Postmodern Politics: Individualistic or Relationship-Based?

August 4, 2008 by Mike Wilson 

Confidence in human institutions is fading. Modernism is slowly losing its foothold as many human beings are seeing that institutions are unable to deliver the happiness they claim to provide. In fact, many are beginning to see the authoritarian nature of most human institutions as a limit to their pursuit of happiness, an encroachment on their liberty, and as diminishing the value of their lives.

Over the past one hundred years, as this process has slowly taken hold, two political philosophers have described what the future (now the present) has in store and attempted to show us what options there are in a postmodern world.

These two main branches of postmodernism can be described as libertarian postmodernism (individualism) and humanistic postmodernism (a sense of responsibility to care for and better the situation of self and others). These two philosophers are Ayn Rand, promoting the individualistic branch, and Leo Tolstoy, promoting the humanistic branch.

Ayn Rand

The influence of Ayn Rand cannot be doubted. Her two most influential works (The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) have laid the foundation for the anti-institutional, pro-individual philosophy that is at the heart of a go-it-alone, laissez-faire attitude that undergirds much of a rising Western, and especially American, movement. This is demonstrated by a Random House poll asking readers to rank their top 100 novels. Four of the top eight spots are occupied by Ayn Rand works, with Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead topping the list.

This list shows that those who read really enjoy (and apparently accept) the writings, ideas, and philosophies of Ms. Rand. Her political philosophy is growing quickly and exerting profound influence on thought and attitude, albeit slower effect on public policy.

This philosophy, however, is problematic because Rand sees society as being made up of individuals who are exclusively seeking their own interest without regards to the interest of society or future generations. Morality, according to Rand, is doing what reason discovers. Because man is fundamentally a rational animal, reason is what man needs to live the good life. Sacrificing reason on the altar of mysticism or socialism is the greatest immorality. Each individual has his own capacity and conclusions. They may be wrong, but they are his and thus he has responsibility to follow them and discover when they are wrong.

Leo Tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy, on the other hand, sees society as being made up of people who naturally desire to do good, who behave badly because of what they are taught and how they are influenced by their environment, and who must see a duty to help others and alleviate suffering. He believes, with other humanistic postmodernists (i.e. Ruiz) that what we assume to be reality is actually the nightmarish dream perpetuated by the previous generation, inculcating the rising generation with a pervasive sense of fear and judgment. He also sees it as mankind’s responsibility to leave the world a better place for future generations.

Because Tolstoy’s writings have very definite anti-government and even anti-church indictments (not unlike Rand’s; the difference being his were written in Russia and hers in America), his works were neither widely circulated nor well received. However, his book The Kingdom of God is Within You was found, read, and internalized by Mohandas K. Gandhi while studying law in Great Britain. That book, together with his Hindu background and the New Testament (specifically the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels) laid the foundation for Gandhi’s “non-resistance of evil” doctrine that ended British colonial rule in India, began the weakening of the caste system there, and prepared South Africa for the end of apartheid.

There is a postmodern commonality in the philosophies of Tolstoy and Rand in their conviction that institutions (i.e. governments, churches and other modernistic structures) cannot solve the problems of the world, but that they are actually at the heart of most of the problems. However, there is polar opposition between the two philosophies regarding the view of humanity and human nature and the role of the individual within that humanity.

They are also opposed in the allegiance they promote. Rand promotes unflagging and focused allegiance to self and self alone. Tolstoy promotes the profoundest allegiance to God, subjecting self, “society”, government, and all other “ikons” that might distract, to that Ultimate allegiance. However, Tolstoy understands the need for the individual to know who he is and be true to who he truly is: a human being with a powerful divine nature.

Rand is purposefully carnal and unapologetically brutal. Tolstoy is deeply spiritual and devoutly peaceful.

Epistemology

Randian epistemology is reason. Emotion and feeling are not teachers, but weaknesses to be overcome. Human nature is independent of anything but individual choice and the ultimate good is excelling (Greek and republican Roman virtue). Sex is an act of pure pleasure without a right or wrong about it as long as true loyalty (deserved loyalty demonstrated by reciprocal selfishness) isn’t violated. Concern for others and their well-being is seen as the ultimate evil, unless it brings one joy.

Tolstoy’s epistemology is also reason, but with faith in the truth and power of the words of the Singular Individual of Jesus Christ. Emotion and feeling are important teachers of what is right and wrong. Human nature is good, turned evil by environmental influences and choices that are almost determined by prior choices and situations. The ultimate good is love. Within all is a divine portion that needs sustenance by love. Sex is right only in the right circumstances. In all others it is degrading and damaging to the soul. Concern for others is highly desirable and necessary to making the world a more joyous and happy place. These views are powerfully and clearly articulated in Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection.

Both are clear about the power of the individual to accomplish change (although “truth” is much less of an object for Rand, to whom the most important value is “right,” meaning “acting” according to one’s complete self-interest).

Rand idolizes individuals who are powerful because they concern themselves exclusively with excellence that satisfies their reason and free will — they have made their own soul. Tolstoy idolizes individuals who are powerful because they concern themselves with acting in love and compassion and being true to that most fundamental component within them — their divine portion, allowing God to expand their soul.

As modernism continues its slow but sure deterioration, we have the opportunity to help define what worldviews come next. Our obligation, as individuals, families, and communities who value liberty, virtue, and kindness, is to find, learn, mold, and promote the worldview that helps move us to that end. One decision will likely be whether to promote divine-centered and relationship-based postmodernism or to promote the rapidly-rising individualistic libertarian postmodernism.

Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.

Email This Post Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.

Filed under: Culture, Faith, Family, History, Human Nature, Libertarianism, Liberty, Philosophy, Politics, Service, Virtue
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

4 Responses to “Postmodern Politics: Individualistic or Relationship-Based?”

  1. david crowther on August 11th, 2008 10:26 am

    mike,

    Why did you choose leo tolstoy as rand’s antythesis? His name rarely if ever comes up in modern society, unless your russian. Do you actually think that his ideas will compete in the world today?

    david-

  2. Mike Wilson on August 11th, 2008 11:29 am

    David,

    Thanks for the comment. The reason I used Tolstoy is three-fold. First, he has written powerful novels (as has Rand) and his name should come up more often in modern society (one of the purposes of the post); second, he represents a necessary contrary view regarding post-modernism; and third, I was reading him at the time and was absolutely struck by the common sentiments he and Rand had with modern institutions, but also the dramatic disparity regarding their solutions.

    Admittedly, there are more modern writers that write similar ideas to Tolstoy regarding community post-modernism. However, many of them have their genesis is Tolstoyian and Gandhian ideas.

  3. athblogger on August 13th, 2008 10:14 pm

    What a fascinating comparison. Great work here Mike.
    One area I tend to disagree with Tolstoy is, as you say, “Human nature is good, turned evil by environmental influences and choices that are almost determined by prior choices and situations.” That seems to discount the power of choice. It has an almost hopeless feel to it. Is not one of the unique powers of man that he can separate himself or herself from environment and analyze it. And therefore choose differently. Go against what the environment would have them do.
    Yet at the same time I can not say that environment does not dictate decisions for most people in most situations. But the key word is most.

  4. Mike Wilson on August 14th, 2008 9:09 am

    athblogger,

    Thanks for the comment. I think that what Tolstoy tries to do with his view on choice and outcomes is change the way we see self and others. As one reads Resurrection and The Kingdom of God is Within You, one gets a sense that the only way that one can truly change things is by making intensely personal choices. I don’t think he would disagree with Rand in her claim that one who is not choosing is not being human. However, Tolstoy wants to promote a less judgmental society.

    One way he tries to accomplish this is by helping us see the significant extent to which environment and the choices of others affect (not determine) the way we see ourselves and the world. Once we comprehend that these external things dramatically influence how we as humans think, we are more understanding and patient of the poor choices that individuals (including ourselves) make. However, he affirms the ability and necessity of the human individual to make her own choices as fundamental and the manner by which one changes the world. See this post: http://www.theidealist.us/2008/05/04/tolstoi-the-effects-of-the-influence-we-grant-to-society/

    Tolstoy would then agree with the profound philosophy of Neil Peart:

    You may choose a ready guide in some celestial voice,
    If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

    Thus, if we don’t exercise our free will, our choice will make us subject to the choices of others in an almost determined sense.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!