the archives dishonestly but rather that her insights into Rand's political thought are so superficial or off the mark that she relies on the personal story to make her arguments seem more plausible. I don't think it's a matter of honesty on the part of Burns, it's a matter of academic method.
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 20:34:09 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Jeff Montgomery E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com I read it. I would call it an "intellectual biography", i.e. a biography focused on her ideas (even if Burns' understanding of Objectivism is flawed). The book is ostensibly about Ayn Rand's effect on American conservatives and libertarians, and a good deal of the book is indeed about that. I would agree with Mayhew that Burns strays a lot into her personal life, although usually it's tangentially related to the political movements in question, such as her friendship with Isabel Paterson. I don't think Burns intentionally went off track against the wishes of ARI, but your mileage may vary. Most Objectivists have been reviewing it more negatively than I did. I guess I was just glad to read something that was not an outright smear; it's a real attempt at a biography, in spite of its definite limitations. I may revisit the review after I've had a chance to re-read it.
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 20:42:34 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: madmax Peikoff in his latest podcast says that Burns didn't need permission to view the archives; that the archives are open to all scholars - Objectivist and non-Objectivist alike. He cited this as an example of the dishonesty of Burns and all the other "Biographers". Peikoff sounded totally disgusted by the whole thing.
	Friday, December 11, 2009 at 22:41:28 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Anthony Mirvish E-mail: amirvish(at)hotmail.com Burns was very complimentary of the staff at the Ayn Rand Archives and of the quality of its facilities, which she compared to those of any first rate university collection. She also stated explicitly at the beginning of the book that she was not, personally, an Objectivist, and I think took care to document her work properly. The issue of who has been granted access to the archives also came up in Anne Heller's biography. It may be that the policy changed over a period of time. I don't know the truth of the matter, but neither author was hostile to Rand and it seems unlikely to me that they would state as fact something easily disproven, unless this was something that they'd heard and not checked out personally. Certainly, it is to the benefit of Objectivism that the archives be generally accessible to scholars. It's worth considering that because Objectivism tends to use certain words or concepts in ways that are different from their commonly understood (or even common academic) meanings, there will always be a communication problem. Rand may have defined her terms clearly enough, but that fact alone was not enough to cause general acceptance of the validity of her definitions. This is especially true when she sometimes chose to express her ideas in a deliberately provocative way. A better understanding of this would likely make it easier to communicate Rand's ideas to those unfamiliar with them.
	Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 7:53:10 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Neil Parille E-mail: neilparille(at)yahoo.com URL: http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/ Mr. Max, Either Leonard Peikoff is confused about the archive's policy, or Burns and Heller are misrepresenting their first-hand experience with the archives. I think the first is more likely. The most interesting part of Burns' book was her contention that the published version of the journals and other material (such as Mayhew's collection of Rand's Q&A) are not faithful to the originals. It's unfortunate that Mayhew didn't address this in his review. -Neil Parille
	Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 9:35:50 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: PDS E-mail: pdspds(at)gmail.com "It's worth considering that because Objectivism tends to use certain words or concepts in ways that are different from their commonly understood (or even common academic) meanings, there will always be a communication problem. Rand may have defined her terms clearly enough, but that fact alone was not enough to cause general acceptance of the validity of her definitions. This is especially true when she sometimes chose to express her ideas in a deliberately provocative way. A better understanding of this would likely make it easier to communicate Rand's ideas to those unfamiliar with them." This comment is dead on. If somebody were doing an intellectual biography of the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, she would probably write things jarring to the JW's partly because of Lingo Problems, such as Mr. Mirvish describes above. That factor needs to be "priced in" to any work by a non-O about Objectivism, nothing more, nothing less. Each year that marches on will likely mitigate this problem, but we aren't there yet, and I think it is a mistake to assume intellectual dishonesty or Ellworth-Tooheyism, rather than (in some cases, at least) Lingo Problems.
	Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 10:59:18 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: madmax Regarding Dr. Peikoff's statements in his podcast, does anyone know what the exact policy is for the AR archives? Dr. Peikoff says they're open to anyone and that biographers don't need permission. Burns indicated in a blog post that she was granted permission. Peikoff cited this as evidence of her corruption. This does seem important. Unlike Neil Parille who has a pathological need to oppose Rand and Peikoff on every issue, I am inclined to believe Dr. Peikoff. Clarity on this issue would be appreciated.
	Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 13:39:45 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Apollo E-mail: gateway8507024(at)hotmail.com You can read about the archives policy on the Institute monthly newsletter which you can get for free on their website I believe.
	Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 18:20:07 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Jeff Montgomery E-mail: jamontgom(at)hotmail.com URL: http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com >Unlike Neil Parille who has a pathological need to oppose Rand and Peikoff on every issue, I am inclined to believe Dr. Peikoff. LOL.
	Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 19:12:43 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: U.N. Owen I have a low opinion of the Burns book, but I wouldn't be so critical as to assert that "The most interesting part of Burns' book was her contention that the published version of the journals and other material (such as Mayhew's collection of Rand's Q&A) are not faithful to the originals"! This suggests that the fact that this material was edited is some rare nugget previously hidden deep in the bowels of the Ayn Rand Archives, and that Burns uncovered it after years of working there. But Mayhew reports, in his preface to the Q&A book, that this stuff was edited (and that not every Q&A was included). All Burns really reports--in "The most interesting part of [her] book"--is that she compared the transcripts to the published Q&A book, and there were differences. Actually, the *most* interesting thing about this part of the book (i.e., the note on sources) is that her primary standard of scholarly merit is whether or not this material has been edited (ignoring whatever reasons Peikoff might have had in comissioning such edited versions). For note that in that same section, she has nothing negative to say about AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, Chris Sciabarra's insult to the history of ideas.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 2 plus 9 equals 68708644395763828