Chris Sciabarra

[Continued from page 3]

CHRIS: Yes, indeed! Rand's personal aesthetic and sexual views have also proven to be problematic, in my opinion. I think the ultimate question here is: What is essential to Objectivism and what is nonessential? Some people seem to treat all of Rand's pronouncements -- even on particular works of art or particular people or particular sexual orientations -- as part and parcel of her philosophy. But that's not the case, in my view, and it therefore becomes imperative that one draw the line between the philosopher's personal tastes, both aesthetic and sexual, and the philosophy proper. It is possible to be a good Objectivist even if one rejects Rand's views on femininity, masculinity, and homosexuality, for example. But I simply got tired of fighting that battle over who is the good or true Objectivist. It's one of the reasons I no longer describe myself as an "Objectivist," even though I agree with Rand on fundamentals. I've taken to calling myself a Randian, a post-Randian, or just Chris. The debate over who is the "true Objectivist" just doesn't interest me anymore. That debate starts to resemble the doctrinal disputes among religious sects, and it almost always degenerates into an incendiary discussion.

SUNNI: Ah, okay; I must've forgotten that ... but can I still call you sweetie? [laughs]

CHRIS: But of course! [laughs]

SUNNI: Whew! [chuckles] One of the more interesting elements of Objectivism to me is something that is both amusing and quite serious. Amusing because of the touch of Pythonesque Life of Brian elements, serious by nature of the subject. Rand exalted the individual -- very rightly. Yet in her own personal life, as I understand it from reading about it -- the inner circle and legendary excommunications therefrom -- she seemed to enjoy and even expect some level of conformity to her philosophy, and even her personal preferences. How do you reconcile the supreme individualist having created what to many appears to be a sort of dogmatic religion or cult?

CHRIS: Rand's contribution to this subculture has recently been subjected to some critical debate due to the publication of a book by James Valliant entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. I say quite a bit about that book in particular and the topic more generally in a recent review essay entitled Reason, Passion, and History and also an article, Books for Rand Studies. It's a very real question just how much Rand was to blame for this or how much blame might be laid at the feet of her devoted followers. What is clear, however, is that there was an unfortunate level of almost authoritarian conformity at work in some aspects of the Objectivist movement, and I think it comes from what Rand herself called "Objectivist ritualism," as I've already indicated, the by-product of a very rationalistic and dogmatic way of reading and applying the philosophy. I, personally, approach Rand the same way I approach any thinker. The early Objectivists were fond of quoting that classic Spanish proverb: "Take what you want, God said, and pay for it." And that's precisely what I do: I take what I want from Rand's work, and from the work of others, and pay for it by taking responsibility for those aspects that I have taken and integrated into my own unique approach.

I focus on what is most important in Rand's thinking; for me, it is the principle that "context matters." It's no coincidence that I view dialectical method as "the art of context-keeping"... for me, context is crucial to cognition, evaluation, and action, and it is this focus on context that is also crucial to our whole understanding of Rand's philosophy.

SUNNI: Context! Don't get me started on context -- we could end up going nowhere else for the rest of this interview! [laughing]

CHRIS: But think of all the fun we'd have! [laughing]

SUNNI: [laughing] Yes, we would have fun ... and maybe we'll do that next time. But for now, we'll have to content ourselves with this contextual question: There are plenty of reasons why someone such as yourself could be excommunicated from certain Objectivist or Randian circles as well. Any thoughts on why that hasn't happened to you?

CHRIS: It hasn't? [laughing] In truth, I was never really a part of the Objectivist universe sufficiently in order to be excommunicated. That is, I've been so independent in my pursuit of research and scholarly goals that I've never had to face any formal excommunication of any sort. And that's as it should be. I don't consider myself an Objectivist, as I've said. But I have less and less affinity with many in Objectivist circles, because, in my view, too many of them have become too conservative for my tastes. My friend and colleague Larry Sechrest once characterized such Objectivists as simply "conservatives who don't go to church". In terms of a certain kind of Objectivist, I think Larry was onto something there.

SUNNI: I agree ... and even though I'm currently much less a Randian than you, it's sad to me that a lot of her potential reach has been cut short by those who on the face of it should value her most.

CHRIS: That is sad, but all too true.

SUNNI: What I was thinking of when I asked you about excommunication is some things I've seen, mostly on SOLOHQ -- fairly negative things said about other pro-freedom individuals and organizations, including my former employer, ISIL, and myself. Where does that come from, do you think? Are Randians or Objectivists in general simply opposed to working with any individual or group that isn't perceived to be 100% aligned with them? And aren't you running the risk of getting booted for talking to a nasty anarchist wench like me? [laughs]

CHRIS: Never! The good news is that I'm my own man. I practice the virtue of independence! And I mean it! [laughing]

SUNNI: [laughing] Hooray for that!

Page 5