Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation
SCIABARRA RESPONDS TO THE CRITICS
"In Praise of Hijacking"
THE FREE RADICAL 61 (APRIL-MAY 2004): 20-24.
(PDF version available here)
ALSO:
"Homo Hijackers (2): Sciabarra's Rejoinder to Firehammer"
THE FREE RADICAL 62 (JUNE-JULY 2004): 12-13.
(PDF version available here)
In his essay, "In Praise of Hijacking," Sciabarra reviews Reginald Firehammer's monograph, The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals versus Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Sciabarra focuses on Firehammer's critique of Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation, while examining broader issues, including the "closed" versus "open" nature of Rand's philosophy.
Throttle up on the culture wars! On the heels of a Supreme Court decision
striking down sodomy statutes and suggesting equal protection for homosexuals,
President George W. Bush proposes a constitutional amendment protecting
heterosexual marriage against those judges and municipal politicians who
are—gasp!—sanctioning marital licenses between members of the same sex. Bush’s
deplorable political pandering to his right-wing religious conservative base is
only a prelude to the brutal election campaign ahead against Democratic Senator
John Kerry, who would leave to the states the right to define marriage. What an
Alice-in-Wonderland world we live in, when Republicans take a federal approach
to social problems, and Democrats celebrate states’ rights.
I say: Privatize the
marriage contract—for the same reason I’d advocate privatization of all
government schools. Stop making marriage and education a battleground for the
inculcation of anybody’s social
agenda! Leave All of Us Alone!
Alas, Laissez Faire is not a fashionable credo, so Homo Hysteria is quickly
infecting every nerve, muscle, and joint of the body politic. Even those who are
friendly to Objectivism have mounted an assault on the "homosexual agenda." In
the electronic book, The
Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (Newton,
New Hampshire: HP America, 2004), author Reginald
Firehammer takes
aim at my own recent SOLO monograph, Ayn
Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation (Cape
Town, South Africa: Leap Publishing, 2003). Though he claims not to be an
Objectivist, he acts as a self-appointed guardian of the philosophy’s purity,
and asks: "Is Objectivism really being ‘hijacked?’ If so, by whom, and for what
purpose?"
Firehammer asserts that Objectivism is being hijacked by those who would use the
philosophy to "normalize homosexuality." The hijackers’ "real mission" is
"clearly illustrated" in my own book, which affirms homosexuality "as a moral
virtue," and makes it a "central issue," "the primary issue," "the gating issue"
of Objectivism. Underlying Firehammer’s assertions is the belief that Rand’s
view of homosexuality as "immoral" and "disgusting" is constitutive of
Objectivism. To be constitutive is
to imply that Rand’s view is essential to
her philosophy, such that one cannot pull forth the thread of her stance without
doing fundamental harm to the whole, integrated cloth of Objectivism.
To all this, I say: Nonsense. But if Firehammer is correct, then I say: Three
Cheers for Hijacking, and I’ll Pilot the Plane!
Unfortunately, as much as I’d like to, I don’t have to volunteer for this task.
Firehammer has conscripted me. He may not believe that my "hijacking" of
Objectivism is a sign of outright intellectual corruption—he thinks it "a
mistake or wrong direction," an "unintended consequence" of my work, "in spite
of [my best] intentions." But he does believe that I am among the chief
hijackers, along with Damian Moskovitz, who wrote a too-tolerant FAQ
on homosexuality for The
Objectivist Center,
and Lindsay
Perigo,
openly gay editor of The
Free Radical.
Firehammer is quite gracious in his critique; he views me as "a first-class
researcher and advocate of Objectivism," and sees both Perigo and I as
"accomplished in [our] fields," and possessive of "first-rate minds." He
emphasizes that his "specific criticisms must not be construed as criticisms of
the character or sincerity of any of these men or a repudiation of their
positive contributions to the advancement of Objectivism as a philosophy. We are
not indicting individuals, only some of their ideas; we are not impugning
persons, only some of the views they advance."
Still, Firehammer’s commendable civility seems to wither at times. He believes
that those who "promote homosexuality ... in the name of Objectivism or as part
of Objectivism [are being] intellectually dishonest and morally wrong." He even
condemns the use of the word, "homophobia," as an act of "intentional
duplicity." Those who target "homophobia" in Objectivism are on "a mission ...
to take over Objectivism and turn it into something subjective,
irrational, and revolting to Objectivism and Objectivists." He sees "smearing,"
"deceit," and "intellectual fraud" in those charges of "homophobia" directed at
opponents of the "homosexual agenda"—whatever that is.
Indeed, it’s a shame that Firehammer’s e-book doesn’t come with an accompanying
music CD, for every time he mentions the "homosexual agenda," one expects to
hear John Williams’ shark theme from the movie "Jaws."
Perhaps Firehammer hasn’t been on the downwind of homophobia. I receive hate
mail, which is actually fear mail,
on a fairly regular basis. The word "homophobia," like the word "xenophobia,"
accurately captures that Fear
of the Mysterious Other,
which often stands at the psychological base of expressed hatred for gays and
lesbians. No, it does not apply to everyone who
opposes homosexuality, but it is not an insignificant factor in the cultural
debate.
Firehammer’s Project—And Mine
Firehammer wishes to apply "Objectivist principles ... to such personal choices
as one’s sexual behavior." But he exempts from application all attempts to use
Objectivism to sanction practices that Rand herself opposed. Just because Rand
embraced a libertarian view on narcotics, pornography, and consensual adult
relationships, doesn’t mean that she morally approved of people’s choices in
these matters. And, apparently, her moral approval or disapproval trumps all
other agent-relative, contextual concerns; Firehammer’s portrait of Objectivism
is therefore not of an individualist philosophy, but of an authoritarian one
dictated by Rand’s personal tastes. If you diverge from those tastes, you are no
longer an Objectivist.
Firehammer goes so far as to create a strict identity between
Objectivism and Rand’s rejection of homosexuality; indeed, that rejection "is her
philosophy." When Rand repudiated homosexuality as "immoral" and "disgusting"
during the Q&A session of her lecture, "The Moratorium on Brains," this was not
simply and "only her personal view," but part and parcel of her Objectivist
philosophy.
Unlike Firehammer, I do not believe that Rand’s view of sexuality is essential to
Objectivism, except in the broadest possible terms: that love is a reflection of
the self in the soul of our mates; that love is a response to values; that
romantic love is the fullest integration of mind and body and the fullest act of
mutual visibility; and that sex, in such a context, is a celebration of life.
The moment Rand starts talking about "masculinity" and "femininity," or the
relationship of men to women, or whether a woman should want to be President of
the United States, she starts to introduce some very tenuous personal and psychological assumptions
that go beyond strictly philosophical reasoning.
Because I obviously part company with Rand on the question of homosexuality, I
made it a point to state, up-front in my own monograph, that I would be
"examining Ayn Rand’s impact on the sexual attitudes of self-identified
Objectivists in the movement to which she gave birth and the gay subcultures
that she would have disowned. I take full responsibility for the final product.
I do not speak for a group or a movement, but only for myself."
I have never claimed
to speak for Rand. I make Rand’s viewpoint explicit. I then make my own
viewpoint explicit. In the engagement of our perspectives, there emerges a
"fusion of horizons" (as Hans-Georg Gadamer would have called it). In this
respect, the very title of my monograph—Ayn
Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation—is
symbolic. It begins with the name Ayn
Rand,
a woman whose viewpoint engendered a problematic conflict between Objectivism
and Homosexuality.
The culminating phrase—Human
Liberation—suggests
a resolution. It suggests that Rand’s philosophy and homosexuality need not be
in lethal opposition, and that it is possible to transcend the "false
alternative." Even the cover art, by Barry
Kayton,
suggests a resolvable triad of sorts: the heterosexual symbols are in the
shadows, while the same-sex symbols are superimposed and fully visible. There is
an interlinking between man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman relationships that
appeals to their common humanity.
The primary purpose of my monograph was to engage in an act of sociological
articulation: To drag the history of Objectivist "homophobia" out
of the closet.
This was a history that nobody wanted to acknowledge. I am the first person to
bring these horror stories together and to make them explicit for the
consideration of future generations. It is also my hope that such generations
will re-examine the philosophical statements on homosexuality that have been
offered by Rand and post-Randian thinkers.
Secondly, the monograph serves as a polemic, a rhetorical manifesto that seeks
to reclaim the mantle of honesty, integrity, independence, and pride, for those
whom Rand disowned. My reclamation is, partially, a political act insofar as it
empowers people to separate the philosopher from
the philosophy and
to move toward a new conception of a "human" liberation that is open to all
people, regardless of sexual orientation.
For Firehammer, this reclamation project is an act of hijacking. Homosexuality,
says Firehammer, violates the law of identity, and Rand’s view of "sense of
life" and the need for correct premises. And yet, while Firehammer accuses
homosexuals of trying to "hijack" Rand’s philosophy by focusing obsessively on
their sexuality, which is a "non-issue" in Objectivism, he himself reifies the
sexual tastes of Objectivism’s founder as if they were the essence of
Objectivist philosophy. Are we also to embrace "rape by engraved
invitation"—Rand’s description of the rough sex in The
Fountainhead—in
order to be good, card-carrying Objectivists? Must we all agree with Rand’s
perspective on Vermeer, or Rachmaninoff, or "Charlie’s Angels," or Mickey
Spillane in order to qualify as good Objectivists?
If we don’t establish any criteria by which to distinguish the essential from
the nonessential characteristics in our definition of Rand’s Objectivism, then
we might as well embrace the philosophy as a variant of Hegelian rationalist
dogmatism. Leonard Peikoff himself has always been fond of quoting Hegel—"The
True is the Whole"—precisely because he views Objectivism as constituted by the
whole of Ayn
Rand’s work as published and approved by
her, in her lifetime. In this regard, he even exempts Rand’s posthumously
published writing and his own writing from "official" Objectivism (though he has
nothing to say about Nathaniel Branden’s writings—which were once a part of
"official" Objectivism, prior to the 1968 Rand-Branden split). But even Peikoff
once disagreed with Rand’s assessment of horror movies, of which he was a fan.
Why is Rand’s assessment of horror movies—and their "malevolent universe
premise"—substantially different from her assessment of homosexuality as
"disgusting"? Or must we also denounce "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" films in
order to be good Objectivists?
Firehammer takes this Rand-centered solipsistic view of Objectivism to absurd
heights. He reiterates: "Objectivism is not someone else’s philosophy." But this
makes it nothing more and nothing less than Rand’s personal credo,
to be applied only to the context of her life
and her life alone.
Firehammer himself senses that there has probably never been a person whose
every action and thought is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of
Objectivism at all times and in all respects. But homosexuals are even less
consistent. He’s kind enough to admit that a homosexual can be an Objectivist
only "if within the scope of their honest understanding of Objectivism they
embrace and practice the principles as consistently as they can. So long as they
continue to practice homosexuality, however, they are inconsistent Objectivists.
Homosexuality is not consistent with Objectivism, no matter how much one
believes it is, but so long as one does not understand that, one can be an
Objectivist and a homosexual."
So, to all you homosexuals: Ignorance of your immorality is the only way that
you can be both an Objectivist and a homosexual. Eating of the tree of knowledge
will banish you from either Objectivism or homosexuality,
because you can’t have your, uh, cake, and eat it too. Clearly, Firehammer hopes
that you’ll save yourself and renounce your sexual proclivities, for he believes
that they are "abnormal and, in practice, both physiologically and
psychologically self-destructive." He views homosexuality as a chosen behavior,
and not part of anyone’s "nature." Being "male" or "female," he says, is part of
one’s nature. The body too has a specific nature, and it just can’t be used in
any old way that we desire. Because man is a being of volitional consciousness,
nothing in human nature compels anyone
to "behave in any particular way beyond those physiologically determined actions
that lie outside the province of conscious choice." To be "normal," then, is to
act in consistency with one’s nature. Homosexuality is not a part of that
nature, Firehammer contends—despite the fact that it has been manifested in
other animal species, and in every human culture and every historical period.
Indeed, the ancient Greeks, whom Rand celebrated, embraced it and extolled its
virtues. None of this sways Firehammer.
For Firehammer, the only "normal people" are those who "have sex with someone of
the opposite sex." And sex is, well, sex.
Homosexuals "have what they call sex with someone of the same sex," but this is
not sex, Firehammer protests, since sex entails only penile-vaginal
"sexual intercourse." Ultimately, his discussion of human sexuality is entirely
dictated by the goal of procreation (Heaven Help Us if science should
institutionalize laboratory reproduction of the species—we might have to
otherwise enjoy ourselves!). In essence, Firehammer declares war on every heterosexual man
or woman who ever participated in oral or anal delights and had the audacity to
call it "sex." On this subject, he is Bill Clinton’s soul-mate; the former
President once insisted that he never had sex—Firehammer
despises the phrase "having sex"—with "that woman." Fellatio and being
imaginative with a cigar just doesn’t qualify. If Congress had understood this
simple principle, we might have avoided all the pomp and circumstance of a
Presidential impeachment.
Firehammer is obsessed with telling us "What’s Wrong with Homosexuality." His
arguments, however, are a string of unproven assertions. He dismisses the very
notion of "sexual orientation" as a "false concept" and declares homosexuality
as "debauching true love and degrading sex." His indictment of promiscuity and
unsafe sex is not an indictment of homosexuality, however; it is an indictment
of promiscuity and unsafe sex. Male homosexuality, as
such,
is not "physically
detrimental to those who practice it." And lesbians are at no greater risk for
certain diseases than are heterosexual women who don’t bear children; it is not
women’s lesbianism as
such that
causes any heightened risks. In fact, lesbians are probably at least risk
for AIDS ... so perhaps we should all become lesbians. Moreover, homosexuality as
such is
not the cause of
psychological dysfunction; such dysfunction is often the by-product of the fear,
pain, guilt, and shame that comes from a lack of self-acceptance, and these
phenomena are sometimes manifested in behavioral patterns that are harmful to
the individuals who practice them. Firehammer considers none of these facts.
Still, the author counsels homosexuals to stop acting on their own "involuntary
attractions or desires," and to "learn which [involuntary attractions or
desires] are right to yield to and which are not." Instead of surrendering
"reason to desire," homosexuals must practice repression,
he urges. His discussion of the virtue of repression is entirely devoid of any
Objectivist reference points. Not a single citation can be found to Chapter 5 of The
Psychology of Self-Esteem,
by Nathaniel
Branden.
That book was derived entirely from Branden’s work while he was associated with
Rand, and of which Rand approved. Branden’s understanding of repression was
developed further in his post-Randian work, The
Disowned Self,
which deals not so much with the phenomenon of conscious suppression of
authentic desire, but with habituated, tacit repression,
which is far more damaging psychologically. Repression is not "self-discipline"
as Firehammer would have it. "Repression is an automatized
avoidance reaction,"
Branden observes, "a subconscious mental process that forbids certain ideas,
memories, identifications and evaluations to enter conscious awareness." It is
at the heart of emotional self-alienation, and totally subversive to the process
of integration. When Firehammer embraces repression as
the credo for his sexual manifesto of "normality" and "decency," he gives us
little indication that he actually understands the functions of human psychology
or the needs of objectivity that are undermined by repression.
What little indication he does give is precisely the point of my monograph.
Firehammer charges that homosexuals are "surrendering their rationality to
desire, and pursuing whim, which will ultimately preclude their ever achieving
full human happiness." But, in a flash of insight, he also criticizes
homosexuals who seek social approval. "If I were a homosexual, which I cannot
even imagine being," he writes, "there is one thing I do know would be true. The
one thing I would never need or seek would be anyone else’s approval or
agreement. If I know something is, ‘right,’ that is all I need to know."
Objecting to homosexual "whining" about alienation, he asks: "Have none of these
‘Objectivist homosexuals’ ever read an Ayn Rand novel?"
Ah. The whole impact of Objectivism on gays and lesbians is a positive one
insofar as it extols the virtue of individual authenticity. Rand teaches us to
articulate the tacit dimensions of consciousness; to check our premises and make
them explicit; to understand the source of many of our feelings; to integrate
our thoughts and feelings, our minds and bodies; to commit to the apprehension
of internal and external reality; to live with integrity and independence. This fundamental self-honesty
is one of the most important attributes of "coming out." It is a commitment to
reality-based thinking; an unwillingness to live by what others dictate; a
commitment to a life free from pain, fear, guilt, or shame—to live
"authentically" with no worry about what others think or say with regard to who
and what you are. It’s "first-handedness" of the most important kind.
This emphasis on the individual is
significant; it stands as a bold antidote to the collectivism that is too often
found among gay political activists. It also illustrates how profoundly wrong Firehammer
is when he suggests that my "real mission" is to affirm homosexuality as a
"moral virtue." In and of itself, it is neither virtue nor vice. What matters is
the honor and nobility that is possible to individuals who
choose to live rational and passionate lives—whatever their sexual orientation.
And that’s why so many gays and lesbians have benefitted from reading an Ayn
Rand novel: it has provided them with the spiritual fuel for genuine human liberation.
Side Issues
Before concluding, I’d like to make a few additional observations on several
side issues:
1. Toward the end of his book, Firehammer turns toward interesting, but all too
brief, discussions of the nature of sexual desire as "almost entirely
associative," and of the "normality" of fetishism, which highlights the
relationship between sexual stimulation and association. It’s a shame that his
limited scope didn’t allow him to delve more deeply into these provocative areas
of study. I should note, however, that despite these limitations, Firehammer’s
references are admirably broad and wide, insofar as he provides linked citations
for everything: from Christian ex-gay organizations and Log Cabin Republicans to
Objectivist philosophical organizations and resources on pedophilia (though his
package-dealing of homosexuality with child molestation has no factual basis—there
is no correlation
between these factors, as several studies have suggested).
2. Firehammer discusses part 5 of my five-part series on Objectivism and
homosexuality, but tells us he won’t link to the online version of the article
because it features a pornographic image of adult film star "Jon Galt." He says
that this image is an "entirely expected and consistent conclusion" to the
series. The photograph, in which Mr. Galt’s genitals are not fully exposed, is
not printed in my monograph. And if Firehammer had referenced the monograph,
rather than the print-series upon which the monograph was based, he would have
seen that the Galt interview was relocated to the first section;
it was neither ultimate nor conclusive in its implications. It merely provided
an indication of the extent of Rand’s impact on a wide diversity of peoples:
lawyers, doctors, novelists, engineers, architects, and even porn stars.
3. Contrary to Firehammer’s assertions, the section in my monograph on "Male
Bonding in the Randian Novel" was not an exercise in psychologizing about Rand.
It was my attempt to articulate a certain inconsistency in
Rand’s work, wherein she describes as "romantic" the love between men such as
Roark and Wynand, even though she defines romantic love as entailing spiritual
and sexual components
and mind-body integration. I brought attention to these paradoxical
characterizations because of the positive response that they have elicited in
some gay readers of Rand’s fiction.
4. Firehammer is perturbed by my suggestion that the Nazis systematically
targeted male homosexuals; he claims that there were many homosexuals in Nazi
ranks. So? If anything, this might explain the psychological repression that
often underlies systematic discrimination. The ferocious enforcement of
Paragraph 175 of the Reich Penal Code might be viewed as but a symptom of the
self-hatred that often fuels the worst of crimes.
5. Firehammer criticizes me because my monograph features interviews of
"self-identified Objectivists." He thinks this phrase is suspect; why didn’t I
interview real Objectivists?
Simply put: I use the phrase "self-identified Objectivists" in the same way that
statistical surveyors would use the phrase "self-identified Republicans" or
"self-identified Democrats." Self-identification may not always be in sync with
reality, but it was not incumbent upon me, in a short work, to evaluate the
consistency with Objectivism of every opinion offered by every interview
subject. My reporting of common beliefs was journalistic; I was honest enough
to call relevant survey participants "self-identified Objectivists" because I
didn’t wish to give the impression that I was
"sanctioning" every opinion in the monograph as part and parcel of Objectivist
philosophy in the absence of broader evidence or rigorous argumentation. I
present many views
throughout the book without comment—including views with which I disagree. If I
had commented on every perspective offered, the monograph would have been four
times its current size.
6. Throughout The
Hijacking of a Philosophy,
one finds a relentless attack on my use of dialectical
method.
Firehammer confesses that his swipe at dialectics was a "rhetorical device," but
that my use of dialectics is still not "a correct method of reasoning." He
characterizes dialectics as an "anti-rational" concept, but offers no actual arguments to
support his contention. Indeed, he is not quite sure what is even meant by the
term, yet he attacks my monograph as dialectics "in all its fullness and glory."
At one point, he suggests correctly that dialectics entails an injunction
against context-dropping, but that "if that is all it means, we really do not
need a new term for that." Dialectics is not a new term, however. It’s been
around for millennia, and it is rooted in the Aristotelian project, upon which I
base my defense of the methodology. It certainly does not mean,
as Firehammer would have it, that one should include "anything in one’s
reasoning to make the conclusion come out the way one wishes." I have never read
such an utter misrepresentation of dialectical method in all my years of
studying the subject.
Dialectics is a methodological orientation that requires the use of various
techniques for keeping context: by analyzing things from many vantage points and
on many different levels of generality, and by extending the units of one’s
analysis across time and space. Because the very word dialectic or dialektike is
cognate with both dialegesthai and dialogos,
or "dialogue," it is not surprising to find the first manifestations of it in
the classical Greek dialogues, which feature give-and-take discussion as the
means to wisdom. And because Aristotle himself wrote the first theoretical
treatise on dialectics (The
Topics)
that focused on reasoning from endoxa,
common beliefs or "reputable opinions," it is also not surprising to discover
Firehammer’s discomfort with my survey of opinion—given that he dismisses it as
purely "anecdotal," even if "instructive."
However, it is incorrect to argue, as Firehammer does, that dialectics demands
equitable weighing of all opinions "since everything is part of the context,"
including factors that are "totally irrelevant."
By identifying and keeping
context,
one is able to distinguish between essential and nonessential factors, and, by
extension, between relevant and irrelevant details. But then again, Firehammer
has already shown a visceral reaction against any such distinctions, since he
seems to believe that everything Rand
said is essential to
her Objectivist philosophy.
Firehammer goes so far as to mock me with my own words, taken from a Full
Context interview,
where I stated that dialectics was "not to be confused with such things as
logic." That statement was not meant to introduce any opposition between logic
and dialectics or to suggest that dialectics was illogical.
As I argue in my book Total
Freedom:
Logic and dialectics are mutually implied: just as logic is the art of
noncontradictory identification, dialectics is the art of context-keeping, and
both arts entail various techniques for achieving these mutually reinforcing
goals.
Conclusion: On the Evolution of Objectivism
In the end, both my own monograph and Firehammer’s response raise key issues
about Rand’s philosophy. It is clear that we have very different views as to
what constitutes Objectivism. As I have argued here, Firehammer believes that
Rand’s view of homosexuality is essential to
Objectivism; I reject that proposition.
This is not simply an issue of where one draws the boundaries. It is an issue
that speaks to the "open" versus "closed" nature of a philosophy, and the ways
in which it evolves over time. Let me explain briefly.
I think there is a great parallel between the evolution of "Objectivism" and the
evolution of "scientific socialism." Karl Marx set out the basic principles of
his philosophy, which he called "scientific socialism." But the implications and
applications of Marx’s philosophy have not been known to history as "scientific
socialism." They have been grouped under the general title of "Marxism." And in
the history of thought, Marxism has undergone many transformations—e.g.,
combinations with Hegel, Aristotle, Freud, Sartre, even Nietzsche. In
essentials, though, among all the permutations—the "revisionist" Marxists, the
Marxist-Leninists, the Trotskyites, the Maoists, the Frankfurt-school theorists,
the analytic Marxists, etc.—there is a "core" that makes all of
them identifiably Marxist.
In essentials,
every "philosophy"—be it "scientific socialism" or "Objectivism"—is, by
necessity, closed:
It must be something definite, or it is not definable; it must have identity and
it must have boundaries or
there will be no way of distinguishing one doctrine from another. But as David
Kelley suggests in Truth
and Toleration,
every philosophy is, by necessity, open to
interpretation, which leads to the formation of a "school of thought" or
"tradition," wherein thinkers who accept the fundamentals work out interesting
implications, applications, and even combinations among
different doctrines. And the "working out" is then subject to critique, in an
even broader intellectual community, as we argue over whose version is more in
keeping not only with the philosophy, but, more importantly, with reality. There
is thus a dynamic tension between investigatory and what might be called
"hermeneutical" (or interpretive) aspects throughout the history of philosophy.
Interestingly, in the face of such heretical, hermeneutical innovations, not
even Marx liked what was being done to his "scientific socialism." Upon hearing
statements made by some "Marxist" ideologues, Marx replied: "But I am not a
Marxist." Rand expressed sympathy for Marx and echoed his sentiments by saying,
in essence, "I am not a Randist"—when she heard of some of the "philosophical
hodgepodge[s]" being perpetuated in her name.
If one adopts Firehammer’s perspective, which would identify Objectivism with
strict adherence to every proposition ever uttered by Rand, then there has been
only one "Objectivist" who has ever existed in history. Nietzsche once observed,
similarly, with regard to Christ and Christianity: "In truth, there was only one
Christian, and he died on the cross" (The
Antichrist).
It is not our intention to transform "The Passion of Ayn Rand" into "The
Passion of the Christ."
Rand need not be foisted onto the crucifix of philosophical hodgepodges that she
repudiated. But if Firehammer is right, then Objectivism is dead and we are all
Randians now—"Randian" is, of course, a wide designation, meaning "of, relating
to, or resembling" Rand’s philosophic framework—since every act of personal
interpretation or application by anyone on any subject is a step removed from
Rand’s formally enunciated philosophy.
On this basis, I’m not "hijacking" Objectivism at all. I’m adhering to the old
Spanish proverb that says: "Take what you want, and pay for it." I’m taking what
I want from Rand’s legacy, and paying for it—by assuming responsibility for my
own interpretations and applications. Call me a Randian or a post-Randian or a
neo-Objectivist or an advocate of Objectivism 2.0, or even the founder of
Sciabarra-ism. But don’t call me an Objectivist. I agree with Rand’s core
principles. But I have never argued that my own innovations (on subjects like
dialectics or homosexuality) are part of "Objectivism" as Rand—or even
Firehammer—defines it. Yes, I do believe that my own viewpoint is fully
consistent with Objectivism. And on the subject of dialectics, for example, I’ve
even argued that Rand herself was a dialectician as I’ve defined
it. But I would never argue that Rand embraced "dialectics" as such, explicitly
and by that name. Ultimately, I believe that I’m carrying on Rand’s legacy in
many substantive ways and the burden is on me to prove it.
What I’ve stated here is fairly straightforward and self-evident, for this is
all in the nature of intellectual development. An innovator puts forth a
doctrine. Over time, that doctrine is adapted, interpreted, and applied to
various issues and experiences of which the innovator never could have dreamed.
Some of the approaches will resonate with us; others won’t.
It was Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese authoritarian communist, who said, ironically:
"Let a hundred flowers bloom: let a hundred schools of thought contend"—despite
the fact that his Cultural Revolution was geared toward crushing all the flowers
and creating an ideological monolith. The creation of a monolith, however, is
the decadence and death of
a tradition, which is why orthodox approaches are almost always sclerotic in
their effect. The full flowering of differentiated approaches to Objectivism is
not a sign of decay; it is a sign of the tradition’s life and vibrance. And as
Marx would have said, it is an inexorable development.
Paraphrasing Rand’s conclusion from
her essay, "For the New Intellectual," we might say: "There is an ancient slogan
that applies to our present position: ‘The king is dead—long live the king!’ We
can say, with the same dedication to the future: ‘The Objectivists are dead—long
live the Objectivists!’—and then proceed to fulfill the responsibility which
that honorable title had once implied."
On these grounds, I would say it is our responsibility to
"hijack" Rand’s legacy of reality, rationality, and radicalism and to apply it
to the context of our own lives.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
Comments On This Essay Followed here.
Citizen Rat
Post 0
Friday, May 28,
2004 - 5:57am
Hi, Chris.
May I offer some stylistic advice? You open
your interesting article with a number of loaded phrases. For example: >>...
gasp! ... Bush’s deplorable political pandering to his right-wing religious
conservative base ... Homo Hysteria is quickly infecting every nerve, muscle,
and joint of the body politic.<<
I understand you are writing to an
Objectivist audience and perhaps certain tropes are to be expected. However, is
it really so shocking -- i.e., "gasp!" -- and "deplorable political pandering"
and "Homo Hysteria" to support the status quo of our most ancient social
institution? Whatever the merits of legally redefining marriage to include
same-sex unions, is it helpful to ascribe ill motives to those who doubt the
wisdom of radically altering an institution that has served us so well over the
millennia? It sets up your article as just another liberal political screed
detracting from the serious and sober argument you actually make.
Regards,
Bill
[For the record: I really don't care if local
jurisdications like Massachusetts want to legally redefine marriage to include
any and all couplings people can come up with. Human nature is what it is and a
mere change in law will not alter what men and women have desired of each other
from time immemorial. So heterosexual couples will continue to demand the "real
thing". If the law won't provide it, I'm sure religion will. Thus, the irony of
legally revolutionizing marriage may be that it ends up as a province of
religion where it belongs.]
Reginald Firehammer
Post 1
Bill,
Chris,
May I offer some stylistic advice? You open your interesting
article with a number of loaded phrases. For example: >>... gasp! ... Bush’s
deplorable political pandering to his right-wing religious conservative base ...
Homo Hysteria is quickly infecting every nerve, muscle, and joint of the body
politic.<<
I understand you are writing to an Objectivist audience and
perhaps certain tropes are to be expected. However, is it really so shocking --
i.e., "gasp!" -- and "deplorable political pandering" and "Homo Hysteria" to
support ...
I think Chris' style, in this case, is appropriate; or, if it
is not perfectly appropriate, it is my fault. The central reason for the article
is a rebuttle of my book, which uses some of the same kind of rhetoric Chris is
using here.
In fact, this style, I think, is unusual for Chris, who in
other works I 've read tends to be very careful about avoiding overstatement and
emotional rhetoric. I rather enjoyed this article, especially for the style,
even if it was me and my book who were the target of his "scathing
vituperative." I also am very suspicious about people who seem to have no
feelings about their beliefs, and never express any.
Now, there is one
thing you said that should raise some eyebrows, no matter on which side of the
homosexual marriage issue they fall. (By the way, my book says nothing about
that issue.)
You said: ... marriage ... ends up as a province of religion
where it belongs.
The first question is, which religion? The second
question is, do you think those who do not have that religion, or have no
religion at all, should not get married?
Regi
sciabarra
Post 2
Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:30am
Hello Bill and Regi... yes, well,
sometimes I do open up my essays with loaded words. And sometimes I use words
that are decidedly technical. It all pretty much depends on the audience to
which I'm speaking, as I explain here.
I should say, however, that I do
sincerely believe that this proposed constitutional amendment is political
pandering. Perhaps this sounds cynical or psychologistic with regard to the Bush
administration's motives; but I simply do not think the Bush people are so
out-of-touch with reality that they seriously believe that such a constitutional
amendment would pass the arduous legislative process. That's what leads me to
the conclusion that this position was announced at the beginning of the election
season to speak to the administration's political base.
Regi is right,
however, that I came out swinging; his monograph was my inspiration, after all.
:)
Interesting, though, how in this instance, some might see "another
liberal political screed," whereas in other instances, some might see
"conservative" ideology. That's one of the pitfalls of being a political
libertarian: some of our statements or sentiments will sound remarkably liberal,
while others will sound typically conservative. The truth is, of course, that
our sensibilities go beyond left and right.
Cheers,
Chris
Citizen Rat
Post 3
Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:50am
Hi, Regi.
Me:
>>... marriage ... ends up as a province of religion where it belongs.<<
You: >>The first question is, which religion? The second question is, do you
think those who do not have that religion, or have no religion at all, should
not get married?<<
I certainly would not deny the joys of marriage to
Objectivists, despite some of their misguided notions. (Indeed, I was the best
man of an Objectivist at his wedding to a fine Christian girl.) I was pondering
history when I wrote that loose thought.
Government licensing of marriage
came about in modern times after Europe's religious wars subsided in the middle
seventeenth century. Before that marriage was strictly a matter for the church
to regulate, and the government merely recognized as a fact what the church had
blessed. So, my thought was that if the government is going to redefine marriage
into meaningless, human nature will prompt heterosexual couples to seek what the
churches had blessed before the government got into defining marriage.
Of
course, marriage precedes religion (which is the reason why the church "blesses"
what is already a fact). So I probably should have written that marriage, as
traditionally understood, will end up back in the private realm where it
belongs. To the extent that public recognition of a marriage is important in
society, I'm sure custom and religion and other means will do just as good a job
of that as a government license does today.
Regards,
Bill
Reginald Firehammer
Post 4
Friday, May 28, 2004 - 10:46am
Hi Chris,
I should have said something about this: I should say, however, that I do
sincerely believe that this proposed constitutional amendment is political
pandering.
You're right but you've fallen back into your polite mode. I
would call it a lot worse than "political pandering," (which is bad enough). The
religious right is making a huge mistake in this and all other issues where they
would like the government to force their views down everyone's throats, because
the government that has that power is ultimately going to use it against them,
as they are now finding out in Canada.
Regi
Citizen Rat
Post 5
Friday, May 28, 2004 - 10:48am
Hi, Chris.
You wrote: >>I
should say, however, that I do sincerely believe that this proposed
constitutional amendment is political pandering. Perhaps this sounds cynical or
psychologistic with regard to the Bush administration's motives; but I simply do
not think the Bush people are so out-of-touch with reality that they seriously
believe that such a constitutional amendment would pass the arduous legislative
process. That's what leads me to the conclusion that this position was announced
at the beginning of the election season to speak to the administration's
political base.<<
I think your political assessment is correct, except
that I am persuaded that Bush is sincerely opposed to legally redefining
traditional marriage. So, I would stop well short of labeling this campaign
maneuver as "pandering". A call to action, even if unlikely to succeed, tells us
how a candidate will act upon a position he holds -- which is something I, as a
voter, want to know.
As it happens, I think a constitutional amendment is
the wrong action to take, but at least I know what Bush means by his position to
defend the status quo. But it also informs me that Bush is a conventional
politician of good intentions. From my conservative perspective, he may hold
many of the right positions, but he lacks a firm set of first principles that
properly guides him as the proper means to those ends. Thus good intentions mean
the right ends either are never achieved or a whole lot else get messed in the
pursuit of them.
In other words, the same ol' boring politics of welfare
state America (and a tangent I've taken that is now well off-topic ;).
Regards,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 6
Friday, May 28, 2004 -
10:57am
Hi, Regi.
You note: >>The religious right is making a huge
mistake in this and all other issues where they would like the government to
force their views down everyone's throats, because the government that has that
power is ultimately going to use it against them, as they are now finding out in
Canada.<<
Well, keep in mind, Regi, that the so-called religious right is
a backlash against the leftist secular agenda that has been shoved down all of
our throats with increasing ferocity since the New Deal. That said, those voters
of the religious right may have taken the lesson you would like them to, because
recent polling shows that a majority oppose Bush's constitutional amendment.
Regards,
Bill
sciabarra
Post 7
Friday, May 28, 2004 -
11:20am
Many good points made by both of you gents. I do think Bush sincerely
believes in his own ideology; I don't think he's ever been as good as, say,
Ronald Reagan, in expressing that ideology, but sincere, yes. And, yes, the rise
of right-wing religious ideology has been, in many ways, the consequence of
powerful pendulum effects---as a response to left-wing secularist ideology,
expressed in the media, the schools, and many cultural institutions.
As
for the current article under discussion, readers might be interested to know
that Regi and I "duke it out" in the forthcoming issue of The Free Radical.
Regi's response and my rejoinder will be published in the June-July 2004
edition, and I'm fairly certain that, in time, they will both be posted right
here on SOLO HQ.
Cheers,
Chris
Orion Reasoner
Post 8
Friday, May 28, 2004 - 7:05pm
I heard a stand-up comedian once make an
amazing observation about "homophobia":
"There are people with
'arachnophobia'... You don't see them going after spiders, do you? Hell no. They
run away in terror. The people going after spiders are not the ones with
arachnophobia, but actually the opposite... They have no fear of spiders, but
instead think it's a cool thing to squash 'em."
I think the same can be
said of "homophobes". When you sit down and really think about it, "homophobes"
don't attack the hulking, giant, bull queers all dressed up in leather. Hell no.
They attack the skinny guy, the pretty boy, the choir boy... The easy prey...
the exact opposite of the other kind of guy, who, if they were actually
"phobic", would be much scarier because of his size and stature. But no; the
choir boy is the one whose body is found tangled up in barbed wire, out by a
country road somewhere.
So, nah, I'm no longer buying that jive about
"homophobia". These people are not phobic; they're actually sadistic and bored,
and, well... cowardly, because of the prey that they choose, over the would-be
prey that scares them too much to go after.
And yeah, I know that this is
all looking at the dark side, but hey... I've developed a knack for it.
Comments?
sciabarra
Post 9
Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:40am
Orion, it's very difficult to say. Hatred and anger of whatever sort is rooted
usually in fear of some kind. Fear of The Other. Fear that somebody might think
you're one of them, just because you associated with them (which translates,
again, into Fear of The Other---only, in this instance, it is fear of Other
People's Opinions). Or there can be an internal fear that you might actually be
one of them; beating up The Other, in this instance, becomes an extension of
your own self-hatred, directed toward the perceived gay person who embodies
those characteristics that you disown and despise in yourself. You can call this
psychobabble---but I think there are more than a few documented instances of
such behavioral and motivational patterns.
As to your example: Let's say
Jim is a "straight" guy and a gay-basher. Jim bashes a perceived "gay" guy, but
sure as hell doesn't want to pick on a guy who might actually beat the crap out
of him. If "proof" of his warped conception of masculinity is derived by how
well he kicks the crap out of the other guy, who is perceived as being
"less-than-a-real-man," it would be a real blow to that warped conception of
masculinity if the other guy turns the tables on Jim.
So I don't think
it's a mystery that the puny or the skinny "faggot" is picked on; it feeds into
the stereotype and might confirm, to the gay-basher, the "superiority" of his
own self-conception.
But I don't wish to reduce this particular example
to a simple equation. There are enormous psychological complexities on display
in any instance of gay-bashing. I think it is very wrong to make sweeping
generalizations about the motivations behind such gay-bashing. And you are
right: some people are just sadistic and there are also some people who do all
sorts of stupid things from peer pressure, because they want to belong to the
"right" group. In nearly all instances, however, I think that what lies beneath
such violent actions are all the wrong sorts of impulses, whether they be
manifestations of tribalism, collectivism, prejudice, fear, anger, hatred,
pseudo-self-esteem, social metaphysics, irrationalism, or the lack of a moral
compass. Any single one of these impulses, or combinations thereof, is liable to
motivate violence. In the end, of course, what matters politically is not the
motivation of the crime, but the fact of the crime, the fact that one human
being has initiated force against another. That's why I oppose hate crimes
legislation.
Like I say in the essay, homophobia as such "does not apply
to everyone who opposes homosexuality, but it is not an insignificant factor in
the cultural debate."
(Edited by sciabarra on 5/29, 5:42am)
Kyrel
Zantonavitch
Post 10
Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:17pm
If Rand and
Firehammer argue same-sex eroticism is "immoral" then they're wrong. If they
argue it's "disgusting" than that's their opinion -- and they're wrong again.
For them to not understand that in some very deep senses homosexuality is
natural, normal, inborn, instinctive, hormonal, etc. is to not understand a
great deal. Sexual orientation is only very minimally volitional -- unless
you're talking about major surgery and/or massive chemical injections and/or
truly overwhelming brain-washing and/or radical environmental degradation.
Preferring same-sex to opposite-sex is like preferring "the missionary
position" to "the reverse cowgirl;" or to being a "butt man" rather than a
"breast man." This, in turn, is like favoring oranges over apples, or chocolate
ice cream over strawberry. Liking one over the other is all a matter of opinion
and personal preferences -- not of factuality or morality -- and thus has
nothing to do with philosophy or serious, important, intellectual truth-seeking.
Such intensely-private tastes -- about which there is no arguing -- are
philosophically moot or irrelevant.
Assuming Sciabarra is rendering
Firehammer's points fairly and accurately, at some point you have to wonder why
Sciabarra even bothered to refute the foolish, almost transparently false claims
of Firehammer's book. Everyone knows -- or everyone should know -- that the
minor opinions and tastes of Rand are very different from the philosophy of
Rand. They're mostly unrelated, even. Still...Firehammer does think and write
fairly well and seriously. (Great name too -- I'm thinking of changing mine to
"Flamethrower" or "Hachetman" or "Great Atomic Wonderboy!" ;-) )
Moreover
Sciabarra is right in general to go after the slight but pervasive homophobia
which seems to characterize the Objectivist movement -- beginning with Rand.
Sciabarra doesn't mention the Ayn Rand Institute once in his article, but they
seem to be the real villains here -- as in most issues. The ARI cult and cabal
-- which seems like a real group of faggots to me! -- is very dishonest and
cowardly on this issue. In Objectivist terms, they are a real group of
"evaders."
So it's ultimately good that Sciabarra should forcibly "out"
this issue, as well as the quiet morons and lowlifes which cause Objectivism to
lean in the direction of sex-orientation bigotry. These braindead clowns and
embarrassing epigones are -- to use their own cult terminology --
"second-handers" and "collectivists" who follow religiously in Rand's train like
intellectual slaves.
Reginald Firehammer
Post 11
Saturday, May
29, 2004 - 8:01pm
Andre,
I do not agree with you, but I appreciate
your views and very much like the way you express them. (I do not like evaders
either.)
You said, Assuming Sciabarra is rendering Firehammer's points
fairly and accurately ...
He does, and does it very well, and he did it
because he felt the points I raised were worth addressing, and he does that very
well too. Chris and I disagree only on the issue of whether or not homosexuality
is, "normal," and consistent with the requirements of human nature. He, like
you, sees nothing inconsistent about homosexuality with human identity, so he,
like you, believes it is an issue that lies outside the purview of philosophy
and morality. That is perfectly consistent with both your views.
Of
course, holding the opposite view, I think it is both a philosophical and moral
issue, but, I hasten to add, a private and personal moral issue.
The one
thing Chris and I both agree on is that homosexual, or any other sexual
practices, are entirely a matter of individual choice and essentially nobody
else's business. I have stated everywhere, I will defend the right of every
individual to live their life as they choose, as well as their right to promote
their views, no matter how much I disagree with them. Of course, I reserve the
right to promote my views as well.
Now I have an enigma for you. If
homosexuality is only a matter of taste, why would a philosophical movement have
to be used to promote that taste. What difference would it make,
philosophically, if most of those who were Objectivists hated pistachio ice
cream and thought there was something a bit odd about anyone who would actually
prefer pistachio? I do not know about you, but I happen to like pistachio and I
wouldn't care if the whole damn world called me queer (or anything else) for
loving it.
My point is, if philosophy cannot be used to repudiate a
matter of personal taste, it certainly cannot be used to promote it. Of course
that assumes how people use their bodies is only a matter of personal taste. Do
you really think it is?
Regi
sciabarra
Post 12
Sunday, May
30, 2004 - 8:45am
On this issue of ARI: Yes, it is true that I don't
mention the Ayn Rand Institute once in this most recent article. It is also
true, however, that ARI is mentioned in my monograph on homosexuality, and that
many, many ARI members and contributors were among the 100+ people I interviewed
for that monograph. Over 90% of the people I interviewed, of whatever
affiliation or no affiliation, chose to remain anonymous. I don't have to
speculate about all of their motives. In many instances, people simply said they
didn't wish to be identified. But in some instances, interviewees were more
explicit. Some told me that they wished to retain anonymity because of (a) the
subject matter or (b) the need to feel free to say whatever they felt without
having their privacy violated. In some instances, ARI-affiliated survey
participants were especially concerned that their names not be publicly
associated with the work of Chris Matthew Sciabarra, who is, as one ARIan put
it, "persona non grata" among the ARI subculture. I didn't take any of these
exceptions personally; I was interested only in getting the substantive input of
as broad a representative sample of the "Objectivist" subculture as my
sociological survey would allow. And make no mistake about it: My monograph is,
for better or worse, primarily a sociological survey and a political tract, not
a philosophical defense of homosexuality per se.
As for coming down hard
on ARI... Andre, that debate has been raging for a very long time. My most
recent contributions to that well-worn, divisive subject can be found here and
here, where I give as good as I get. Suffice it to say, not all ARIans think
that Sciabarra is a "crackpot," as one of them put it. But some rather vocal
ARIan representatives do. What separates Reginald Firehammer essentially from
these vocal ARIans is the fact that he remains civil and respectful in
expressing his profound disagreements with me on the topic of homosexuality. As
I have said on many occasions, it is never about disagreement. Like any good
dialectician, I practically live for the give-and-take. But that give-and-take
is only as good as the mutual respect that people show in expressing their
differences.
While many people on my side of this topic would dismiss
Firehammer's book on the face of it, I thought it was worth discussing primarily
because it raised many important questions about the "open" or "closed" nature
of Objectivism, the meaning of the philosophy, and the ways in which one can
legitimately "hijack" and apply its essentials to new questions and
applications. And that, after all, is the title of Firehammer's book: The
Hijacking of a Philosophy. So it is on that question, rather than the question
of homosexuality as such, that I had the most to say.
Logan Feys
Post
13
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 2:03pm
Although nothing excuses bigotry,
dogmatism, or irrationalism, Sciabarra's review may end up providing more fuel
to the ARIans. The very title "In Praise of Hijacking" feeds their paranoia and
self-righteous anger. If someone announced his intent to hijack my philosophy
for his own purposes, I would be disinclined to engage in any sort of reasoned
dialectial give-and-take with him. So no one should be surprised that Sciabarra
gets denounced.
I can never figure out Sciabarra's intended relationship
to Objectivism, because he waffles and obfuscates. He writes elsewhere of trying
to "reclaim Rand's radical legacy" and often (if not always) tries to present
his views as being consistent with Objectivistm. In this review he praises
"heretical, hermeneutical innovations" ("hijacking"?) in philosophy. Then he
unleashes this:
I’m not "hijacking" Objectivism at all. I’m adhering to
the old Spanish proverb that says: "Take what you want, and pay for it." I’m
taking what I want from Rand’s legacy, and paying for it—by assuming
responsibility for my own interpretations and applications. Call me a Randian or
a post-Randian or a neo-Objectivist or an advocate of Objectivism 2.0, or even
the founder of Sciabarra-ism. But don’t call me an Objectivist.
I don't know,
and he himself doesn't seem willing to state clearly and directly, whether he's
an anti-Objectivist, an uncommitted advocate of Objectivism, a friend of
Objectivism, a post-Objectivist, a post-neo-hermenutical-Objecto-dialectician,
or a scholar of Objectivism who thinks deconstructing Rand is a useful academic
exercise. Around and around and around he goes...what he stands for we don't
know.
I don't really care about labels, but the ideas behind them. I
don't know what "Scibarraism" is. So I ask, simply and directly: Can you state
your philosophy standing on one foot?
As for homosexuality... I don't
necessarily disagree with the substance of Sciabarra's views on homosexuALITY,
though certainly the unhealthy and irrational behaviors and attitudes that are
common among homosexuALS today deserve separate attention and should be regarded
as immoral. Of course there are many respectable and moral homosexuals, but if
they are the exception rather than the rule, the underlying reasons should be
probed, and those who undertake the task should not be presumed to be bigoted or
suffering from a phobia.
So while homosexuality as such is neither moral
nor immoral (just a fact of life for many people), and while homosexuals are
just as capable as heteros of being moral individuals, it is also valid to
generalize about the self-destructive proclivities that are exhibited
disproportionately by homosexuals (leading, ultimately and often tragically, to
premature deaths for most gay men). Anti-gay bigotry, while a problem that
unfortunately still exists, only rarely results in anyone's death. Unhealthy sex
practices, which individuals choose to engage in, kill millions. If gay activist
groups acknowledged the nature of this problem and encouraged a culture of
personal responsibility and self-respect (instead of blame and self-destructive
self-indulgent emotionalism) to correct it, they would be waging a noble battle.
Unfortunately, the "gay movement" such as it is is hard to defend on any
grounds, and its nature need not (and should not) go unacknowledged by those of
us who champion the moral and legal equality of homosexuals.
-Logan
Citizen Rat
Post 14
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 3:53pm
Hi, Logan.
Scratching your head, you put it to Chris: >>I don't really care about
labels, but the ideas behind them. I don't know what "Scibarraism" is. So I ask,
simply and directly: Can you state your philosophy standing on one foot?<<
Now I'm scratching my head. Aren't you asking for what you just said you
don't care about -- a label?
Regards,
Bill
sciabarra
Post 15
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 6:07pm
Logan, I honestly and truly and
sincerely do not care one whit if my review provides "more fuel to the ARIans."
In the end, I don’t get denounced because I "obfuscate." I get denounced because
I’ve dared to suggest that Rand learned something from her teachers, that Rand’s
approach can be fruitfully characterized as "dialectical," and so forth. In the
end, whether I co-edit a feminist anthology or author a monograph on
homosexuality or defend Rand’s radical critique of US foreign policy, everything
I do feeds into "their paranoia and self-righteous anger." Who cares!
Read the "obfuscating" passages that you cite very carefully. For example, I say
that I am not hijacking Rand’s philosophy, if we define that philosophy in terms
of essentials. That’s why I spend some time in the article distinguishing
between what I believe is essential and what I believe is nonessential to our
definition of Objectivism. The only point at which I seem to reverse course is
when I say, that if one accepts Firehammer’s understanding of what constitutes
Objectivism, then, indeed, "On this basis," [you left out that modifying clause
in your quotation from my essay] one can’t help but "hijack" the philosophy.
Rand’s "standing on one foot" version of Objectivism is essential; her views
of Vermeer, Beethoven, rough sex, and facial hair are not. I accept the essence
of Objectivism, its emphasis on the primacy of existence, reason as the means to
human knowledge, egoism, individualism, and capitalism. I wholeheartedly accept
Rand’s defense of the integrated human being, her revolt against the mind-body
dichotomy, and her repudiation of all of its implied dualisms: fact versus
value, reason versus emotion, morality versus prudence, thought versus action,
and so forth.
I’ve called my approach "dialectical libertarianism" only
because I define dialectics as the art of context-keeping, and I believe that a
defense of the free society requires an understanding of the full context of
philosophical and cultural factors that make freedom possible. All of this is
laid out in my "Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy," which began with Marx, Hayek,
and Utopia, continued with Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and culminated with
Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. I believe my own approach is
completely consistent with Objectivism, but I refuse to act as if my own
interpretation of Rand’s philosophy came out of Rand’s mouth. It came out of my
mouth, my mind, and I take full responsibility for it. And, in the end, I’ve
learned much not only from Rand, but from Aristotle, Menger, Spencer, Mises,
Hayek, Rothbard, and others... and I celebrate this diverse intellectual
heritage.
Nonetheless, there are many reasons I no longer use the label
"Objectivism" to describe my approach. It’s because that label has been so
thoroughly abused by its alleged "defenders" that I am simply tired of expending
the intellectual capital to distinguish myself from them. When outsiders ask me
if I’m one of those "dogmatic Objectivist cultists," I have to spend time
defending Objectivism against the charge of cultism. When insiders ask me if I’m
an "Objectivist," I am compelled to get into an endless debate over the
question: "Who is the ‘true’ Objectivist?" That question has about the same
prospect for resolution as the debate over who is the "true" Christian
(Protestant??, Catholic??, Eastern Orthodox??), or who is the "true" Muslim, and
so forth. These fundamentally religious debates no longer interest me. That’s
why I prefer Randian or post-Randian (which is more general and
all-encompassing) to "Objectivist." And apart from my ideological commitment, I
am a Rand scholar.
Finally, on the issue of homosexuality: Yes, there are
many unhealthy and irrational behaviors manifested by homosexuals (as there are
by bisexuals and heterosexuals and so forth). It is always the case that the
vocal minority makes more noise than the silent majority, however (just look at
the "Objectivist" universe, and you’ll understand what I mean...). I do believe,
however, that there are many reasons for self-destructive proclivities among
those who internalize the teachings of a culture that sees them as sinful, sick,
or otherwise dysfunctional. And the "gay movement," as such, is no different in
its dysfunctional character from any other product of a welfare-state mixed
economy, which promotes victimization, pressure group warfare, and an orgy of
privilege-seeking.
All the more reason to celebrate the teachings of an
individualist philosophy that celebrates the authentic self, a lesson that
should be appreciated by all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Cameron Pritchard
Post 16
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 10:35pm
Logan wrote:
"So while homosexuality as such is neither moral nor immoral (just a fact of
life for many people), and while homosexuals are just as capable as heteros of
being moral individuals, it is also valid to generalize about the
self-destructive proclivities that are exhibited disproportionately by
homosexuals (leading, ultimately and often tragically, to premature deaths for
most gay men)."
Care to be more specific about which practices you
believe are self-destructive?
"Anti-gay bigotry, while a problem that
unfortunately still exists, only rarely results in anyone's death. Unhealthy sex
practices, which individuals choose to engage in, kill millions."
I can
only assume that you're talking about unprotected anal sex, which can spread
HIV. Given the safe-sex knowledge out there (which in my experience I've found
many gay people to be far better educated about than many straights) and the
change in sexual practices as a result since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic,
one cannot generalise to make a claim that gays are engaging significantly in
this potentially self-destructive practice (i.e. anal sex without a condom).
Your claim that bigotry "rarely results in anyone's death" is unbelievable. How
many young men and women have killed themselves because of that bigotry? How
much carnage has it left in its wake, not just in terms of suicides but in
people stricken by depression stemming from the self-hatred they have been
*taught* to feel. Given my recent posts on this subject, I feel like I'm banging
my head against a brick wall.
Jeremy Johnson
Post 17
Tuesday,
June 1, 2004 - 10:37pm
Heya, Chris. I've a question.
I do believe,
however, that there are many reasons for self-destructive proclivities among
those who internalize the teachings of a culture that sees them as sinful, sick,
or otherwise dysfunctional.
and
And the "gay movement," as such,
is no different in its dysfunctional character from any other product of a
welfare-state mixed economy, which promotes victimization...
From the
"internalize the teachings of a culture" and "welfare-state economy which
promotes victimization" portions, do you believe the responsibility for change
or improvement lies with the "culture that sees them as sinful, sick, or
otherwise dysfunctional", or with the "victims" of that culture? Of course it
would be nice to have a culture that simply ignored whatever it is people do in
their bedrooms, but is it the culture's responsibility to promote healthy views
and opinions of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, etc? If this happened, do
you believe the immoral behavior of some homosexuals would be curtailed, or for
that matter, the immoral behavior of any "segment[s]" of society? I'm of the
view that it's more of a "bottom-up" thing, meaning it should begin with
responsible people living lives in accordance with "the teachings of an
individualist philosophy that celebrates the authentic self" that will
eventually affect change on the culture itself. Is this a "product of their
environment" issue, in your view?
(I think your answer will but a "No,
with qualification, however..." because of your admirable obsession with
context-keeping : P, but it's that very thing which prompts my question. I need
more context!)
Jeremy Johnson
Post 18
Tuesday, June 1, 2004 -
10:54pm
Heya Cameron,
We seemed to have crossed paths while posting,
which is great because I'm glad I was here to read your post.
You asked
Logan: Care to be more specific about which practices you believe are
self-destructive?
I am definitely not speaking for Logan--because I value
my life : P--but I would say an evident self-destructive practice among
homosexual men is no different than a self-destructive practice among straight
men: promiscuity. Except that in any homosexual male situation, there is no
responsible, cautious female to interfere with the hanky-panky. Let's face it:
guys like to get their rocks off. It's no secret that two gay men are still men,
with testosterone. (I'll start to stutter with confusion and a loss for words if
hormone replacement therapy and hermaphroditism comes into the discussion, so
don't go there thank you!) I wouldn't say any specific acts in the homosexual
world are more likely to cause the spread of slow, internal death, but I would
say the gender of the practitioner--male--is a notorious lothario of one shade
or another. That's the way it is.
I'll happily accept corrections to
this second-hand theory.
(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/01, 10:58pm)
sciabarra
Post 19
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 6:43am
Jeremy,
you're right: If we confine our discussion to gay men (not to lesbian couples,
mind you, whose relationships seem to be more stable and longer-lasting than
even heterosexual couples), there are powerful forces that seem to militate
toward promiscuity. Some of these are biological, some of these are cultural,
but it is by no means monolithic as a gay male behavioral trait. And I can tell
you anecdotally: Most of the gay men I know are in stable, long-term
relationships.
Are there gay men who are engaged in having anal sex
without a condom? Is there a drug subculture among gay men? Are gay men still
susceptible to HIV? Yes. But as Cameron has pointed out in another thread, the
fact of homosexuality does not make one susceptible to HIV. This is not a
disease that has been around for eons, wiping out the gay male population. It is
a relatively recent phenomenon. And it is simply a fact that HIV entered the gay
male sub-culture first in this country, which is why it is still circulating
among gay males (even though the highest rates of new infection are among black
women, apparently). That's because gay men are still having sex predominantly
with other gay men. And some of these men are having unsafe sex. In Africa, the
situation is very different---because the disease did not manifest itself first
in a relatively closed gay subculture. It has been carried throughout Africa by
heterosexual prostitution and other means.
Now onto the broader questions
you raise. Anticipating a qualification-laden "context-keeping" response from
me, you state:
From the "internalize the teachings of a culture" and
"welfare-state economy which promotes victimization" portions, do you believe
the responsibility for change or improvement lies with the "culture that sees
them as sinful, sick, or otherwise dysfunctional", or with the "victims" of that
culture? Of course it would be nice to have a culture that simply ignored
whatever it is people do in their bedrooms, but is it the culture's
responsibility to promote healthy views and opinions of homosexuals, bisexuals,
transgenders, etc? If this happened, do you believe the immoral behavior of some
homosexuals would be curtailed, or for that matter, the immoral behavior of any
"segment[s]" of society? I'm of the view that it's more of a "bottom-up" thing,
meaning it should begin with responsible people living lives in accordance with
"the teachings of an individualist philosophy that celebrates the authentic
self" that will eventually affect change on the culture itself. Is this a
"product of their environment" issue, in your view?
The short answer is:
Yes, it's more of a "bottom-up" thing.
The longer, more qualified,
answer raises more interesting questions, however.
In looking at any
social problem, I have learned much from Ayn Rand. It is from Rand's framework
that I developed a "tri-level model" of social relations. That model appears
here:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/images/model.gif
The
tri-level model suggests that social change can and must take place on three
levels in order to generate a revolution of sorts: Level 1 (The Personal, which
includes psychological, psycho-epistemological, and ethical practices and
institutions); Level 2 (The Cultural, which includes ideological, pedagogical,
linguistic, and aesthetic practices and institutions); and Level 3 (The
Structural, which includes economic and political practices & institutions). All
three levels constitute relations between individuals, as individuals, or as
constituted in groups and organizations.
So, you're right, Jeremy, to
suggest that most fundamental change occurs from the "bottom-up." It has to take
place on Level 1, in terms of personal psychology, psycho-epistemology, and
ethics, and also on Level 2, in terms of cultural ideas, before it can affect
Level 3. (That's why, btw, I am so critical of "democratic nation-building" in
Iraq and the Middle East: because it attempts to create change to the whole,
while focusing on Level 3, with little understanding of the personal and
cultural forces necessary to sustain and nourish that kind of institutional
change.)
This does not mean that a change on Level 3 can't have effects
on the other levels; in fact, there is such a thing as a "political culture" and
a "civic culture"---and sometimes, if you create changes to those cultures, you
can affect the other levels. For example, in NYC, the Giuliani administration
warred on crime in the early 90s by demanding that police pinpoint so-called
"quality of life" offenses: public urination, subway fare-beating, graffiti,
etc. They found that people committing low-level offenses, invariably, were also
committing high-level offenses. By enforcing against low-level offenses in
targeted communities with high crime rates, they were able to drive the crime
rate down. This city---excepting September 11th---is now the safest large city
in America. Its crime rate continues to fall, while other cities experience
spikes. The Giuliani administration, for all its other faults, also targeted the
welfare bureaucracy, insisting that able-bodied welfare recipients work for
their welfare checks. The impulse was to create a political culture of
responsibility.
I think that these policies and a change in public
rhetoric had the effect of "drawing a line in the sand." It was a way of saying:
"We will no longer tolerate a lack of civility or respect for people or
property. And we will encourage behaviors that promote individual
responsibility." And I think this has had a trickle-down effect on civic
culture; New Yorkers have always had spirit and strength. But I do think that
after a nearly decade-long drop in crime, and an increase in the quality of
life, New Yorkers were even better suited to dealing with the effects of
September 11th. If that horrific event had taken place in 1991, when crime was
rampant, there is a good possibility that we would have had mass looting in
other parts of this city. I can't prove it---it's just a hunch. But I do think
civic culture has changed immeasurably in the past decade and that it has had a
good effect on the habits of New Yorkers, who once thought that crime and
welfare dependency were intractable, unresolvable problems.
Why this long
tangential point? Because I do believe that one can and should act on other
levels---politically and culturally---to nourish such ideals as personal
responsibility and independence, individual authenticity and mutual respect.
Changes on each level of this tri-level model will then reciprocally reinforce
each other.
Rand was not oblivious to how cultural (Level 2) and
political change (Level 1) could nourish personal changes. Note, for example,
how she targeted educational institutions and pedagogical practices for their
deleterious effects on human psychology, even on the human capacity to integrate
and systematize knowledge. Her essay, "The Comprachicos," is a full-scale attack
on how education and pedagogy destroy human cognitive functioning. Note too her
arguments in essays such as "Global Balkanization" that the political triumph of
the mixed economy gave the impetus to the growth of ethnic tribalism and
collectivism in the modern world. In both "The Comprachicos" and "Global
Balkanization," we see Rand's attention on the need to change Levels 2 and 3 in
order to affect a change on Level 1.
So, yes: A bottom-up revolution in
thinking must take place in the gay community. I suspect that this change is
already underway. As the first part of my monograph suggests, many gay and
lesbian readers have been turned onto Rand and her individualist message; it
inspires them against the forces of social conformity, Other-defined happiness,
institutional religious oppression, and outright bias, which, like all forms of
prejudice, is collectivistic in its origins. And these lessons can be spread to
our cultural and political institutions, just as these institutions can be used
to reinforce the personal changes.
Reginald Firehammer
Wednesday, June
2, 2004 - 7:08am
Cameron, Logan,
Given my recent posts on this
subject, I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.
Then why
do you do it?
Why are homosexuals so insecure? I would like to say
heterosexuals do not feel it is necessary to convince homosexuals they are
normal, which for obvious reasons (the fact most people are heterosexual for one
thing) is not a good comparison. However, I suspect, in a world or society that
was predominantly homosexual, this would still be the case.
A better
example for me are Objectivists in a collectivist/altruist society. If you are
the least bit vocal or active about your position regarding individual liberty
and the oppression of the state (like stating flatly that public school teachers
are essentially parasites and kidnappers) you receive plenty of abuse. I
couldn't care less what people say about or to me. There is something
essentially wrong with an Objectivist who claims what someone else says or
thinks has anything to do with their own self-esteem. Since when are
Objectivists second-handers basing their opinion of themselves on the views of
others.
As I said in Post #11 What difference would it make,
philosophically, if most of those who were Objectivists hated pistachio ice
cream and thought there was something a bit odd about anyone who would actually
prefer pistachio? I do not know about you, but I happen to like pistachio and I
wouldn't care if the whole damn world called me queer (or anything else) for
loving it.
I think the claim by homosexuals that their problems are the
result of what other people say or think is a copout. It is the same claim of
victimization all the other, "we have a claim on other's lives," looters make.
Now, don't get me wrong, I believe everyone has a right say and promote whatever
they like, and I will defend their right to claim their problems are somebody
else's fault. What I cannot do is assure anyone else is going to swallow that
line.
Look at what you say. How many young men and women have killed
themselves because of that bigotry?
Neither suicide or any other action
one chooses can be blamed on anyone else. This, "bigotry made me do," it is just
another copout for irrational behavior.
How much carnage has it left in
its wake, not just in terms of suicides but in people stricken by depression
stemming from the self-hatred they have been *taught* to feel.
Yep. The
homosexual's psychological problems are not their fault, its the fault of others
who taught them what to feel. Here is an individual who has been taught all
their life, "only this behavior is acceptable," which they have every right to
reject and do, with total disregard to what they have been taught. They behave
the way they choose to behave, and ought to. But, when it comes to their
feelings, they immediately cave in and feel what they have been taught to feel.
Nah. Not buying that.
Now I know you are likely to misjudge me.
Personally, I don't care about that, but I would like to have the motives for
what I say understood, if possible, so what I say can be understood.
There is one characteristic that is quite common to many homosexuals that I
greatly admire and would like to see more of in the general community. It is a
style, a flamboyance, a kind of defiance. It is an expression of, "it is my life
and I don't have to explain or apologize for how I live it to anybody."
I
think I know where it comes from. At some point, a homosexual realizes what he
is, that he is not going to change and has no desire to, and "to hell with
everyone else, that's the way it is." It is a kind of, "liberation,"
psychologically, that leads to the more public expression of it, called, "coming
out."
I think homosexuality, the practice and ultimately the "life-style"
is a chosen one, and I think it is a mistaken choice that harms the one that
makes it. Nevertheless, I both appreciate and applaud those who make their
choices boldly and in defiance of other's opinions, and take responsibility for
their choices. The cry today that homosexuals are oppressed (because others do
not like what they do and choose to express their opinions) and that all their
problems are caused by someone else is shameful.
Regi
Citizen Rat
Post 21
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 10:00am
Hi, Regi.
You certainly
have a way of putting a point on things that is on the mark.
>>I think
the claim by homosexuals that their problems are the result of what other people
say or think is a copout. It is the same claim of victimization all the other,
"we have a claim on other's lives," looters make.<<
Bingo! It is this
mantra of victimization that exhausts the goodwill of the vast majority of
Americans. Hence, the utter stupidity of the "homophobia" charge. A fella cannot
repeatedly accuse us of doing him wrong, when we KNOW we haven't, before we
become sick of him and his cause.
If that fella demands to be known as
"gay" and thus reduce his identity to his lust for sodomy, sobeit. However, most
of us are quite content to be oblivious about what others do in the bedroom. We
understand that sexual information is of an extremely private nature, therefore
people who want to publicize such things about themselves are odd. So, he
shouldn't blame the rest of us if we think his self-identification is a bit
peculiar and provokes some disagreeability.
That said ...
>>There
is one characteristic that is quite common to many homosexuals that I greatly
admire and would like to see more of in the general community. It is a style, a
flamboyance, a kind of defiance. It is an expression of, "it is my life and I
don't have to explain or apologize for how I live it to anybody."<<
You
know, Regi, I think there's something to this. My brother said to me the other
day in the context of all this rabble-rousing for same-sex marriage, "Why can't
gays be happy being gay?" What he meant by that was the enjoyment of the
flamboyant lifestyle that thumbed its nose at social convention instead of the
somewhat pathetic pursuit of a simulacrum of domesticity. You can admire the
former for its gusto, but the latter makes for a heavy heart: The futile cry for
approval when tolerance is the most that can be reasonably expected from the
public at large.
That's what the demand for same-sex marriage is all
about: Society's approval. The charge of discrimination is phony. The
institution of marriage is open to all. The government makes no inquiry into
sexual preferences when a couple applies for a marriage license. As for the
benefits of marriage, most of them can be had by private contract between any
two people, or group of people for that matter -- once again, without any
inquiry into sexual preferences.
The fact is that in 21st century
America, a gay couple can have most of what any married couple has WITHOUT the
issue of private sexual behavior ever coming up. So, the only thing same-sex
marriage accomplishes is PUBLIC blessing of homosexual conduct. Yet, why should
the public's approval of his initimate behavior matter to any serious person --
let alone an Objectivist? Indeed, why would he even want the public to have any
knowledge of such in the first place?
You know, Regi, the charming thing
about the old-fashioned flamboyance of the gay lifestyle was its actual
reticence about homosexuality. There was a certain sophistication to that, which
was widely appreciated -- even by us whim-worshipping Bible-beating red-state
hicks. I think we lost something worthwhile after we decided to "let it all hang
out" with Sexual Revolution. We are no longer permitted the cultivated ignorance
of things that don't matter in our normal interaction with each other, which is
truly the most fertile soil for tolerance.
Regards,
Bill
Jeremy
Johnson
Post 22
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:00am
Thanks for responding
at length, Chris. I appreciate that immensely.
Regi, I think your last
post was right on, with the exception of: and I think it is a mistaken choice
that harms the one that makes it.
You'll have to prove that some aspect
unique to homosexual behavior is immoral or physically harmful. Other than that,
nicely said. And I know my approval means everything to you. : P
Bill,
you're oversimplifying one issue. Homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is not
just whatever conduct takes place in the bedroom, i.e. sodomy. (Which just about
every adult practices at one point or another. It does include oral sex, you
know.) Public displays of affection, phone calls from work to check on your
loved one, dining out, holding hands...these things are done to express feelings
for your significant other, not to proclaim your sexuality to the world. If you
condemn any expressions of love in public view, or any declarations of sexual
proclivity, then do so for every form of sexuality, not just the one you happen
to disapprove of. Love, and the expression thereof, is not limited to what
occurs behind closed doors. And telling gays they should keep it in the closet
is silly, unless you are willing to not give your wife a peck on the cheek after
a walk on the beach. I can't imagine restraining or concealing my affection in
such a way. (Ahem...with my woman, not yours. : P)
Citizen Rat
Post 23
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 1:17pm
Hi, Jeremy.
You say: >>Homosexuality,
as with heterosexuality, is not just whatever conduct takes place in the
bedroom, i.e. sodomy. (Which just about every adult practices at one point or
another. It does include oral sex, you know.)<<
Well, I DON'T know,
Jeremy. I have NO knowledge of what anyone does in the bedroom besides my wife
and me. Understanding that fact is fundamental to the points I have made.
For example: A person kissing another in public are communicating with each
other, not me. What do I know about them? Nothing. What business is it of mine?
Nothing. If I need to take notice of every stranger's inoffensive conduct and
draw conclusions about it, I'm the one with a problem. Besides being nosy, I'm
assuming more knowledge than I properly have.
As for a person's
homosexuality, how do I know about that unless that person tells me or engages
in an homosexual act -- i.e., sodomy? Fortunately, I'm not likely to witness the
latter, but the former is becoming quite common. In any event, the only thing I
can judge are another man's words or deeds. The condition of homosexuality is
nothing to judge; it simply is what a person is regarding what sexually excites
him. However, I can rightly question the need for a person to inform me of this,
especially if he goes so far as to announce his primary identity as "gay". What
a fellow tells his intimates is one thing, but anyone who wants to make public
his sexual preferences is probably a fool or possibly a nut. (I have to
condition this statement, because I do recognize that some people share private
burdens they have in order to help others understand how best to cope with them.
Doing so sounds altruistic to me, but then I'm not an Objectivist, so I can see
how making public such intimate information can be a good thing for others
within a limited context.) Therefore, Jeremy, if a homosexual insists upon
informing me of that, especially when I have no need to know it, he cannot
complain if I respond that I think its queer of him to do so.
As for
equating homosexual conduct to heterosexual conduct so that questioning the
former in a given context means the same for the latter is to ignore what is
normal. This is not, as you incorrectly accuse me of, to tell gays to stay in
the closet. It is merely a matter that if a person conducts himself in an
unusual manner, he cannot complain of the notice he attracts. Furthermore, he
would be foolish to not expect disagreement with his abnormal behavior. The
point Regi was making, and I assented to, was that it was at least admirable
when a homosexual flouted normality without a care to what the world thought. He
was going to be his own man, and that was that. Now many homosexuals want to
flout normality BUT demand we approve of such as normal. This is to demand that
we participate in a lie: That human nature has no norms (which is the effect of
insisting that everything a human is capable of doing is normal).
The
bottom line is that a fellow who wants to parade his homosexuality can do so. If
he wants to pretend that being homosexual is the same as being heterosexual, as
in contracting faux-marriage, who cares? If he doesn't want to conceal his
sexual proclivities from the public, sobeit. What is unreasonable is any
complaint from him if others, especially those who have absolutely no interest
in his intimate affairs, do not approve of what he will not permit them to
ignore.
Regards,
Bill
(Edited by Citizen Rat on 6/02, 1:49pm)
Jeremy Johnson
Post 24
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 3:33pm
Bill,
I doubt that gay people are flocking to your door in droves and flouting
their sexuality in your face. "Oh, hi Bill. I'm gay!" It is uncommon to be gay.
So what? You want to be ignorant of it, then ignore it, whatever "it" is that
puts you off about gay people. Don't go to gay parades. Don't watch Will and
Grace. Don't watch that Queer Eye show. It is unreasonable for anyone to demand
acceptance of any aspect of their lives from others. It is not required, it is
not justified, to live a happy, rational life. But I don't believe gay people
think their sexuality is something so abhorrent that it requires shrouds of
secrecy and making sure no one sees a harmless display of affection--just like
straight people. I imagine gay people think their sexuality is normal for them,
knowing the percentage of gays compared to heteros. And most of them probably
don't care if you accept their lifestyle or not. You're the one making that
assumption, Queer Eye and rainbow parades notwithstanding. (gay people like to
be famous as well. I agree though that it's the method and nature of their rise
to fame that counts most--i.e. did they get famous because of being gay?)
So, I think your tactic of overall ignorance is a good idea, for both sides,
whatever the sides are. And yes, anyone who identifies themselves perpetually by
their sexuality is an idiot.
(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/02, 3:45pm)
Reginald Firehammer
Post 25
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 5:42pm
Bill,
You said: "... that was the enjoyment of the flamboyant lifestyle that
thumbed its nose at social convention instead of the somewhat pathetic pursuit
of a simulacrum of domesticity. You can admire the former for its gusto ...."
Flamboyance
Oscar Wilde was lying on his death bed drinking champagne
when a friend asked him, "Oscar, what do you think you're doing?" To which Oscar
replied, "Alas, I am dying beyond my means."
Regi
Logan Feys
Post 26
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 7:11pm
Bill, Regi:
Do you regard
anal copulation as non-objective sex? Are gay and/or straight sodomites
immoral...or naughty...or merely abnormal?
Although many people outright
choose to become homosexuals and others develop into homosexuals at some point
in their lives for various potential reasons (perhaps subconscious), certainly
others are born that way. So for those who are by nature attracted to the same
sex, what should they do about it? Suppress their urges and deny themselves any
sexual gratification? Or should they indulge only in non-anal intimacy? Or is
the anus and its legitimate function not the issue at all? If not, then what is?
-Logan
Citizen Rat
Post 27
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:37pm
Regi,
To read a quip like that can't help but put a smile on one's face.
Thanks,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 28
Wednesday, June 2, 2004
- 9:43pm
Hi, Jeremy.
>>I doubt that gay people are flocking to your
door in droves and flouting their sexuality in your face.<<
That's not
exactly true when they are demanding that the state sanction their
relationships, which I as an employer will be forced to accommodate.
Nevertheless, I honestly don't care if I'm allowed to ignore what I have no
desire to know. It seems we agree on that point.
Regards,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 29
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:48pm
Logan:
You ask: >>So for those who are by nature attracted to the same sex, what should
they do about it?<<
You may as well ask me what geniuses should do with
their gift or alcoholics with their penchant for liquor. It's not my business to
tell others how to live their lives, especially if they have not consulted me on
the subject.
Regards,
Bill
Cameron Pritchard
Post 30
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:14pm
I wrote:
Given my recent posts on
this subject, I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.
Reginald responded, asking:
"Then why do you do it?"
Because I
want to live in a culture where flawed stereotypes are replaced with knowledge;
and quite frankly, where homosexuality is not just tolerated, but accepted and
celebrated. Why? Because culture influences politics. Because if the culture at
large is anti-gay or grossly misunderstands the gay lifestyle, freedom for gays
is shaky at best. Because nobody has ever been spat at, beaten up, imprisoned or
murdered for liking pistachio ice cream. Because what others think very often
*is* an issue of life or death importance, especially if the government denies
you the same rights as straights or if you've just been beaten to a bloody pulp.
Of course it's true that none of us have to accept the guilt we've been
taught. But to do so by oneself, without any help from a book, a friend, a
philosophy, is a titanic task which few, I submit, have the psychological
capacity to do especially when their psychology has already been so crippled.
Don't underestimate the power of ideas, especially if the teaching begins early,
and the power and force with which those ideas stick in the mind (asked anyone
raised on religion). Yes, individuals can change their ideas but it's
rationalism to suggest it can be done overnight or divorced from a context in
which the individual finds support and recognition in their struggle. (I refer
here to guilt, which I believe one can get rid of. I'm not talking here of
homosexuality, which I don't believe it's possible to change. Those who bang on
about changing the latter seem oblivious to the psychological power of the
former, though no doubt in many cases they are themselves its victims.)
And I must ask this: why do * you* do it? Buckets of misinformation are thrown
around about the gay lifestyle, and when gays dare respond we get asked: "why do
you care what we say, don't you have any self-esteem?" Since when did
self-esteem mean not fighting to espouse the truth about yourself and your loved
ones against a culture of myth and fear?
Lindsay Perigo
Post 31
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:11am
Magnificent post, Cam. Don't worry about the
wall. As we know, walls crumble ... sometimes when we least expect them to.
Linz
sciabarra
Post 32
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:59am
Look,
you gents can't have it both ways: With one breath, you want gays to proclaim
their flamboyance, on floats, and in parades---a clear indication, you think, of
not giving a damn what others say; with the next breath, you think it is
irritating when people who are gay are so in-your-face with their "lifestyle."
With one breath, you want gays to act like everybody else; with the next breath,
you think it is annoying when people who are gay want to marry, like everybody
else.
In any event, I really wish you gents would stop talking about gays
as "they" this, and "they" that. If my monograph shows anything, it's that being
"gay" is no more monolithic than being "straight." Most people who are gay live
"normal" lives: they go to work, they have families, they go away on vacation.
And a sizable contingent of gay men and women has slowly taken shape, influenced
by Rand and other great libertarian thinkers, challenging all the gay left
orthodoxies you reject as well.
I agree fundamentally with Cameron on the
issue of culture and politics, as I expressed in my very last message: Those of
you who are influenced by Ayn Rand and who would not question for a moment what
she says about "The Comprachicos" stunting the development of children, do not
realize how the culture itself has "Comprachicos" who use the weapon of guilt to
fight things with which they do not approve. You think it's easy to break that
cycle of guilt? If it were so easy, why did Rand herself have to declare war
against the culture of 2,500 years? That war is still being fought by every
human being on this planet who would seek a life without pain, fear, shame, or
guilt.
Gays are seeking the same thing, which is why Rand's message has
resonated with so many. They have to fight all the "normal" pressures of coming
to maturity, like everybody else. But their battle typically goes one step
further, since their orientation requires them to "check their premises" if they
wish to declare their spiritual independence and rescue their self-esteem from a
deadening culture, one that bombards them with anti-gay messages, articulated
and tacit, coming from billboards, from books, from movies, from religious
institutions, from social organizations, from parents, from colleagues. The very
act of "checking premises" liberates. I would think that is something that a
Rand audience would welcome.
Citizen Rat
Post 33
Thursday, June
3, 2004 - 5:39am
Cameron:
You wrote: >>Because I want to live in a
culture where flawed stereotypes are replaced with knowledge; and quite frankly,
where homosexuality is not just tolerated, but accepted and celebrated.<<
OK then. When does the gay community start celebrating my Catholicism? You
see, I was born a Catholic and raised in a Catholic culture. It's not easy to
change your stripes, you know. I tried, but failed. Now I'm more Catholic then
ever. So when does the celebration begin?
By the way, will there be cake
and ice cream?
Regards,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 34
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 5:53am
Linz:
You wrote to Cameron: >>Don't
worry about the wall. As we know, walls crumble ... sometimes when we least
expect them to.<<
Fortunately for the gay community the walls have
already crumbled. Tolerance is the norm in American society and certainly in the
rest of the Western world. (A good thing.) Indeed, among the younger generation,
I dare say it even goes beyond tolerance. (Perhaps not such a good thing.)
Unfortunately, the gay community is infected with the leftist ideals of
identity politics. What else explains the comfort with which Cameron, in an
OBJECTIVIST forum of all places, can insist that everyone should "accept" and
"celebrate" homosexuality? Since when does a fella have such a claim upon me?
What entitles a homosexual to my approval? If he is an Objectivist, why on earth
would he even care in the first place?
What does it matter what I think,
so long as I leave the guy alone?
If you go along with Cameron on this,
it sounds like special pleading to me. If so, then maybe Regi's concerns about
the hijacking of Objectivism have validity.
Regards,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 35
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 6:19am
Hi, Chris.
You said to Regi and me: >>Look, you gents can't have it both ways ...<<
No, we can't, but then neither of us are trying to do what you say. Regi was
making the same point he did when he said an Objectivist can properly recognize
the fortitude of Mel Gibson in realizing his artistic vision, "The Passion of
the Christ", even if you disapprove of the film. I agreed with him. I can admire
principled defiance, even if I think what is being defied is a good thing.
All the rest boils down to something simple. A gay fella shouldn't care what
I think. However, if he insists upon knowing by way of demanding my approval, he
has no legitimate complaint if he then learns he doesn't have my approval.
Regi and I are proponents of live and let live. To make such a policy
effective, I find that I'm quite good at ignoring that which I do not care for,
especially when it is none of my business in the first place. Tolerance is
wonderful virtue. It allows all of us to make our choices without the absurd
pretense that we all think each choice is just as good as every other -- or
worse, being dragooned into Cameron's celebration of homosexuality.
Tolerance is a swell thing, Chris. I'll settle for it every time.
Regards,
Bill
sciabarra
Post 36
Thursday, June 3, 2004 -
7:50am
Bill, there is a lot of Catholic-bashing that goes on in American
culture: Catholics get bashed by the secular leftists, for example. But
Catholics fight back, whether it is with the St. Patrick's Day Parade (which,
here in New York, disallows any gay groups from marching under that banner---and
I believe it is the organizers' right to invite whomever they wish); or with
Gibson's "Passion of The Christ" (which is one of the top money-makers of all
time, and attracted even evangelicals); or with the moral suasion that is
carried by the Vatican on issues as diverse as abortion, homosexuality, the
death penalty, and the war in Iraq. Nobody stops Catholics from having their
parades or making their movies or uttering their moral pronunciations, and
nobody should stop them. Same with gays, blacks, women, the old, the short, the
sick, the obese, and so forth. (There is a problem, of course, in a society
where the mixed economy manufactures such groups as pressure groups: but the
problem is not with gays, blacks, women, the old, the short, the sick, the
obese. The problem is with the system that makes the group the fundamental unit
of politics, and group-ism and tribal-ism the only ideology worth having if one
wishes to advance politically.)
I too believe that tolerance is a liberal
virtue in a multifaceted society, and, ultimately, laissez faire is the best
policy: Leave all of us alone to pursue our own unique vision of happiness. It's
just that in a social context, people will invariably speak their minds, show
off their butts, and so forth: and you all have the right to approve or
disapprove, agree or disagree. Thank goodness.
Indeed, as Rand said: "It
is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to
disagree..."---and that's why I think a society of privacy is the only truly
civilized society.
Citizen Rat
Post 37
Thursday, June 3,
2004 - 9:33am
Hi, Chris.
>>I too believe that tolerance is a liberal
virtue in a multifaceted society, and, ultimately, laissez faire is the best
policy: Leave all of us alone to pursue our own unique vision of happiness. It's
just that in a social context, people will invariably speak their minds, show
off their butts, and so forth: and you all have the right to approve or
disapprove, agree or disagree. Thank goodness.<<
You're right. So I would
amend my paean to tolerance a bit to make it clear that it includes tolerance of
disagreement.
As for the Catholic-bashing. Yes, it is common, and it is
mostly self-righteous stupidity that is best ignored. Unfortunately, too many of
my co-religionists seize upon the antics of the bashers to don the envied mantle
of victimhood. It's fine for Catholic polemicists to point out the falsehoods
and foolishness of the bashers, but when they suggest that their tripe is
oppressive they give the bashers too much credit. We're long past the days when
my father couldn't get a job because of his religion.
Regards,
Bill
Citizen Rat
Post 38
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 10:08am
Hi, Chris.
>>Indeed, as Rand said: "It is the institution of private property that
protects and implements the right to disagree..."---and that's why I think a
society of privacy is the only truly civilized society.<<
Thank you for
the link to your article on the Lawrence decision.
I think you'll find
that most conservatives, such as myself, oppose anti-sodomy laws. However, we
hadn't got much bothered by their existence because they were mostly dead
letters. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say the most conservatives who
disagreed with the Lawrence decision did so, because they objected to yet
another erosion of federalism in exchange for the elimination of laws that had,
as a practical matter, almost no adverse impact upon anyone. Moreover many of
them felt at the time it would give ammunition to an activist judiciary to
implement same-sex marriage throughout country.
The conservative concern
about the integrity of federalism is legitimate, though it may be a lost cause
as the welfare state grinds forward. Whatever actual increase in our liberty
provided by the Lawrence decision is trivial to the nullification of federalism,
a critical structural guarantee of our liberty, in yet another area of the law
and politics.
And the conservative concern about the mischief that could
be made with the Lawrence decision was not misplaced: Massachusetts.
Regards,
Bill
Reginald Firehammer
Post 39
Thursday, June 3,
2004 - 2:46pm
Hi Logan,
Thanks for the question. Since you asked me
for my opinion, that is what I am giving. I am not telling you are anyone else
they have to share it.
First, I am only going to address the homosexual
question, to avoid the mixed bag you presented in your first question. To that
question, with regard to homosexual behavior, a man with a man, or a woman with
a woman, whatever they do, it is abnormal. In any case where they themselves
also believe it is abnormal, and still choose the practice, it is also immoral,
but strictly immoral in the personal sense. It is still no one else's business.
I do not accept you premise that homosexuals are, "born that way."
Nature does not provide human beings with any predetermined practices, except
for those which are strictly biological functions, reflexes, or part of the
autonomic nervous system. Everything else that human beings do, they must learn
to do and must do by choice. Before they can choose, they must learn what
choices are available and what the consequences of particular choices are.
Sex is no different than any other human practice. We have to learn what it
is, how it works, what it is for, what ways it can be used to our benefit, and
what ways using it might harm us.
Human beings are not born with desires
for any particular thing. The desires we do have as givens are totally
generalized--we desire food, but that desire is not for any particular food and
gives us absolutely no information about what constitutes food, which things are
good for us to eat and which are not, or how to acquire that food. We desire
sex, but that desire does not tell us how to satisfy it, what behaviors which
might satisfy it are consistent with the requirements of our nature and which
are not. We must learn all of these things. Desires for particular things are
the result of that learning.
No one is born with a desire for either a
male or a female, because, for one thing, they do not even know there are such
things. We have to learn that we are males or females, and that we are sexually
designed to satisfy our sexual desires with one of whichever kind we are not.
Essentially, homosexuality is a mistake in learning reinforced by habituation.
There are an infinite variety of reasons why this wrong learning occurs, and
none of them exclude individual choice.
I also do not regard desires,
passions, and urges as the right means of choosing what one ought to do. There
is absolutely no behavior that cannot be justified on those grounds. There is no
desire about which one cannot say, "what should they do about it? Suppress their
urges and deny themselves any ... [fill in your favorite vice], e.g., sex with
children, sex cadavers, or animals; mutilating themselves, eating dirt or
needles {pica is the name of that disorder} or anything else one might desire.
Except for sex with children, the others harm no one else, but we do not
consider them normal, and they are all self-destructive.
The idea that
the suppression of desires is some terrible thing is absurd. We suppress far
more desires than we ever satisfy, simply because we have more desires than we
have time or ability to fulfill. Life is like a menu with an infinite number of
desirable things. If we are to enjoy our lives, we must choose from that menu
those things we desire which will do us the most good, including giving us
pleasure. The desires themselves do not tell us which to choose, and which to
repress. That is the purpose of values. Choosing does not make the desires we do
not choose go away, or at least not immediately, we must repress them. We all do
this all the time and never giver it second thought.
Everyone who has
ever desired to do anything wrong, and chosen to do the right thing has had to
repress the desire to do wrong. That is what moral character is. There is no
particular moral virtue in never doing anything wrong if one is never tempted or
has a desire to do anything wrong. Moral character is repressing the desire to
do wrong and doing right, no matter how much one desires to do otherwise.
The whole idea that repression of desires is bad has been foisted on society
by the priests of psychobabble. Any outrageous thing anyone does today is
excused as not being their fault, because they were born with (or society caused
them to have) some "irresistible" desires. After all, what are they supposed to
do? Repress their desires and behave like decent people?
Regi
Robert Bisno
Post 40
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:33pm
To those who
oppose homosexuality
lets assume, for the sake of argument, that no one
is born gay. fine.
let us also assume they can become straight if they want.
next question: why bother?
by what standard is homosexuality as such
(as opposed to certain specific practices within the homosexual community)
immoral or defective? what's self destructive about it? and I don't wanna hear
anything about STDs, unprotected sex, or promiscuity-- these are not essentials
of homosexuality, and they exist in large number among heterosexuals also. and I
don't wanna hear anything about "abnormality" either: this is a collectivist
standard, by which everyone on this website is "abnormal". the very term
"abnormal" is meaningless as a normative, unless one wishes to imply that the
majority is morally superior by simple virtue of being the majority. Can you
name any essential of homosexuality which rationally, egoistically, makes it
wrong or self destructive in and of itself?
what makes homosexuality the
type of desire such that it is more egoistic to repress it than to follow it?
what essential aspect of it makes it any less "decent" than heterosexuality?
Reginald Firehammer
Post 41
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:38pm
Cameron,
I am not sure what the purpose of your post is. If it is looking
for, "atta-boys," from those who already agree with you, it was apparently very
effective.
If, however, it is meant to persuade those who disagree with
you, while I cannot speak for the others, it sounds like a big whine to me.
And I think that is not a fair representation of you. The homosexuals that
post on SOLO, are not whiners, and certainly do not act like victims. Do you
really think no one is aware that some people treat homosexuals, and others as
well, from ignorance and prejudice, despicably? Do you think we do not despise
it?
The argument that homosexuals suffer psychological problems and
behave they way the militant homosexuals do, which Lindsay himself deplores, is
groundless and a slap-in-the-face at all those persecuted people who exhibit no
such psychological failures.
What people have been hated, mistreated, and
abused from prejudice and ignorance more than blacks. What group has ever been
taught they are inferior and teated as though they were more than the blacks.
Historically, suicide and psychological problems among blacks have never been
significantly statistically different than the general community.
What
group of people has ever suffered more at the hands of those who hate and
despise them, enduring persecution homosexuals, or any of us, can only imagine
than the Jews. Historically, suicide and psychological problems have never been
significantly statistically different than the general community.
Recently there has been a surge in the suicide rates for young blacks. This
increase is not the result of some sudden new persecution or prejudice against
them, it is the result of their own practices and views, just as it is in the
homosexual community.
Cameron, argue for your case, defend your views as
strongly as you can, but know the moment an argument is made that blames
anyone's problems or behavior on what other people do, while it may seem
convincing to you, to everyone else it is just a copout.
Regi
Reginald Firehammer
Post 42
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:41pm
Chris,
You said: Look, you gents can't have it both ways ...
I must say that
seems strange coming from you, defender of all variations, even those who want
it "both ways."
Regi
Reginald Firehammer
Post 43
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 4:31pm
Chris,
I admire your intelligence and
clear reasoning, but this is really a stretch:
I agree fundamentally with
Cameron on the issue of culture and politics, as I expressed in my very last
message: Those of you who are influenced by Ayn Rand and who would not question
for a moment what she says about "The Comprachicos" stunting the development of
children, do not realize how the culture itself has "Comprachicos" who use the
weapon of guilt to fight things with which they do not approve. You think it's
easy to break that cycle of guilt? If it were so easy, why did Rand herself have
to declare war against the culture of 2,500 years? That war is still being
fought by every human being on this planet who would seek a life without pain,
fear, shame, or guilt.
Comprachicos? That metaphor is for those who take
children before they are fully formed and, by force, distort their bodies (as
the actual comprachicos did) of, metaphorically, their minds (as American school
teachers do). If there are comprachicos today, (other than school teachers) it
is the homosexual movement's influence within the public schools attempting to
create more homosexuals out of perfectly normal children. Even you do not
approve of that.
Comparing the views, opinions, speech, and propaganda,
no matter how despicable, of those who cannot force them on anyone to
comprachicos is totally out of court.
And what in the world does this
mean: ... Rand herself have to declare war against the culture of 2,500 years?
I'm sure you'll beat me up on this one, but I had to ask, because I have no
idea what culture of 2500 years you are talking about. What culture has lasted
2500 years? (I know you'll make me look stupid, but since most people already
think I am, nobody will notice.)
Regi
Robert Bisno
Post 44
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 4:41pm
reg:
"If there are comprachicos today,
(other than school teachers) it is the homosexual movement's influence within
the public schools attempting to create more homosexuals out of perfectly normal
children."
what are you talking about? no one proposes making children
gay! do they want approval? yes. to be tolerated? yes. to be pitied as victims?
yes. but when has anyone ever demanded that there be more homosexuals?
Reginald Firehammer
Post 45
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 6:42pm
Hi Robert,
Your post was not really addressed to me, because I do not "oppose"
homosexuality. I do not oppose those who chose to throw their money away on
gambling, or destroy their health and life with drugs, or even produce a string
of kids by every woman on the block (if they would only support them), either. I
do recognize that these are all self-destructive behaviors, and advise those
interested to avoid them, for their own sake.
lets assume, for the sake
of argument, that no one is born gay. fine.
let us also assume they can
become straight if they want.
next question: why bother?
If this
is really the question you mean to ask, ... assume they can become straight if
they want. ...why bother? The answer is, if they want and they can, it is in
their own best interest to do it.
The assumption I think you are really
making is that they will not want to, and why should they change, even if they
can, in that case. In that case, there is no reason. I have no advice for them.
Now this is the question you are really getting at: Can you name any
essential of homosexuality which rationally, egoistically, makes it wrong or
self destructive in and of itself?
Of course. In fact that is the whole
point. Remember, your other premise is: for the sake of argument, ... no one is
born gay.
That means, homosexuality is chosen, not imposed on those who
choose homosexual practices.
I believe that human beings have a specific
nature and that nature includes both the psychological and physiological. Both
aspects are by nature meant to be in harmony and work together for the survival
and benefit of the human as a living organism. They are all we have to work
with, we better use them according to the requirements of their nature.
It is obvious that human beings are sexual beings. Not all creatures are. Some
are asexual, for example. Physiologically, we are designed to have sex with
someone of the opposite sex. That is what a sexual creature is. This is very
difficult to be mistaken about (though some apparently are).
In my post
#39 I explained that human beings are not born with either specific desires or
knowledge of how to satisfy those desires. They are all learned, developed, and
chosen. In the process of developing our desires and behavior, to be successful
as human beings, these must conform to the requirements of our nature, both
psychological and physiological.
Obviously, many people choose behavior
contrary to the requirements of their nature. For example, a common problem for
young women today is "cutting." They cut themselves to satisfy some perceived
desire of need. The behavior is obviously contrary to the requirements of their
nature, and while seldom life-threatening, nevertheless does them great harm,
both physically and psychologically. Every organ has a specific nature and
purpose. The skin is not made for intentional cutting.
With regard to
sex, almost as soon as one understands their specific nature, as a male or
female, their thinking and actions begin to develop the behavior and desires
appropriate to their sex and the use of their organs with someone of the
complementary sex. For any number of reasons, some people do not develop desires
fitting their physiological nature, at first, and for a while are confused by
conflicting feelings. At that stage, most make the explicit decision, based on
what they know they are, either a male or female, realizing that desires
conflicting with what is obviously their nature, are contradictory. For them,
the conflicting desires quickly fade, and those desires consistent with their
nature are reinforced.
Not all make that decision. Instead of making
their choice of development based on their best rational judgement, they
surrender to their to their irrational desires, and from that moment on, all
their thinking rationalizes that choice and all their actions reinforces the
irrational desires. They can never escape the fact, however, that what they have
chosen is a fundamental contradiction, a disintegration expressed as desires
obviously in conflict with their physiological nature. While the homosexual
frequently argues that it would be wrong for them to, "suppress," his desires,
their entire lifestyle suppresses what is obvious even to them, what they do is
directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do. (I do not
mean any particular sexual practice, I mean a man with a man, or a woman with a
woman, whatever it is they actually do.)
The greatest harm of
homosexuality is psychological. I makes one's whole life a contradiction, and
requires a compartmentalization, a disintegration of one's psychology, to keep
the contradiction from intruding on other aspects of one's consciousness.
Nevertheless, there are also physiological consequences of the actual
practices of homosexuals as well, because they are contrary to the physiological
nature. Those consequences have nothing to do with STDs but the design of the
organs used in a way that is contrary to their nature.
Regi
Reginald Firehammer
Post 46
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 7:04pm
Robert,
what are you talking about?
Queering the Schools
Regi
Robert Bisno
Post 47
Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 10:29pm
"While the
homosexual frequently argues that it would be wrong for them to, "suppress," his
desires, their entire lifestyle suppresses what is obvious even to them, what
they do is directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do.
(I do not mean any particular sexual practice, I mean a man with a man, or a
woman with a woman, whatever it is they actually do.)"
this seems to be
something of a naturalistic fallacy. the fact that our bodies are anatomically
'meant' to do something does not mean that it is necessarily good or conducive
to human happiness that they do it. the classic example here is having children:
our bodies are "meant" to produce offspring. yet many people choose to not have
children, even though, by taking every action to avoid reproduction, "what they
do is directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do."
"human nature" arguments are usually unpersuasive. the very concept of
declaring normatives on grounds of "because your nature says so" seems to run
into a fallacy: if something is truly an entity's nature, it cannot but do that,
so its pointless to tell something to "follow its nature."
What is needed
instead of arguments about whether or not someone is properly following human
nature (a meaningless question for the reasons mentioned above.) but rather,
given the facts of human nature, particularly the facts of happiness and pain,
we must judge which actions cause how much pleasure and how much pain over a
given time scale and compared with alternatives. we must ask which desires
either cause benefit or harm, over what time scale, and why. to ask about
"accordance with human nature" is not the real issue: the real issue is: what do
you want, and what consequences are you willing to accept as the "cost" of
attaining it? unless you can point out that homosexuality in and of itself
causes psychological duress, pain, or disintegration above and beyond what
heterosexuality causes, or is significantly lesser in terms of the benefits it
can bring, simply to say that it is an evasion of what we were meant to do does
not cut it. the issue is not some intrinsic purpose, but, practically, what
things cause longevity or happiness, versus what things cause pain or death.
"The greatest harm of homosexuality is psychological. I makes one's whole
life a contradiction, and requires a compartmentalization, a disintegration of
one's psychology, to keep the contradiction from intruding on other aspects of
one's consciousness."
contradiction of what? the fact that one was
"meant" to be heterosexual? again, what people were "meant" to do is irrelevant
and what matters is what either gives them happiness or unhappiness over a given
time scale. I don't see what compartmentalization or evasion is at necessary
here: such, it seems, would only be necessary if one's values are such that one
disapproves of homosexuality. if one was never taught such ideas, I do not see
why this would be an issue.
Ed Thompson
Post 48
Thursday, June 3,
2004 - 11:12pm
Robert,
In your post above, you've appealed to the
notion of the "naturalistic fallacy." And it seems you've done so precisely in
order to remove a (real or apparent) norm of behavior and thereby place the
burden of proof on Regi to show an intractable "harm" from homosexuality within
the context of one's life. While earnest to hear Regi's reply, I can't help but
to chime-in with a tangential retort - and a re-direct of this "onus" that you
have so decisively placed on Regi's shoulders.
This "fallacy" you mention
is something I have had to change my view on in the last several years of study.
It is something which I now feel is to better understand as the
"Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds" fallacy.
Robert, I'm
personally curious to discover your view on those principles of Natural Law
which led to the discovery and validation of natural, inalienable human rights.
And especially on how you contrast what's essential to these principles with
what's essential to those utilized in Regi's argument.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/03, 11:16pm)
Robert Bisno
Post 49
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 12:07am
Ed,
"Robert, I'm personally curious to
discover your view on those principles of Natural Law which led to the discovery
and validation of natural, inalienable human rights."
the key difference
between discussion of human rights and the discussion of homosexuality is that,
in the case of of human rights, a clear harm can be shown by their absence.
societies without the concept of rights can kill you, and, above and beyond mere
possibility, even a cursory analysis of the historical record can show that they
not only carry within themselves the possibility of fatality, but deliver on
this possibility very frequently. ultimately, I would say that one does not need
the concept of "natural law", or any specified model of human nature, to realize
the necessity of human rights at this point: given the historical record of our
time, it can be deduced empirically, even by someone who lacks any sort of
theoretical explanation as to why things would work out in such a way. clearly,
some understanding human nature may help here, but it will only be relevant to
the extent that it is of the very delimited sort I have allowed: facts
pertaining to human survival/death or happiness/pain. A matter is only ethical
to the extent that it is relevant to these four concepts. the presence or
absence of rights is very, very relevant in its effect on these.
I do not
mean to say that all facets of human nature are without ethical import.
obviously the fact that cyanide can kill you very clearly leads to the moral
fact that consuming it is a bad idea. but facts about human nature do not
necessarily have ethical or normative import, nor are they the standard of
ethics: the standards of ethics are human happiness and survival. a fact of
biological ergon, to use the aristotelian term, or "function", is by itself
irrelevant: it is only relevant to the extent that it affects one's status as
living or dead, happy or unhappy.
(Edited by Robert Bisno on 6/04, 12:10am)
Robert Bisno
Post 50
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 12:12am
Ed:
also: please define and explain the
"Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds fallacy" that you contrast with
the "naturalistic fallacy".
sciabarra
Post 51
Friday, June 4, 2004
- 4:46am
Okay, Regi: if you want it both ways... be my guest. Just know: It's
a choice. :)
Regi writes: "Historically, suicide and psychological
problems among blacks have never been significantly statistically different than
the general community."
The extent of devastation in the American black
community has been well documented; it may not manifest itself in suicide
problems, but it does manifest itself in substance abuse, crime, and other
conditions. People in groups that have a history of oppression do create a
culture around them that internalizes self-hatred. Not every person in that
group internalizes such self-hatred; but it is a sociological phenomenon whether
we choose to deal with it or not. (I don't want to "play out" a debate about
"psychobabble" here---because Regi and I have a go-at-it in the upcoming Free
Radical. Suffice it to say, however, there is plenty of discussion of repression
in Objectivist periodicals that clarify the meaning and importance of that
concept, and its implications for psychology and culture.)
We can talk
all we want about the condition of homosexuals in America today: But there is a
history of oppression here that cannot be denied: Religious oppression (priests,
rabbis, imams, etc. telling their flock that they are immoral for even thinking
same-sex thoughts); political oppression (whether we're talking about
state-sanctioned priests, i.e., psychiatrists, using all sorts of therapeutic
techniques---drugs, electro-shock therapy, and aversion therapy---to "treat"
their homosexual clients; or, until recently, selective enforcement of sodomy
statutes); social repression (which includes being bullied in a school-yard,
being taunted by classmates, being beaten by thugs, or being crucified on a
fence). And we're lucky we live in a culture where you don't lose your limbs or
life if you get caught performing a homosexual act. Yes, things are better today
for gay men and women than they were, say, 40 years ago. But that's because gay
men and women have taken to defending themselves and standing up for their right
to exist.
BTW, as an aside, when she wrote Atlas Shrugged, Rand declared:
"I know that I am challenging the cultural tradition of two and a half thousand
years." By this, of course, she meant that she was challenging the altruism and
mysticism of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (The quote comes from Who is Ayn
Rand?)
Finally: I have to ask those heterosexuals who think homosexuality
is "chosen": Do you get up each day and say: "Today, I think, I'll choose to
have sex with my girlfriend or my wife. Whew! Thank goodness! I could have
chosen to have sex with my best male friend... but, I chose correctly...
tomorrow, I'm not so sure..."
And with all this alleged inner
contradiction going on in the psyches of homosexuals: How do you explain the
fact that so many great artists, philosophers, and such, have been homosexual?
(Camille Paglia talks about this...) I mean: given the profound psychological
deterioration that you posit, Regi, it is hard to believe that anybody who is
homosexual could have possibly achieved anything other than total and complete
self-destruction. Tell that to the ancient Greeks, many of whom celebrated
same-sex activity, while providing Western civilization with a cradle of
philosophical, artistic, and scientific ideas that are still being played out
today. Tell that to the Renaissance men, like Michelangelo... and so forth.
Note: I'm not arguing that homosexuals are great because there are great men
and women who are homosexuals. Indeed, there are plenty of homosexual and
heterosexual demons. I just don't understand how people who are so fundamentally
wrong about one of the most important aspects of their humanity can be so
fundamentally right in other areas. Given the Objectivist view that internal
corruption often spreads to other areas of one's life, one would think, by the
picture you paint, that gay people are such psychological basket cases that they
are incapable of even being human, let alone achieving anything worthy of human
admiration.
I don't mean this flippantly... I'm honestly baffled.
Reginald Firehammer
Post 52
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 5:52am
Hi
Robert,
First I want to say thank you, and of course everyone else, for
maintaining the high level of rational discussion on this controversial subject.
I do not speak for him, but I know Dr. Sciabarra shares my appreciation for the
fact that the discussion has remained rational, rather than emotional. We both
know, even on this subject, disagreement does constitute judgement.
I may
come back to address your particular question, because it is one Ayn Rand had
some very specific things to say about--not homosexuality, but the fact that our
whole being has a particular nature, and identity, that determines what is good
for us and what is not. What the nature is and what the requirements of it are
we must discover.
For now, I will just address these comments:
...
this seems to be something of a naturalistic fallacy. the fact that our bodies
are anatomically 'meant' to do something does not mean that it is necessarily
good or conducive to human happiness that they do it.
It is true that
anatomical features do not dictate behavior, but that is not my point. If such
physical aspects do, "not mean that it is necessarily good or conducive to human
happiness that they do it," it certainly cannot mean it is "necessarily good or
conducive to human happiness," to act in defiance of that nature. The principle
works both ways.
If you want to argue that just because the obvious
anatomical design of our organs ifor male/female compatibility does not mean a
man ought to be with a woman, that is fine; but, it certainly cannot then be
argued that same design means a man ought to be with a man. The design does not
mean one has to be with anyone, sexually.
But the question is, if we are
going to be with someone sexually, how do we decide which it should be if we
ignore our physiological nature, and why should we ignore it? Your chosen
premise was, sexual orientation is not predetermined, or, in your own words,
"...that no one is born gay."
If sexuality is not determined by genetics
or some pre- or post-natal influences, it must be chosen, and if chosen, that
choice must be based on something. The one thing it cannot be based on is
desire, because we are not given desires, we develop them, and we develop them
as a result of our chosen values and purposes.
Let me make this extreme
hypothetical case. Suppose our nature was different than it is, and that our
sexuality was determined in this peculiar way:
At a certain age there
comes a day when we must choose our "sexual orientation." We are free to choose
any we like. There is up until that day no sexual desire at all. All we know are
the facts about sex, our own physiology, and that of the other sex, and how it
all works. The moment we make our choice, all of the desires appropriate to that
choice are, "turned on," and behaving according to the chosen orientation is
both fully satisfying and the only way that will satisfy us again. How, in this
hypothetical situation, would one go about make that choice? What ought they to
choose? Could they or should they ignore the physiological aspects of their
nature in making that choice? ...and if they do, on what basis would they then
make their choice.
In fact, this hypothetical case is not so different
from reality. It occurs over time rather than at one particular day, and the the
desires are developed concurrent with our choices and the development of our
values rather than instantly, but the principle is the same. It is our choices
that determine our desires, not the other way around.
It is our nature
that determines what is appropriate and necessary for us to do. Our nature is
our identity, what we are, and to act contrary to our nature is to act to our
own detriment and destruction. It is our volitional nature that makes it
necessary for us to live by conscious choice. It is our volitional nature that
makes it necessary to make our choices according to knowledge, and to judge
which desires may safely be fulfilled, and which must be denied. It is our
nature that determines we cannot ingest poison and if, as Ayn Rand says, we want
to preserve them, we must comb our hair and cut our nails. There is no aspect of
our nature that can be safely ignored when choosing what we must do.
The
opposite view, and the whole argument for homosexuality is that desire justifies
behavior without this rational judgement--in essence, the only argument for
homosexuality is that passion trumps reason. Though entirely personal,
homosexuality is nevertheless a tragic and colossal mistake.
You are
right, we must judge which actions cause how much pleasure and how much pain
over a given time scale and compared with alternatives. we must ask which
desires either cause benefit or harm, over what time scale, but you have
forgotten it is our natures that determine which actions will cause us pain and
pleasure and which desires fulfilled, long term, will harm us or benefit us.
Regi
Scott DeSalvo
Post 53
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 6:24am
Allow me to to comment briefly on Dr. Chris' assertion that:
"People in
groups that have a history of oppression do create a culture around them that
internalizes self-hatred."
Do Jews possess internalized self-hatred? Or
have they, time and again, galvanized themselves, pulled together as a group,
and made positive contributions for themselves and, incidentally, society?
BTW, I do not dispute the rest of your argument, DDD.
Ed Thompson
Post 54
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 1:44pm
Robert, you ask:
"Ed:
also: please define and explain the
'Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds fallacy' that you contrast with
the 'naturalistic fallacy'."
Robert, there are 2 special forms of the
naturalistic fallacy:
1) the jump from "is" (descriptive) premises to
"ought" (prescriptive) conclusions; an error which was illuminated - but not
originally discovered - by the late David Hume
2) and G.E. Moore's
non-teleological, frustrated (and frustrating) attempt to define "the good"
Robert, it is form number 2 above that I now understand would be much better
described as a "mediocre-minded" fallacy - something based on faulty first
principles. This insight stems from discovering 2 errors in Moore's thought:
A) equivocation of a "definition" with an "Identity"
B) steadfast
presumption (in spite of earlier Greek insights to the contrary) that "the good"
may be presented to a human mind as an abstract property divorced from its
originating context.
Chris, you ask:
"Finally: I have to ask
those heterosexuals who think homosexuality is 'chosen': Do you get up each day
and say: 'Today, I think, I'll choose to have sex with my girlfriend or my wife.
Whew! Thank goodness! I could have chosen to have sex with my best male
friend... but, I chose correctly... tomorrow, I'm not so sure...'
And
with all this alleged inner contradiction going on in the psyches of
homosexuals: How do you explain the fact that so many great artists,
philosophers, and such, have been homosexual?"
Chris, I believe
("believe" implies reaching a level of understanding still insufficient to
settle the issue with finality) in the continuum-theory of sexual orientation
touted by recent psychologists. What is essential to the theory is that one's
preference is not initially cut & dry or died-in-the-wool, per se. Instead,
there are individuals that have levels of preference between 100%
heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Assuming this is so, notice how
preference is a continuous variable while actions are dichotomous (leaving out
bisexuality for clear introduction of essentials). We choose behavior at the
extremes (leaving out early experimentation, which is not essential to chosen
life-style).
The quote from you above assumes that a choice that is made
repeatedly does not form habitual thought or action, and I disagree with that
assumption. Habits are that which is formed by repeated action, and in this
view, the choice - once made a thousand times before - does not present itself
to the individual with the same force.
As to your contrast between the
"alleged inner contradiction" and the common outer instances of excellence found
in homosexuals, I merely proclaim that "rationality and productiveness" will
necessarily trump "sexual orientation" as they are factors which carry much more
weight in the context of a human life.
Note: Regi (or even you!) may take
me to task for my use of the word "rationality" here (while implicitly
acknowledging an alleged inner contradiction). To this I retort that morality is
like a normative "journey up a mountain" where inter-individual progress is hard
to compare/measure - because it depends on our chosen paths, and not merely on
our walking/climbing speed. This does not preclude the measurement of
intra-individual progress, and perhaps this easier measure is all that we will
need to achieve lasting peace and happiness on this planet.
Ed
(Edited
by Ed Thompson on 6/04, 1:46pm)
sciabarra
Post 55
Friday, June
4, 2004 - 2:21pm
Scott, I am not Jewish, but there is a lot that has been
written from all over the ideological spectrum about the phenomenon of the
"self-hating Jew" and the kinds of case-specific, sometimes self-destructive,
actions that this provokes among individual Jews. (Indeed, there are also
"self-hating Italians" who try to "distance" themselves from those in their
"community" who are identified with the Mafia or who are "physical"---rather
than "intellectual"---laborers.)
I am not going to step into a minefield
and speculate about the validity of the construct; I only know that an even
cursory google search for "self-hating Jew" will turn up thousands of links,
some on the left, some on the right, some outside Judaism, some inside Judaism,
some Zionists, some anti-Zionists, some who even bring up the historical example
of Jews collaborating with Nazis in the death camps to win an extra day of life
while they led their brethren to the slaughter. (In such a nightmare existence,
of course, there are few, if any, moral choices to be made; the greatest crime
of those camps is that they made choice, as such, the enemy of rationality and
morality; see Sophie's Choice, for example).
It is very hard to gauge the
effects of anti-Semitism and 2000-year old charges of "deicide" on individual
men and women of the Jewish faith. Sometimes it leads to an even greater
"cosmopolitanism" or a call for "assimilation"; sometimes it leads to even
greater self-ghettoization. For example, I live in Brooklyn, where there are
many closed, orthodox, Hasidic Jewish communities that have, for the most part,
sealed themselves off from the outside world to preserve a culture, and,
perhaps, to act as a bulwark against the vicious anti-Semitism that they have
faced. There are positive and negative aspects that are entailed in this kind of
sociology, but speculating on these, again, would take us well beyond the
present scope.
The whole point is that hatred of a group has differential
effects on individual men and women. (A Jewish friend of mine once remarked:
"Anti-Semitism did one great thing: it gave birth to the Jewish
comedian"--implying of course that humor has provided many Jews with terrific
armour against hatred.)
On the subject of blacks and the effects of a
history of slavery and racism, see Chapter 12 of my book, Ayn Rand: The Russian
Radical, particularly pp. 343-48, where I discuss Rand's work and the work of
other Objectivist writers, such as George Reisman, who traces the social
disintegration in the African-American community to a history of political
intervention: slavery at first, then, zoning laws, rent control, public housing,
public education, urban "renewal," municipal health and sanitation services,
franchise and licensing laws, and a welfare system that nourishes dependence and
the psychology of victimization. Rand argued that this psychology was nourished
even by some civil rights leaders, since victimization was "a precondition of
the power to control a pressure group."
I think we ignore these
sociological dimensions at our peril.
sciabarra
Post 56
Friday,
June 4, 2004 - 2:37pm
Ed, thanks for your provocative thoughts here; I too
"believe" there is much to recommend in the "continuum theory" of sexual
orientation. Unfortunately, research into "sexual orientation" and "sexual
preference" is riddled with many conflicting theories. I think we just don't
know enough to judge "once and for all"; we certainly don't know enough to
moralize. And, in any event, even if it could be proved that all sexual
orientation is rooted in tacit and habitual "choices" made in the formative
years of childhood and adolescence, it would still not mean that we could or
should moralize about these choices. There are just too many complex factors at
work in human sexual psychology, and these have been manifested across all
cultures and all epochs.
In general, though I find the sociological
dimension of interest (see my last post), I don't even like talking and
generalizing about whole groups of people (which is one of the reasons I've been
complaining about those who would treat "gays"---or, for that matter, blacks,
Jews, or any other group---as a monolith).
(Edited by sciabarra on 6/04,
2:43pm)
Ed Thompson
Director of Outreach
Post 57
Friday,
June 4, 2004 - 2:38pm
Chris,
Clarification:
In the post above, I
said that "Regi (or even you!) may take me to task for my use of the word
"rationality" here (while implicitly acknowledging an alleged inner
contradiction)."
Then I started rambling on about climbing mountains,
necessarily being presented with different paths in life, and how
inter-individual moral excellence is difficult to judge/compare.
What I
was getting at is that it is likely that we all harbor a contradiction. It may
be an unimportant one with little existential value, or it may be a important
one. And beyond importance per se, "ease of identification" (obviousness) is
another continuum that contradictions will fall on. An example is the obvious
contradiction of the skepticist - claiming that they've used their mind to
discover and validate the fact of reality that human minds cannot be used to
discovery and validate the facts of reality. Less obvious contradictions abound,
and here is my point:
The "ease of identification" doesn't not imply the
level of existential value (they are orthogonal). An individual's sexual
preference is identified fairly easily by that individual (by introspection),
but that does not necessitate that it is also fairly important. In other words,
the "quantity" of existential value coming from sexual orientation remains to be
measured. However, the "fact-ness" of relevant existential value is what is in
question here (ie. Does sexual orientation affect an individual's ability to
gain or keep values in the context of their life?).
The mountain analogy
is my attempt to provide a context for the exploration of this question. It
illustrates limitations inherent in judging morality between individuals and
between the connected life choices we make.
The take-away message is that
contradiction-free perfection (the "summit") is a noble goal and may serve as a
benchmark for progress, but that our interests will be best served with somewhat
asymptotic approaches toward perfection, foregoing some obvious advances because
of our current "footing" on the mountain.
Perfection is where the sights
are set, progress is where the joy lies (happiness is in the life-long journey
toward the summit - it's in the climbing).
To be absolutely clear:
I
do not know the weighted importance of sexual orientation with regard to human
happiness. However, your position implies that it has no import at all. I
disagree with you on this, but I admit that I do not know the relative
existential import.
As to the nature-nurture aspect, do you acknowledge
the continuum theory of orientation? If so, do you then acknowledge that we make
the choice to live "out at the ends" of the continuum (instead of in the
middle)?
Added notes: Just noticed that our "paths crossed" while posting
and you already shared your views on most of the issues! Further response is
welcomed but not anticipated.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/04,
2:48pm)
sciabarra
Post 58
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 3:02pm
Ed,
I think we crossed in the mail; I would not say that sexual orientation has no
importance for human happiness; I just don't think we can generalize. I think
different individuals treat their orientation differently. (Taking even the
example of "early experimentation" that you raise: such experimentation speaks
to different kids... differently.)
As to the continuum theory: When I say
that I "believe" there is much to recommend, I'm only saying that sexual
orientation seems to manifest itself in many different ways and with greater
fluidity than either extreme would wish to recognize. Isolated choices, habitual
choices, life experiences, affectational preferences, environmental
considerations, developmental conditions, even living conditions (all-boys
schools, prisons, etc.), and, quite possibly a "genetic" and "biological"
component as well---may all play some part in constituting any given
individual's sexual orientation. And that mix seems to vary from person to
person. As I said: Given the multi-causal possibilities and our general
ignorance on the subject, I think it is important not to generalize and moralize
about these issues. (And to anticipate one criticism: This does not mean that it
is impossible to judge a specific individual's choices and actions with regard
to his sexuality.)
Ed Thompson
Director of Outreach
Post 59
Friday, June 4, 2004 - 8:55pm
Chris,
Thanks for responding. One of
your final statements was:
"Given the multi-causal possibilities and our
general ignorance on the subject, I think it is important not to generalize and
moralize about these issues."
Chris, my understanding of your
understanding is that there will be some folks who will be happiest with a
heterosexual life-style and some folks who will be happiest with a homosexual
life-style; and that any causal inferences drawn on this subject have been at
least hasty generalization - and likely outright ideological speculation.
In times like these, I think it useful to share both the nature and extent
of the differences we have. As to the "nature" I feel that you probably already
have me pegged correctly (de-mysticized Natural Law advocate). So all that's
left is for me to share with you the "extent" of our differences from my vantage
point; something which the general tone of your replies to me have made me feel
that you have miscalculated.
A simple acknowledgement may be all that's
needed to share this extent of difference:
I acknowledge that it is quite
possible for a homosexual to be the happiest person on this planet right now.
I think that position statement speaks volumes. It captures my
acknowledgement of the multi-faceted aspects that blend to produce the symphony
that we call human life - a work of art that is written, composed, and played
out on-the-fly, so to speak (while you are "living" it).
Regarding when
you said:
"I think different individuals treat their orientation
differently. (Taking even the example of "early experimentation" that you raise:
such experimentation speaks to different kids... differently.)"
... I
disagree with what I see to be fundamental in your words, which I'd interpret as
"different strokes, for different folks." I'll attempt to counter this with the
notion that bedrock fundamental principles govern human growth and happiness (an
admittedly sloppy "counter-argument").
However, I cannot disagree with an
inescapable necessity for individual interpretation and application of said
principles - with some folks focusing more on some principles and some more on
others. This point was illustrated when I alluded to the idea of not having one
best way to climb a mountain - different people will have different paths and
footholds on the climb, but it is still the same mountain.
Ed
Discuss this Article (63 messages)
sciabarra
Post 60
Saturday,
June 5, 2004 - 6:14am
Ed, thanks for your reply.
Considering that
this thread, with comments now numbering 60, has centered around such a
contentious subject, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the
predominantly civil tone of the discussion. Remarkable and refreshing.
I'm not pulling the plug on the discussion---by all means, we can certainly
continue chatting. But given some recent experiences in cyberspace, I'm
delighted to see some productive and constructive engagement. Bravo first and
foremost to SOLO HQ for providing such a forum.
Reginald Firehammer
Post 61
Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 10:30am
Hi Chris,
Chris: Okay,
Regi: if you want it both ways... be my guest. Just know: It's a choice.
Well, of course, and I'll take responsibility for that choice, and if it turns
out bad, I won't be blaming anyone else for it.
The extent of devastation
in the American black community has been well documented; it may not manifest
itself in suicide problems, but it does manifest itself in substance abuse,
crime, and other conditions.
Since when is the cause of someone choosing
to abuse themselves with drugs, commit crimes, and otherwise live irrationally
anything but the responsibility of the one making the choice?
And we're
lucky we live in a culture where you don't lose your limbs or life if you get
caught performing a homosexual act. Yes, things are better today for gay men and
women than they were, say, 40 years ago. But that's because gay men and women
have taken to defending themselves and standing up for their right to exist.
In the first place, homosexuals still loose limbs and life if caught in may
parts of the world today. Living an openly gay lifestyle in Saudi Arabia would
be bit risky. So the world on that score, has not become any better. On the
other hand, dismembering and execution for sexual practices were never a part of
American culture.
In many ways, our culture today is more oppressive than
earlier cultures. One reason I mentioned Oscar Wilde (Post #25) is because he is
a good example of a homosexual who was both successful and prosecuted (not
persecuted).
Oscar lived from 1854 to 1900. In those "oppressive" days,
while dying in Paris, he was able to use all the morphine, opium, chloral (which
we know as the basis of a "Mickey Finn"), which he washed down with champagne.
Today he would be put in jail for medicating himself, even if the medication was
prescribed.
It is true he was tried (three times) for sodomy, which was
outlawed in those days, and was sent to prison for two years. (Both the trials
and the imprisonment could have been avoided, by the way.) Interestingly, the
result of Oscar's trial was less tolerance for homosexuals. Something today's
homosexuals might consider in their activism.
"The Wilde trials caused
public attitudes toward homosexuals to become harsher and less tolerant. Whereas
prior to the trials there was a certain pity for those who engaged in same-sex
passion, after the trials homosexuals were seen more as a threat. The Wilde
trials had other effects as well. They caused the public to begin to associate
art and homoeroticism and to see effeminancy as a signal for homosexuality. Many
same sex relationships seen as innocent before the Wilde trials became suspect
after the trials." [The Wilde Trials]
Oh, by the way, in these more
"tolerant" times, Oscar would not be tried for sodomy, for which he got two
years, he would be tried for drug possession with intent to sell, and sentenced
to a mandatory twenty five years.
Chris: And with all this alleged inner
contradiction going on in the psyches of homosexuals: How do you explain the
fact that so many great artists, philosophers, and such, have been homosexual?
... I just don't understand how people who are so fundamentally wrong about one
of the most important aspects of their humanity can be so fundamentally right in
other areas. ... I don't mean this flippantly... I'm honestly baffled.
Now people accuse me of being flip all the time, because I am, but if you are
ever flip, I've never seen it.
As for your question, and I'm not being
flip, the answer is compartmentalization. Some, such as those you gave as
examples of being successful, are much better at it than the others, such as
those who make up the inordinate numbers with psychological and personality
problems.
Here are some interesting comments by a successful homosexual:
He said he was "ashamed on having led a life unworthy of an artist," and, "I
became a spendthrift of my genius and to waste an eternal youth gave me a
curious joy."
--Oscar Wilde
Regi
Reginald Firehammer
Post 62
Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 10:34am
Chris,
You said, Considering that
this thread, with comments now numbering 60, has centered around such a
contentious subject, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the
predominantly civil tone of the discussion. Remarkable and refreshing.
Yes! ...and you have lead the way. Thanks!
Regi
Homo Hijackers (2): Sciabarra's Rejoinder to Firehammer
In his essay, "Homo Hijackers (2): Sciabarra's Rejoinder to Firehammer," Sciabarra responds to Firehammer's reply (see also Barbara Branden's SOLO HQ commentary) and examines such issues as the relevance of Nathaniel Branden's writings, the nature of the "normal," and the importance of dialectical method.
I want to thank Reginald Firehammer for his good-natured response. While I wish to compliment Firehammer on a number of fine points, I will focus here on only a few issues.my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)As an aside, in this same essay, Rand “repudiate[s]” the establishment or endorsement of “any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism.” Oh, if only some of her followers would take to heart that formulation!
It's Time To
Move On: A Personal Statement (18 September 2004)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
When
SOLO was founded, Lindsay Perigo enunciated the Credo upon which the
organization has been built. A small part of that Credo focused on the issue of
homosexuality. Perigo wrote:
We
see ourselves most emphatically as being at war with the current culture: the
culture of anti-heroes, nihilism, destruction and dishonesty (hence a
significant, though by no means exclusive, focus on esthetics here). Yet we
acknowledge that Objectivism's critics can be honest, and should be granted more
than a perfunctory discussion or two before being dismissed out of hand. We
acknowledge that Ayn Rand made mistakes; that she didn't answer every question
that can be asked; that she was wrong about some matters of considerable
existential moment, such as homosexuality (which matter we have already
addressed). But we salute her as an epoch-changing giant - comparable to
Aristotle - whose mistakes were of little moment when compared to her
unprecedented insights (just as his mistakes were of little moment).
The above parenthetical remark
"which matter we have already addressed," was inserted in a later version of the
Credo, because at its founding, the matter had not been addressed. The newer,
parenthetical remark links to my monograph, Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human
Liberation. In a foreword to that monograph, Perigo observes:
When
I founded SOLO (Sense-of-Life Objectivists) in 2001, I vowed that, as part of
the attempt to rid the Objectivist movement of the emotional repression that has
so perversely & needlessly dogged it, I would drag Objectivist homophobia out of
the closet once & for all. In the event, I handed that particular project to
Chris Matthew Sciabarra. In his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, I had encountered
a tantalising but frustratingly brief discussion of Ayn Rand's views on
homosexuality. Here was unfinished business if ever I saw it. As Chris would
like to put it, there was a synergy between what he had not yet done & what I
wanted to be done. His academic respectability, was, of course, a black mark
against him (even on this august occasion I cannot resist teasing him), but in
the end I overcame my qualms & asked if he would conduct this enterprise as a
series of articles in my magazine, The Free Radical. To my immense joy, he
agreed, & began work on a 5-part series, Objectivism & Homosexuality. The rest,
as they say, is history.
Now,
just a few months on from the completion of the series, it gives me even more
joy to be penning the Foreword to this tweaked, updated monograph version of it,
Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, & Human Liberation.
Thanks, Chris - & a warm salute.
Mission accomplished.
The Mission Goes On and On and On
...
Ah,
if only it were that simple! Though reviews started to appear in various venues
(and these can be referenced here), nothing quite rivaled the full-scale
response mounted by Reginald Firehammer in his own monograph, The Hijacking of a
Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
My
review of Firehammer's book, "In Praise of Hijacking," however, was less about
the topic of homosexuality, and more about the topic of Objectivism: what it is,
where it's "open," where it's "closed," and where it can be extended or applied.
Firehammer responded in print to my review, Barbara Branden responded on SOLO HQ
to Firehammer's reply, and I too wrote a rejoinder to Firehammer. Discussions on
each of these threads have proceeded, showing that the topic remains a popular
and provocative one.
But
I must say that in all my years of debating this issue, I can count exactly one
person who ever changed their mind. One. In all other instances, I have observed
that attitudes toward sexuality are among the most tenacious in the human
species. (Heck... even attitudes on the Iraq war don't seem to be as tenacious
as the ones on sexuality!)
And so, it is because of this
perennial division that Perigo's Credo is so relevant. The "critics can be
honest, and should be granted more than a perfunctory discussion or two," but
that discussion or two or three or four has now taken place. SOLO was created to
fill a gap between "rational passion and passionate reason." It has allowed
free-flowing discussions of this topic and many others, and to its credit, it
has allowed the highest dissent from one of its founding missions: to liberate
Ayn Rand's philosophy from the harsh moralizing its founder exhibited in her
assessment of homosexuality.
With
Sam Erica, we can congratulate SOLO for permitting the airing of "alternative
views." Nevertheless, I must also agree with Erica when he suggests that too
much space has been allocated to this issue. As important as this subject is, it
is, indeed, "a peripheral issue," as Erica puts it.
Now,
there is a reason why Perigo teases me about the "black mark" that is my
"academic respectability." It's because, like most academics, I have a history
of not knowing when to shut up. This essay is perfect proof. I have a history of
allowing a discussion to continue even beyond the point where it should end. I
have learned the hard way that such discussions should end the moment any
semblance of incivility rears its ugly head. All too often, discussions on this
topic in particular have led to that kind of incivility.
As I expressed here, I have been,
for the most part, quite pleased at the level of dialogue that has been
manifested on SOLO HQ concerning this extremely volatile subject. But the other
day, I also wrote what I had hoped was my final post on this subject here,
because I am convinced that those who claim that they are not moralizing on the
subject of homosexuality have nonetheless embraced moralizing on a colossal
scale. For those who understand Rand's radical challenge to the fact-value
dichotomy, such moralizing is fully apparent. "The fact that a living entity is,
determines what it ought to do." If one accepts Rand's ethics, one cannot
continue to argue that something is metaphysically given without it having an
ethical implication. One cannot continue to argue that all sexuality is
volitional, without it having an ethical implication. Because morality and
choice are partially constitutive of one another, one cannot claim that human
"decisions" regarding the latter won't have implications for their status in the
realm of the former.
I'd
agree, actually, that those aspects of sexuality open to our choice do have
ethical implications; but it doesn't follow that all aspects of sexuality are
open to our choice. And so, we can explore, in depth, the nature of the
connections between certain facts and certain judgments. We can engage in
arguments in good will, and without indicting one another's intellectual
integrity. But beyond a certain point, my friendly critics are essentially
correct. To continue to sanction such arguments that assail one's status as an
eminently moral agent is to sanction one's own victimization. Even if the
arguments are civil, poised, and respectful.
So, I'm done. I'm really done.
Final Thoughts ...
It
has never been SOLO's mission or my mission to espouse homosexuality as a "moral
virtue." As I wrote in my review of Firehammer's book:
It
also illustrates how profoundly wrong Firehammer is when he suggests that my
"real mission" is to affirm homosexuality as a "moral virtue." In and of itself,
it is neither virtue nor vice. What matters is the honor and nobility that is
possible to individuals who choose to live rational and passionate lives -
whatever their sexual orientation. And that's why so many gays and lesbians have
benefitted from reading an Ayn Rand novel: it has provided them with the
spiritual fuel for genuine human liberation.
And
that is the issue. Not one's heterosexuality or homosexuality or bisexuality,
but the morality of living one's own life authentically, of applying Rand's
ethics to the context of one's own life, regardless of one's orientation.
Now,
the opponents would say that this is question-begging. Because most of them seem
to dismiss the very notion of "orientation" out of hand. But their mission is
not SOLO's mission.
I
must admit that I long ago ceased calling myself an Objectivist because I became
convinced that too many Objectivists were, as my friend Larry Sechrest once
said, "conservatives who simply don't go to church." In my own attempts to
"hijack" Objectivism, I have focused instead on what I believe is Rand's
"radical legacy," not the vestiges of conservatism that she and many of her
followers retained.
Through Perigo's efforts, my efforts, and the efforts of others, one aspect of
that radical legacy has been reclaimed. The deplorable history of homophobia in
the Objectivist movement has now been made apparent. This historical undertaking
has not been an end in itself, but a means to an end: a means of acknowledging
and transcending the mistakes of Rand and many of her followers; a means of
disarming the moralizers who would seek our sanction for their gay bashing; a
means of living authentically, of taking ownership and responsibility for the
application of essential principles to the context of our own lives, whatever
our orientation.
This
is not a call for the end of all dialogue on this subject; alas, it will
continue long after we're gone. But I must agree with Lindsay Perigo: "Mission
accomplished." Those who don't share in this mission should seek other forums on
this topic. But even for those who do share in this mission:
It's time to move on.
Comments may be found
here.
Barbara Branden
Post 0
Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:42am
Dear Chris, you are a miracle of a
man -- as demonstrated by the whole of this article, and by your statement:
"To
continue to sanction such arguments that assail one's status as an eminently
moral agent is to sanction one's own victimization. Even if the arguments are
civil, poised, and respectful.
"So,
I'm done. I'm really done."
Consider that I'm standing up, cheering you, and shouting: Bravo, Chris!
Barbara
Cameron Pritchard
Post 1
Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 1:07am
Chris, I thank you for everything you've said on this topic.
You've been a tireless warrior but I am pleased - for your sake - that it's to
end here. What needed to be said has been said. It's now up to the honesty of
the readers of this site to take it from here. But, I dare say, the battle has
been won as those of us who are gay continue to live our lives true to our
nature. And for this reason I think that the ideas of our detractors have in
large part been, are being, and I think will eventually completely be consigned
to the dustbin of history. And you will have played a part in bringing that
about.
(Edited by Cameron Pritchard on
9/18, 1:08am)
(Edited by Cameron Pritchard on 9/18, 1:09am)
sciabarra
Post
2
Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 4:27am
I appreciate Lindsay's post, and the comments here from
Barbara and Cam. What I did not point out in the article, needs to be pointed
out here. This discussion has actually been raging for years on this very site;
to simply point to the most recent dialogue as the "turning point" is not to
acknowledge that there is a long history. See, for example, debates from 2002
and 2003, here, here, here, here, and here. Not to mention various threads
initiated by others.
So,
yes, pro or con, supporter or opponent, we've beaten this poor pony to death...
from where I sit, it's time to move on. And as a philosopher once put it: And I
mean it.
Matthew Humphreys
Post
3
Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 5:39am Sanction this post Reply
Chris,
Let
me echo Barbara and Cameron's words above: Bravo to you, and farewell to the
ideas of the detractors, which will indeed be consigned to the dustbin.
An
interesting if slightly off topic anecdote: during my "former life" as a
Christian (i.e. before reading Rand) I actually held what I looking back would
describe as mildly homophobic views - the same "shouldn't be illegal but it is
immoral" bollocks that certain Objectivists now adhere to. Ironically, my
conversion to Objectivism with its belief in total self-acceptance, even before
reading any of your writings on the subject, was one of the biggest factors (if
not the biggest) in my overcoming that kind of thinking.
Once again, bravo Chris.
MH
Jeremy Johnson
Post 4
Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 6:54am
It's good to put a period at the end of this very, very long
sentence. Bravo Chris.
Hopefully, people not yet convinced will just read through what has been
discussed thus far, and come to their own conclusions. The only reason I could
see for continuing a discussion on this would be to acquaint newcomers with what
has already been said. (You know, the "What did Ayn Rand have to say about
such-and-such" crowd. I was there once. Ha!)
Reginald Firehammer
Post 5
Chris,
Thank you for being who you are, for being a staunch defender of your
convictions, for being such an interesting and entertaining "opponent" (only in
ideas).
THE
END
Derek McGovern
Post 6
Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:45pm
Thank you, Chris. If nothing else, I'm sure your superb work
on this topic has caused some folk here to rethink their prejudices.
You're a man of formidable
intellect and unshakable integrity.
 |
 |
