Skip to content
home Harvard Magazine
E-mail updates

Sign up to be notified of new issues.

View a sample newsletter

Follow Harvard Magazine on Twitter
  • An episode Kenya would rather forget: Megan Shutzer '10 examines the lasting effects of the 2007 election violence http://ow.ly/E6Wo 13 hours 53 min ago
  • Telling the stories of mental illness and mental-health care in Ghana http://ow.ly/E6Uy 14 hours 45 min ago

 STAY CONNECTED

    

Cambridge accommodations short-term, completely furnished, near Harvard Square, 617-868-3018.

View more classifieds

Vita

Ayn Rand

Brief life of an iconoclastic individualist: 1905-1982

by Jennifer Burns

 

Courtesy of The Ayn Rand Institute

Ayn Rand was finally getting her due. After Time magazine had called her masterpiece—the novel Atlas Shrugged—“a nightmare,” after the eminent philosopher Sidney Hook had savaged her in the New York Times Book Review, she had been invited to Harvard to present a paper on her philosophy of art. Her host, John Hospers, a rising young philosopher from Brooklyn College, belonged to the American Society for Aesthetics, which was meeting in Cambridge in October 1962.

Rand’s appearance at Harvard marked a pinnacle in her already astonishing career. Born Alisa Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, the eldest daughter of affluent Jewish parents, she fled Russia in 1926, embittered by the Bolshevik Revolution, which had destroyed her family’s livelihood. Upon arrival in New York, she assumed the more glamorous nom de plume Ayn Rand and headed for Hollywood.

Rand’s new name was the first of her many reinventions. She began as a hack Hollywood writer but then wrote two plays and a novel. Soon she was a political activist, too, working to defeat Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which she feared was only the first step toward communism in America. Her second novel, The Fountainhead, published in 1943, was treasured by a small band of conservatives who applauded her attack upon collectivism and her bold defense of selfishness. It was also a bestseller that vaulted Rand to literary fame, and would become a successful film six years later.

But already her ambitions were changing. Rand’s early writing reflected her belief in individualism and commitment to free-market capitalism, developed during her years under Soviet rule. By 1957, when she published her third novel, Atlas Shrugged, she had codified and extended her ideas into a system she called Objectivism, which elevated selfishness to a virtue. Rand now understood herself as a philosopher as much as a novelist. In 1961 she published her first work of nonfiction, For the New Intellectual, and one of her young acolytes, Nathaniel Branden, began offering courses in Objectivist philosophy in New York.

The problem was that few of Rand’s contemporaries accorded her philosophy any respect. Atlas Shrugged was panned by critics and hated by academics, who detested both her politics and her romantic writing style. Some professors automatically failed any student who wrote about Rand; others published articles warning of her terrible influence on youth. Hospers was one of the few scholars genuinely interested in her ideas, and his allegiance was priceless.

As much as she preached a philosophy of unfettered individualism and independence, Rand craved the respect and esteem of her fellow intellectuals. It was intellectuals, after all, who shaped history: in a political fundraising letter, she asserted that “only a handful of eighteen men” had transformed the country of her birth from a proud center of European civilization to a wasted land of starvation, stagnation, and murderous labor camps.

Her Harvard talk, then, offered Rand a rare opportunity to establish herself as a philosopher before a receptive academic audience. She spoke on “Art as Sense of Life,” one of her minor, if favored, themes. “Sense of life” in the Randian corpus refers to the sum total of an artist’s assumptions, experiences, and judgments about life: his or her evaluation of the universe. Sense of life was critical to art, Rand argued, because art was a metaphysical estimate of humanity’s existence. By all accounts, Rand was an excellent teacher; despite her thick Russian accent, there is little doubt she presented her thesis clearly and logically. Still, some of her preferences were apt to surprise. In her writing, for example, she savaged Thomas Wolfe, whose sprawling semibiographical epics suggested an undisciplined mind and a universe that was dark, sordid, and capricious. She preferred the pulpy crime novels of Mickey Spillane, who depicted a black-and-white universe where good defeated evil. 

What happened next is a matter of some dispute. As the designated commentator, Hospers rose and delivered some remarks on Rand’s presentation. At least one of her entourage remembered his words as surprisingly sarcastic and harsh. Hospers himself thought his comments, while critical, were entirely typical. “I could not simply say how great her remarks were and then sit down,” he recalled.

But there was no mistaking Rand’s reaction. She lashed out at him immediately from the dais, raising eyebrows in the crowd. At a party afterwards, she refused to speak to him. He had criticized her before the very audience she hoped to win over; the sin was unforgivable, and the breach would never heal. It was a significant turning point for Rand, who gave up on professors altogether and devoted herself instead to her growing band of supporters.

As it turned out, Hospers would not long be alone in his admiration for Rand’s ideas. In 1972, he was chosen the first presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which considered Rand a primary influence. Libertarians took her ideas to Washington, D.C., making her a touchstone of the emerging conservative movement. (Her most famous follower, Alan Greenspan, became chairman of the Federal Reserve.) Nowadays Atlas Shrugged sells more than 200,000 copies each year, and professors are more likely to assign than attack Rand’s writing. Nearly 30 years after her death, Rand’s once controversial philosophy of individualism and capitalism has become part of the warp and woof of American political culture.

Responses to “Ayn Rand

  1. October 28, 2009

    At her 1972 Ford Hall Forum lecture, Ayn Rand was asked her opinion of Prof. John Hospers’s Presidential candidacy. She brusquely dismissed him and the new Libertarian Party as “crackpots,” distractions from the supreme threat of George McGovern’s left-leaning Democratic Party candidacy. “To take even ten votes from Richard Nixon is *immoral*!” Presumably, her earlier clash with John Hospers made this anathema come more easily.

    ~Hugo S. Cunningham

  2. October 29, 2009

    America is the perfect country for the worship of selfishness to take root. “Greed is good”, etc. We see how well Greenspan’s free-market philosophy - plus untrammelled greed -has ravaged the economy, once again.
    Interesting how the evil pseudo-collectivism of Stalin spawned a Rand, in reaction.

    ~David Yao

  3. October 29, 2009

    “Evil pseudo-collectivism”? Stalin was the real deal. That’s what collectivism is. It’s shameful that so many people white-wash it. Collectivism always ends in death camps.

    ~Matt Chamberlain

  4. October 29, 2009

    If one were to ask the atypical 60s-bred academic the total number of classes he or she took in economics in the course of his or her own education, a guaranteed answer for non-economics majors would be “somewhere between zero and two” (two being the likely minimal requirement). Its a paradox that so many academics feel comfortable in arrogantly pontificating about the cause and effect relationships in econ at all. If we hear an academic, one who is typically and perpetually void of an education in governing dynamics and all the other sub-disciplines in econ, speak about econ, we are typically hearing he or she attempt to reconcile econ relationships to their personal concepts of justice. How does that make them any more credible than Ayn Rand or Karl Marx who did much of the same? Rand and Marx may have delved into the pragmatic effects of these relationships, but lets not kid ourselves, neither could be confused with Keynes, Friedman, or Nash. That makes them no better or worse then most professors (at least those who are not economics phds), which is to say that it makes them no better or worse than the rest of us in the woefully uneducated population when it comes to this science. Its heartening to hear that a shift is occurring in the academic community and that Rand is now being assigned as reading. Her concepts of justice are far more formidable then those who never read her give her credit for. At the very least, I hope history professors collectively decide that she is important in building empathy for the political ideas that they generally oppose. When that happens, perhaps the political right will start seeing those in academia as having the intellectual integrity we all desperately hope for.

    ~Tony Julian

  5. October 30, 2009

    What?!! You still take Ayn Rand seriously? You must be kidding!

    ~eugene ea

  6. October 31, 2009

    What?!! You still *don’t* take Ayn Rand seriously? You must be kidding!

    ~Fred Weiss

  7. October 31, 2009

    What?!! You DON’T take Ayn Rand seriously? What other person has explained the world AS IT REALLY IS through an understandable philosophical system of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics? Not to mention the mental clarity and freedom from unearned guilt this philosophy brings to individuals who discover it. No kidding.

    ~Steve McCarron

  8. October 31, 2009

    It would seem that what Rand was reacting to in Hospers’ criticism was not so much that fact that he disagreed, but the manner in which that disagreement was delivered. Rand stated openly she would welcome HONEST criticism but not smears, distortions, or personal attacks. This should be a guiding principle for everyone. No one’s ideas should be attacked in a personal manner. It also speaks to Hospers character if he thinks that sarcasm is legitimate because such an attitude towards ideas is “typical”. Typical or not, it’s still wrong. I agree with Rand on this one.

    ~Michael Caution

  9. November 1, 2009

    Typical responses to any mention of Ayn Rand by those who probably have never read her.

    #2. The Federal Reserve is NOT a free market entity and Greenspan’s continued chairmanship of that entity shows that whatever he thought of the free market while in university was quickly abandoned once he got his hands on power. No matter how many times ‘untrammelled greed’ is blamed for the present financial troubles it does not overcome the fact that government set up irrational incentives in the mortgage and loan industries with numerous government institutions FNMA, FDMC, CRA, etc. These institutions distorted the housing market until the point where it finally broke.

    ~Zardoz

  10. November 1, 2009

    Anyone who does not take reality seriously (for that is precisely what Ayn Rand represents),is in for a very nasty shock! Reality always asserts itself in the end. Ignore it at your peril. In other words, ALWAYS check your premises.
    Existence exists, my friend, A is A.

    ~Paul Ellis

Add a new comment

Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <span> <b> <i> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

Copyright ©1996—2009
Harvard Magazine Inc.
Contact the webmaster