Rereading Breakthrough

Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia sat on the floor playing marbles.
-Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged


One of those odd discussions that takes on a mind of its own, two weeks ago my environmental political theory seminar was reading a book called Breakthrough(Nordhaus and Shellenberger, 2007). As often happens with school reading, I got behind in my reading just enough that while I finished the book in time for class I had to read the second half too quickly to really get more than the gist of it. In any case, I really liked this book. Their argument is not so much against negative pessimistic approaches to environmentalism, life, etc., as it is in favor of positive optimistic constructive approaches and attitudes. Much of what they are saying refers back to what I know pretty well already from psychology, and makes a lot of sense. The first half of their book focuses more on environmentalism and why it is outdated as a movement. Really a lot of what they said in these chapters has come up in previous weeks' discussions as our own ideas, only their phrasing is inspiring and quotable. The second half shifts to socioeconomic issues, with similar arguments and ideas. Conversations before class with fellow classmates was overwhelmingly positive about this book.

So how did it fare in class? Miserably. I honestly wish I had taken more notes on my class and its reactions, because it would perhaps be more interesting than anything the authors said. What was wrong with this book? It was unrealistic, for one. It somehow was not grounded in reality, and as the discussion grew, practically no one had anything good to say about it. Perhaps some of this had to do with the amount of psychology used in building this book's points, since as far as I am aware, I am the only person in that group who studied psychology, let alone earned a degree in it. Still, the idea was pretty simple, that how people perceive their situation affects their ability to respond to it constructively. If people feel powerless, weak and victimized, or if they feel that they are unable to avoid doing wrong, they are not going to be mobilized by this to improve. Given the same physical conditions, if those same people feel that empowered, strong and capable, they can not only be mobilized to act, but they can become independent agents that will figure out how to act more effectively. In practice, this means maybe throwing out a lot of what is currently done for such ideals as the environment, justice and freedom.

This may be a huge part of the seductiveness of Objectivism, too. Ayn Rand's philosophy insists that each person thinks for himself and makes his own independent decisions about her ideas and about everything else, and teaches that each of us, barring mental illness, is fully capable of this. The various groups and institutes dedicated to teaching her work can subvert or at least undermine this, by spoon-feeding to young would-be Objectivists the right answers to all the 'right' questions, from what to think about economics to how to appreciate art and which musical composers are good. As much as I like the idea of an Objectivist party, I am disinclined to trust that the people at the head of such a group really are a) independent-minded Objectivists, and b) leaders worthy of the trust a statesman must hold to function in politics. In the back of my mind, really since high-school, I have always held the untarnished image of Francisco d'Anconia as a sort of litmus paper, with which to measure those who might earn such respect from me as Francisco could were he real.