James Seth

19 June 2011

Secret Gestures, Hidden Agendas: The Objectivist Movement and Allegations of Cultism

In Ayn Rand’s Anthem, Equality 7-2521 seems to single-handedly escape his stifling existence as a citizen of an authoritarian government, but his relationship with International 4-8818 reveals his need for fraternity. Equality 7-2521’s secret gestures to International 4-8818 exemplify the type of close-knit bond that Rand suggests is essential to the hero’s journey. As a youth during the Russian Revolution, Rand witnessed the devastating effects of communism, which forced her family into near-starvation. Rand’s protagonists often represent herself in regards to their rebellion of communist doctrine and their discovery of freedom and ego. However, as much as Anthem touts the ego, it also embraces the alliances formed between like-minded rebels and free-thinkers. While writing about his comrade, Equality 7-2521 states “we are friends [. . .] and we have never spoken of it. But we know. We know, when we look into each other’s eyes. And we when we look thus without words, we both know other things also, strange things for which there are no words, and these things frighten us” (30). In many ways, the relationship between Equality 7-2521 and International 4-8818 mirrors the real-life relationship between Rand and her group of followers, and the nature of those bonds has been a source of speculation since the early days of the Objectivist movement. The Objectivist movement has been targeted as a cult, with Rand as cult leader, since the publication of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and the creation of the Nathanial Branden Institute. While researching this topic, I will attempt to answer the following questions: At what point do philosophical or literary movements become cults? How do groups such as the Objectivists qualify or defend their actions? Are there still traces of cultish elements in the modern Objectivist movement?

THE COLLECTIVE

Rand’s private name for her followers was called “the Collective,” and founding members included Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Alan Greenspan, Allan Blumenthal, Harry Kalberman, Elayne Kalberman, Joan Mitchell, and Mary Ann Sures. In Michael Paxton’s Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, he explains that the group began to have philosophical discussions at Rand’s New York apartment (156). From those conversations, the Nathaniel Branden Lectures was formed in 1958, one year after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, and would eventually become the Nathanial Branden Institute.

Just as Equality 7-2521 and International 4-8818 rely on cryptic communication to prevent disclosure of their feelings and ideas, so too has the Objectivist movement shrouded itself in mystery over the years. Today, leading authorities for Rand and Objectivism include websites for the Ayn Rand Institute and the Ayn Rand Society, and they display a sterile and professional front to their operations as distributors of Rand’s works, beliefs, and philosophy. Conversely, essays such as Murray Rothbard’s “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” attempt to reveal the inner workings and dynamics of the movement. Rothbard explains that the Objectivist movement “promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence [. . .] and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.” In reaction to allegations of cultism, Rand herself proclaimed “I am not a cult” on the Phil Donahue Show and in 1961 she stated that she did not encourage “blind followers” to join the movement.

OBJECTIVISM AS PHILOSOPHY, OR RELGION?

Critics of Objectivism connect its cultish practices to religion, specifically in followers’ devotion to text and their view of Rand as a prophet. As I researched the topic, I noticed myself how Objectivists model themselves on heroic characters such as John Galt in the same manner as Christians model themselves on Jesus Christ. Michael Shermer connects the Objectivist movement to religious cults, concluding that it asserts itself as “the final moral arbiter of other people’s actions” and that “[i]ts absolution was the biggest flaw.” Shermer further describes the Objectivist movement as “the unlikeliest cult in history,” which became the title of his article. Similarly, Chris Matthew Sciabarra claims in his novel, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, that Rand’s initial cult-like following was problematic due to ideological conflicts:

>Nathanial Branden, Barbara Branden, and David Kelley all suggest that the Objectivist movement of the 1960s fostered a cult-like reverence toward Rand. Ironically, a movement dedicated to freedom and individual autonomy engendered disputes over ideological purity. Some devout followers attempted to model themselves on Rand’s fictional characters [. . .] Many of Rand’s disciples accepted each of her pronouncements as if they were intrinsic to the system of Objectivism. (13)

The quote from Sciabarra not only reveals the connections between religious cults, but it also seems to answer my question on the derivations of those cults. Followers of the Objectivist movement depend on Rand’s writing and opinions for virtually every aspect of their belief system, and her collection of works is akin to holy texts in that respect. In addition, her novels feature characters that not only represent Rand but, more importantly, her readers. Works such as Anthem combine a literary plot with an ideological plot, and in order for readers to synthesize and engage in both narratives, they need characters they can closely identify with. Additionally, many religious organizations attract followers emotionally, rather than intellectually, and the emotionally stirring plots such as that in Anthem work as a catalyst to ignite passion in young people and to promote dramatic change and bold action. Devotion to icons, art, and text has lasted for centuries, and it seems understandable now that my inquiries started at pop culture and led me to religion. Religious organizations such as the Church of Scientology, founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, has been and is still largely dismissed as a cultish fad. Similar to the Objectivism movement, Scientology has also been targeted as a commercial venture, a claim made by Richard Behar in his essay “The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power,” featured in TIME magazine.

ATTRACTING THE YOUTH

Writers and critics of Objectivism not only observe how Rand’s works attract a following, but who the works are aimed at and how they use age as a means of ideological recruitment. Sciabarra states that Rand is “dismissed, without discussion, as a reactionary, a propagandist, or a pop-fiction writer with a cult following. The fact that her work often appeals to the young seems proof that her ideas are immature or simplistic” (8). Not surprisingly, the Ayn Rand Institute targets predominately high school students, a demographic that is not as culturally, socially, politically, or intellectually adept as college students, working adults, or seasoned academics. According to their website, the institute “works to introduce young people to Ayn Rand’s novels, to support scholarship and research based on her ideas, and to promote the principles of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism to the widest possible audience.” Attesting to the impact of the novels in his youth, Sciabarra claims that he was hooked on Rand’s works in high school, but in college, he was “far removed from the dogmatic, cult-like devotion of fans who seemed to worship her every pronouncement” and witnessed the “hostile reaction to her work by many academic professionals” (8). High school students, particularly males, might identify with Rand’s characters because of idealized notions of freedom, success, and independence, though there may be other factors at work. When students enter college, they are introduced to a more populated and liberal academic environment, which often conflicts with Rand’s notions of individualism.

RAND AND THE CULTURE INDUSTRY

During the writing process, I initially noticed connections between Rand and pop culture celebrities like Lady Gaga, whose fans are affectionately called “Little Monsters” by Gaga, a similar pet name to Rand’s “Collective.” Though the latter was initially comprised of personal friends and colleagues, I was fascinated by the way that mass produced art (that term is subject to interpretation) connects to cultism in the way that it creates fanatical followers and, to an extent, a world of its own. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” examines how commercial strategies are implicated into culture in a capitalistic society. Following the work of Karl Marx, Horkheimer and Adorno are concerned with the social conditioning that accompanies capitalism, which claims to increase individuality and independent thought. In reality, they believe that capitalism only inhibits independent thought by forcing everyone to engage in the same tasks that support the “culture industry.” Horkheimer and Adorno see the evolution of culture from selective, high art to a mass-produced, revenue earning venture that replaces artistry for commoditization. Even more troubling is the fact that the culture industry can implant messages that force the viewer or listener to believe in the ideologies of the dominant culture. In a Marxian way, the culture industry—and Objectivism—makes everyone believe the same ideas, follow the same leader, and consume the same texts that are mass produced by the leader.

THE NECESSITY OF A LEADER

Without Rand at the helm of the Objectivist movement, the group may have easily been fragmented, disorganized, or simply abandoned. However, there is continued scholarship and interest in Rand’s work and philosophy today, a feat performed mainly by large, non-profit organizations such as the Ayn Rand Institute and the Ayn Rand Society. Rand’s texts have become central to those organizations, and the dispensing of her works and ideas have remained the institute’s ultimate goal. Despite strong sales of her novels, Sciabarra explains that “Rand’s deeply controversial public persona has left for the present generation two major, related problems: (1) the need to distinguish Rand’s personality from her philosophical legacy; and (2) the task of determining what (and who) defines Objectivism as a distinct school of thought” (3). With much of Rand’s cultural and ideological legacy left in the hands of organizations, corporate leaders, and academics, the structure and actions of the Objectivist movement may change considerably in the future, but as long as her works, the blueprints for her philosophy, continue to be read by young people and referenced in society, her presence as movement leader—or cult leader—seems unlikely to go away.

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass    Deception.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York:       Norton, 2001. p. 1223-1240.

Paxton, Michael (1998). Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (The Companion Book). Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith.

Rand, Ayn (1995). Berliner, Michael S.. ed. Letters of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton. p. 592. (December 10,          1961).

Rothbard, Murray. "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/               rothbard23.html.

Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/                sciabarra/randstar.htm  

Shermer, Michael (1997). "The Unlikeliest Cult". Why People Believe Weird Things. New York: W.H.                Freeman and Company. 74–81.

The Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

“The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.” TIME magazine, May. 06, 1991 by Richard Behar.

Works Consulted

Ellis, Albert (1968). Is Objectivism A Religion?. New York: Lyle Stuart. 

Teachout, Terry (July 1986). The Goddess That Failed. Commentary.

Walker, Jeff (1999). The Ayn Rand Cult. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing.