Zizek - The Actuality of Ayn Rand

The Actuality of Ayn Rand Author(s): Slavoj Žižek Source: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2002), pp. 215-227 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41560187 . Accessed: 19/06/2014 18:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Philosophy and Literature

The

Actuality Ayn Rand1

of

Slavoj Ži^ek

Ayn Rand's fascinationfor male figuresdisplayingabsolute, unswayabledeterminationof theirWill, seems to offerthe best of SylviaPlath'sfamousline,"everywoman imaginableconfirmation adores a Fascist" (Plath 1981, 223). Is, however,such a quick "politicallycorrect" dismissal of her work reallycorrect? The properlysubversivedimensionof herideologicalprocedureis not to be underestimated:Rand fitsinto the line of "overconformist" authorswho underminethe rulingideologicaledificeby theirvery was directedat excessiveidentification withit. Her over-orthodoxy : The books as the tide of one of her (Capitalism capitalismitself, heretical Unknown Ideal;Rand 1967) tellsus; accordingto her,thetruly is to without its embrace the basic of thingtoday premise capitalism what So etc. communitarian, collectivist,welfare, sugar-coating. Pascal and Racine were to Jansenism,what Kleist was to German nationalistmilitarism, whatBrechtwas to Communism,Rand is to Americancapitalism. It was perhapsherRussianoriginsand upbringingthatenabled herto formulate kernelofAmericancapitalist direcdythefantasmatic The ideology. elementary ideologicalaxisof herworkconsistsin the between the opposition "primemovers"or "men of themind,"and "second handers"or "mass men." The Kantianoppositionbetween ethicalautonomyand heteronomy is herebroughtto itsextreme:the "secondhander"is searchingforrecognition outsidehimself, hisselfconfidenceand assurancedepend on how he is perceivedby others, whilethe"primemover"is fullyreconciledwithhimself,relyingon TheJournal ofAynRandStudies3, no. 2 (Spring2002): 215-27.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 16

TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2 ofЛуп RandStudies

hiscreativity, selfishin thesensethathis satisfaction does notdepend on gettingrecognitionfromothersor on sacrificinghimself- his innermostdrives- forthe benefitof others. The primemover is innocent,deliveredfrom the fear of others,and for that reason withouthatred even for his worst enemies. Roark, the "prime mover" in TheFountainhead, ' doesn't activelyhate Toohey, his great he care about him. Here is the famous doesn't opponent; simply dialoguebetweenthetwo: "Mr. Roark,we're alone here. Whydon't you tellme what you thinkof me? In anywordsyou wish. No one willhear us." "But I don't thinkof you." (Rand 1992a, 389) On the basis of thisopposition,Rand elaboratesher radically "selfish"ethics: the"primemover"is capable atheist,life-assertive, of thelove forothers.This love is even crucialforhimsinceit does not express his contemptfor himself,his self-denial,but, on the the highestself-assertion.Love forothersis the highest contrary, formof properlyunderstood"selfishness,"i.e., of my capacityto realizethroughmyrelationship withothersmyowninnermostdrives. And also on thebasisof thisopposition,AtlasShrugged constructs a purelyfantasmatic scenario:JohnGait,thenovel'smysterious hero, assemblesallprimemoversand organizestheirstrike.Theywithdraw fromthecollectivist oppressionof thebureaucratized publiclife.As a resultof theirwithdrawal,social life loses its impetus: social services,fromstoresto railroads,no longerfunction, global disintesets and the calls the gration in, desperatesociety primemoversback. but on their own terms. They return, Whatwe have hereis thefantasyof a man findingtheanswerto the eternalquestion "What moves the world?"- the prime movers- and then being able to "stop the motor of the world" by organizingtheprimemovers'retreat.JohnGait succeedsin suspending theverycircuitof the universe,the "run of things,"causingits symbolicdeathand thesubsequentrebirthof theNew World. The

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofAyn"Rand

2 17

ideologicalgainof thisoperationresidesin thereversalof roleswith regardto oureveryday experienceof strikes:itis notworkersbutthe capitalistswho go on strike,thus provingthat theyare the truly productivemembersof societywho do not need othersto survive.2 The hide-outto whichtheprimemoversretreat, a secretplace in the midstof the Colorado mountainsaccessible onlyvia a dangerous narrowpassage,is a kindof negativeversionof Shangri-la, a "utopia ofgreed": a smalltownin whichunbridledmarketrelationsreign,in whichtheveryword сЪе1р"is prohibited, in whicheveryservicehas to be reimbursed withtrue(gold-backed)money,inwhichthereis no need forpityand self-sacrifice forothers. TheFountainhead us a clue as to thematrixofintersubjective gives relationsthatsustainsthismythof primemovers. Its fourmainmale charactersconstitutea kind of Greimasiansemioticsquare: the architectHoward Roarkis the autonomouscreativehero;Wynand, thenewspapertycoon,is thefailedhero,a manwho could have been a "primemover"- deeplyakinto Roark,he got caughtin thetrapof (he was not awareof how his media manipulacrowd-manipulation tionof thecrowdactuallymakeshima slavewho followsthecrowd's a whollyexternalized, "otherwhims);Keatingis a simpleconformist, oriented"subject;Toohey, Roark's trueopponent,is the figureof diabolicalEvil,a manwho nevercould have been a primemoverand who knowsit- he turnedhisawarenessofhisworthlessness intothe self-conscioushatredof prime movers,i.e., he becomes an Evil Masterwho feedsthecrowdwiththishatred Paradoxically, Toohey is thepointof self-consciousness:he is theonlyone who knows it all,who,evenmorethanRoarkwho simplyfollowshis drive,is fully awareof thetruestateof things. We have thusRoark as the being of pure drivein no need of symbolicrecognition(and as such uncannilyclose to the Lacanian saint- onlyan invisiblelineofseparationdistinguishes them),and the threewaysto compromiseone's drive: Wynand,Keating,Toohey. The underlyingopposition is here that of desire and drive, as in thetenserelationship betweenRoarkand Dominique, exemplified his sexualpartner.Roark displaysthe perfectindifference towards theOthercharacteristic of drive,whileDominique remainscaughtin

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 18

TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2 ofЛуп RandStudies

thedialecticof desire,whichis thedesireof theOther: she is gnawed by theOther'sgaze, i.e.,by thefactthatothers,thecommonpeople totallyinsensitiveto Roark's achievement,are allowed to stareat it and thusspoil its sublimequality.The onlywayforherto breakout of thisdeadlockof theOther'sdesireis to destroythesublimeobject in orderto save it frombecomingtheobject of theignorantgaze of others: "You want a thingand it's preciousto you. Do you know who is standingreadyto tearitout of yourhands? You can't know,it maybe so involvedand so faraway,but someone I neveropen again is ready,and you'reafraidof themall book hurts me to thinkof I've read and loved. It anygreat the other eyes thathave read it and of what theywere." (143-44) These "othereyes"are theEvil Gaze at itspurest,whichgroundsthe paradox of property:if,withina social field,I am to possess an object,thispossession mustbe sociallyacknowledged,whichmeans thatthebig Other who vouchsafesthispossession of minemustin a way possess it in advancein orderto let me have it. I thusnever relatedirecdyto theobjectof mydesire:whenI casta desiringglance at theobject,I am alwaysalreadygazed at bytheOther (not onlythe the double, but primarily imaginaryother,the competitive-envious and big Otherof thesymbolicInstitutionthatguaranteesproperty), thisgaze of theOther thatoverseesme in mydesiringcapacityis in itsveryessence "castrative,"threatening.3 castrative matrixof thedialectics Thereinconsiststheelementary of possession: if I am trulyto possess an object,I have firstto lose it, i.e., to concede thatits primordialowner is the big Other. In traditional monarchies,thisplace of thebig Otheris occupiedbythe King who in principleowns the entireland, so that whatever individuallandownerspossess was given,bequeathed,to thembythe King; thiscastrativedialecticreachesits extremein the case of the totalitarian Leaderwho,on theone hand,emphasizesagainand again how he is nothingin himself,how he onlyembodies and expresses

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofЛуп Rand

2 19

etc.of thepeople,but,on theotherhand,he gives thewill,creativity, we have, so we have to be gratefulto him foreveryus everything thingwe have,down to our meagerdailybread and health. At the level of drive,however,immediatepossession is possible, one can dispose of the Other,in contrastto the everydayorderof desirein one cares whichtheonlywayto remainfreeis to sacrificeeverything wants and a one to never have to for, destroyit, enjoys,to marry job a man one absolutelydespises. So, forDominique,thegreatestsacrilegeis to throwpearlsbefore swine: to create a precious object and then to expose it to the Other'sEvil Gaze, i.e., to let it be sharedwiththe crowd. And she treatsherselfin preciselythe same way: she triesto resolve the deadlock of her position as a desired object by way of willingly - she marries evensearchingfor,theutmosthumiliation embracing, thepersonshe most despisesand triesto ruinthe careerof Roark, thetrueobjectof herlove and admiration.4Roark,of course,is well aware of how her attemptsto ruin him resultfromher desperate to cope withherunconditionallove forhim,to inscribethis strategy love in thefieldof thebig Other;so, when she offersherselfto him, he repeatedly rejectsherand tellsherthatthetimeis notyetripefor it: shewillbecome his truepartneronlywhenherdesireforhimwill no longerbe botheredby theOther'sgaze- in short,when she will accomplishthe shiftfromdesire to drive. The (self-)destructive dialecticsof Dominique,as well as of Wynand,bearswitnessto the factthattheyare fullyaware of the terrifying challengeof Roark's of drive: to him want break down in orderto position pure they deliverhimfromtheclutchesof his drive. This dialecticsprovidesthe keyto what is perhaps the crucial scenein TheFountainhead. Dominique,whileridinga horse,encounterson a lone countryroad Roark,workingas a simplestone-cutter in her father'squarry;unable to endurethe insolentway he looks backat her,thelook thatattestshisawarenessofherinability to resist to him,Dominique furiously beingattracted whipshim. (In thefilm scene of version,thisviolentencounteris renderedas thearchetypal the mightylandlord's lady or daughter secredy observing the attractiveslave: unable to admitto herselfthatshe is irresistibly

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

220

Vol. 3, No. 2 TheJournal ofЛуп RandStudies

attractedto him, she acts out her embarrassmentin a furious whippingof theslave.) She whipshim,she is hisMasterconfronting a slave,butherwhippingis an act of despair,an awarenessof hishold over her, of her inabilityto resist him- as such, it's alreadyan invitationto brutalrape. So thefirstact of love betweenDominique and Roarkis a brutalrape done withno compassion: He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie stilland submit. One gestureof tendernessfromhim- and she would have remainedcold, untouchedby the thingdone to her body. But the act of a mastertakingshameful, contemptuous possessionofherwas thekindof raptureshe had wanted. (217) This scornis paralleledbyDominique's unconditionalwillingnessto thatis thestrongest destroyRoark- thewillingness expressionofher love forhim. The followingquote bearswitnessto thefactthatRand is effectively a kindof feminineversionof Otto Weininger: "I'm goingto fightyou- and I'm goingto destroyyou- and I tell you this as calmlyas I told you that I'm a begging - I tell animal. I'm goingto praythatyou can'tbe destroyed you this,too- even thoughI believein nothingand have nothingto prayto. But I will fightto block everystepyou take. I will fightto tearawayeverychance you want away fromyou. I will hurtyou throughthe onlythingthatcan hurtyou- throughyourwork. I willfightto starveyou,to strangleyouon thethingsyouwon'tbe able to reach. I have done it to you today- and thatis whyI shallsleepwithyou tonight.... I'll come to you wheneverI have beaten you - wheneverI know thatI have hurtyou- and I'll let you own me. I want to be owned, not by a lover,but by an adversarywho will destroymyvictoryover him,not with honorableblows,butwiththetouchof his body on mine." (272-73)

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofAynRand

22 1

The womanstrivesto destroythepreciousagalma,whichis whatshe doesn't possess in her beloved man, the spark of his excessive autonomous creativity: she is aware that only in this way, by hisagalma(or,rather, destroying bymakinghimrenounceit),shewill own him,onlyin thisway will the two of themforman ordinary couple; yet she is also aware that in this way, he will become - thereinresidesher worthless tragicpredicament.Is then,inultima analisithescenarioof TheFountainhead not thatof Wagner'sParsifal ? Roark is Parsifalthe saint,the being of pure drive;Dominique is Kundryin searchof her delivery;Gail is Amfortas,the failedsaint; Toohey is Klingsor,the impotentevil magician. Like Dominique, Kundrywantsto destroyParsifal,since she has a forebodingof his likeDominique,Kundrysimultaneously wantsParsifalnot to purity; giveway,to enduretheordeal,sincesheis awarethatheronlychance ofredemption residesin Parsifal'sresistanceto herseductivecharms. The trueconflictin theuniverseofRand's twonovelsis thusnot betweenthe primemoversand the crowd of second banderswho parasitizeon theprimemovers'productivegenius,withthetension betweenthe primemoverand his femininesexual partnerbeing a meresecondarysubplotof thisprincipalconflict The trueconflict runswithintheprimemoversthemselves:it residesin the (sexualized) tensionbetweentheprimemover,thebeingof puredrive,and hishysterical thepotentialprimemoverwho remainscaught partner, inthedeadlyself-destructive dialectic(betweenRoarkandDominique in TheFountainhead, betweenJohnGait and DagnyinAtlasShrugged). When,inAtlasShrugged, ' one of theprimemoverfigurestellsDagny, who unconditionally wantsto pursueherworkand keep the transcontinentalrailroadcompanyrunning,thatthe primemovers' true enemyis not thecrowdof second handers,but herself,thisis to be takenliterally. Dagnyherselfis awareofit: whenprimemoversstart to disappearfrompublicproductivelife,she suspectsa darkconspiracy,a "destroyer"who forcesthemto withdrawand thusgradually bringstheentiresocial lifeto a standstill.Whatshe does notyetsee is thatthefigureof the"destroyer"thatshe identifies as theultimate enemy,is thefigureof hertrueRedeemer. The solutionoccurswhenthehysterical subjectfinally getsridof

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

222

TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2 ojЛуп RandStudies

herenslavementand recognizesin the figureof the"destroyer"her Savior. Why? Second handerspossess no ontologicalconsistencyof theirown,whichis whythekeyto thesolutionis not to breakthem, butto breakthechainthatforcesthecreativeprimemoversto work forthem- whenthischainis broken,thesecondhanders'powerwill dissolveby itself. The chain thatlinksa primemover to the perverted existingorder is none other than her attachmentto her productivegenius: a primemoveris readyto payanyprice,up to the utterhumiliation of feedingtheveryforcethatworksagainsthim,i.e., thatparasitizeson theactivity he officially endeavorsto suppress,just to be able to continueto create. What thehystericized primemover mustacceptis thusthefundamental indifference: shemust existential no longerbe willingto remainthe hostage of the second-handers' blackmail("We willlet you workand realizeyourcreativepotential, on conditionthatyou acceptour terms"). She mustbe readyto give to her, up theverykernelof herbeing,thatwhichmeans everything and to acceptthe"end of theworld,"the (temporary) suspensionof theveryflowof energythatkeeps theworld running.In orderto she mustbe readyto go throughthezero-pointof gain everything, And, farfromsignalingthe"end of subjectivity," losingeverything. this act of assumingexistentialindifference is, perhaps, the very thatgives birthto the subject. What gestureof absolutenegativity Lacan calls "subjectivedestitution"is thus,paradoxically,another name forthe subjectitself,i.e., forthe void beyond the theaterof hysterical subjectivizations. This subjectbeyondsubjectivization is freein the most radical sense of the word. This is why Rand's "prime movers" are not characterizedprimarily by theirpositiveproperties(superb intellitheir featureis theirlack of the falseguilt innermost gence, etc.); their freedom from the feeling, superegoviciouscycle- whenyouare in this are caught cycle,you guiltywhateveryou do. This superego laws: logic was nicelyformulatedby Rand apropos of the antitrust if his are a does crime becomes a prices higher everythingcapitalist thantheothers'prices,he exploitshis monopolisticposition;ifthey are lower,he practicesunfaircompetition;if theyare the same,it's collusionand conspiracyto underminetruecompetition(Rand 1967,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofAynRand

49).

223

And is this not similarto the time of the patient'sarrivalin psychoanalysis?If thepatientis late,it's a hysterical provocation;if he is early,it's an obsessional compulsion;if he arrivesexactlyon time,it is a perverseritual. One should introducehere the key distinction betweenethicsand morality:whenthesubjectgathersthe strengthto break out of thisvicious circle,he leaves behind the whilesimultaneously sphereof morality assertinghis or her ethical commitment. Frommyhighschool days,I rememberthestrangegestureof a good friendof minethatshockedme considerablyat thetime. The teacherasked us to writean essay on "what satisfactiondoes it - the provideto accomplisha good deed of helpingone's neighbor" idea beingthateach of us shoulddescribetheprofoundsatisfaction thatcomes fromthe awarenessthatwe did somethinggood. My friendput thepaper and pen down on the tableand,in contrastto otherswho quicklyscribedtheirnotes,justsatmotionless.Whenthe teacheraskedhimwhatwas wrong,he answeredthathe was unable to writeanything, becausehe simplyneverfelteithertheneed for(or the satisfaction of) such acts- he neverdid somethinggood. The teacherwas so shockedthatshe gavemyfrienda specialopportunity: he could writehis paper at home afterschool- surelyhe would remembersome good deed. Next day,myfriendcame to school withthesame blankpaper, statingthathe thoughta lot about it thepreviousafternoon.There was simplyno good deed of his thathe could recall. The desperate teacherthenblurtedout: ccButcould you not simplyinventsome storyalongtheselines?,"to whichmyfriendansweredthathe had no imaginationthatwould runin thisdirection,thatit was beyondhis scope to imaginesuch things.When theteachermade clearto him - thelowestgradehe thathisstubbornattitudecould costhimdearly - my friendinsisted could getwould seriouslydamagehis standing thathe could not helpit. He was completelypowerless,sinceitwas beyondhis scope to thinkalong these lines,his mind was simply blank. This refusalto compromiseone's attitudeis ethicsat its purest,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

224

TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2 ofAynRandStudies

ethicsas opposed to morality, to moralcompassion. My friendwas, in his deeds, an extremelyhelpfuland "good" person; what was in absolutelyunpalatableforhimwas to findnarcissisticsatisfaction reflexive himself In his such a deeds. mind, observing doinggood turnequaled theprofoundestethicalbetrayal. Is therenot somethingprofoundly"Randian" in this stance? Thereis a well-knownstoryabout Rand whose superficially scandalous aspectofteneclipsesitsextraordinary ethicalsignificance.When, in theearlyfifties, she suffereda writer'sblock in themiddleof her workonAtlasShrugged, sheproposedto theyoungNathanielBranden and his wifeBarbarathat,duringthe timeof writingthe novel,she would meet Nathaniel in the afternoontwice a week for sexual relationsto help herovercometheblock (Branden1986,259). They came to an agreement,the encounterstook place, and when,years later,thenovel was completed,theencounterswere over. Although,later on, relationsgot more complicated,thereare nonethelesstwo importantaspectsto thisanecdote. First,contrary to the standardpatriarchalprocedureof men exchangingwomen - one women amongthemselves,here,theexchangetookplace among woman borroweda man fromanotherone. Second, more importhe writer'sblock was not an excuse to tandy,Rand did notcheats in Once theworkwas done, she returnedthe indulge promiscuity. man to hiswife.To show such firmness in themostintimatedomain bears witnessto an ethicalstance of extraordinary strength:while Rand was here arguably"immoral," she was ethicalin the most profoundmeaningof the word. It is this ethicalstance of inner freedomthat accounts for the authenticity clearlydiscerniblein Rand's descriptionof themomentary Howard Roark makes impact on themembersof the audiencein the courtroomwherehe stands trial: Roark stood beforethemas each man standsin the innocence of his own mind. But Roark stood likethatbeforea hostilecrowd- and theyknewsuddenlythatno hatredwas possibleto him. For theflashof an instant,theygraspedthe mannerof his consciousness. Each asked himself: do I

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofAyn Rand

225

- am I tied? And need anyone'sapproval?- does itmatter? for thatinstant,each man was free freeenough to feel benevolenceforeveryothermanin theroom. It was onlya moment;themomentof silencewhen Roarkwas about to speak. (Rand 1992a, 677) Indeed,as Lacan putit: a trueMasteris theone who cannoteverbe - theone who, even when actuallybetrayed,does not lose betrayed We are How, then,is thisRandianMasterfiguresexuali^ed? anything. narratives thatare not to be dealingherewithtwo radicallydifferent confused: thestandardmasculinenarrativeof the strugglebetween theexceptionalOne (Master,Creator)and the"crowd" thatfollows theuniversalnorm,as wellas thefeminine narrative of theshiftfrom desireto drive,i.e.,fromthehysteric's in thedeadlocks entanglement of the Other's desire to the fundamentalindifferenceof the desubjectivizedbeingof drive. - phallocratie The Randianherois not"phallocratie" is ratherthe of the failed Master , Stadlerin figure (Wynandin TheFountainhead, AtlasShrugged ): paradoxicalas itmaysound,thebeingof pure drive who emerges once the subject "goes throughthe fantas/' and assumes the attitudeof indifferencetowards the enigma of the Other'sdesire,is a femininefigure.WhatRandwas notawareofwas thatthe upright,uncompromisingmasculinefigureswitha will of steelwithwhom she was so fascinated, are effectively figuresof the femininesubjectliberatedfromthedeadlocksof hysteria.It is well knownthata thwarted(disavowed)homosexuallibidinaleconomy - itis forthat formsthebasisofmilitary community veryreasonthat theArmyopposes so adamandythe admissionof gaysin its ranks. Mutatismutandis , Rand's ridiculously exaggeratedadorationof strong male figuresbetraystheunderlying disavowedlesbianeconomy,i.e., thefactthatDominique andRoark,orDagnyand Gait,areeffectively lesbian couples. It is thus a thin,almost imperceptibleline that separatesRand's ideological and literarytrash fromthe ultimate feminist insight.5 Such a readingenablesus to drawa crucialtheoretical conclusion about thelimitsof subjectivity: is hysteria not thelimitof subjectiv-

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2 ofЛуп RandStudies

ity.Thereis a subjectbeyondhysteria.Whatwe getafter"traversing the fantasy,"i.e., the pure being of drive that emerges afterthe is nota kindof subjectless subjectundergoes"subjectivedestitution," the of the of movement drive,but,on the contrary, loop repetitive the subjectat its purest,one is almost temptedto say: subject"as such." Saying"Yes!" to the drive,i.e., preciselyto thatwhich can neverbe subjectivized,freelyassumingtheinevitable,i.e.,thedrive's radicalclosure,is thehighestgestureof subjectivity.It is thusonly afterassuminga fundamental towardstheOther'sdesire, indifference rid of the of aftersuspendgetting hysterical game subjectivizations, thatthepure ingtheintersubjective gameofmutual(mis)recognition, subjectemerges. Notes

an 1. Thisisanexpanded of"TheLesbian andrevised version Sessions," which inLacanian Ink12(Fall1997):58-69. essay appeared inspiteofthe 2. Rand'sideological limitation ishereclearly perceptible: newimpetus themyth ofthe"prime movers" thedigital (Steve industry gotfrom BillGates), inoureraofmultinationals, individual aretoday, definitely Jobs, capitalists notits"prime Inother isthefactthatthe movers." whatRand"represses" words, itself. "ruleofthecrowd" istheinherent ofthedynamic ofcapitalism outcome 3. SeeAssoun1995,v.2,35-36. inversions of 4. AtlasShrugged a wholeseries ofsuchhysterical contains - suffice edition: desire ittoquotefrom onthecoverofthepocket theblurb ťťWhy does[John thewomanheloves?. . . whya hishardest battle Gait]fight against was steelindustrialist became a worthless productive genius Whya great playboy. onthenight forhisowndestruction . . . why a composer working gaveuphiscareer fell ofhistriumph . . . whya beautiful railroad whorana transcontinental woman inlovewiththemanshehadsworn tokill."SeeRand1992b. 5. Alongthesamelines, oneistempted tomakethesameclaimabout as the TomRipley, novels:insofar theheroofa series ofPatricia Highsmith's than rather radical lesbian coldness heevinces characterizes a certain stance, uncanny . A seriesof lesbian ofRipley is thatheis a male beinga closetgay,theparadox 1999) andSciabarra inFeminist Rand texts (Gladstein outstanding Interpretations o/Ayn indetail ofRand'swork, elaborate thehomosocial andgaydimensions especially thoseessays andMelissa ThomasGramstad, Wilt, JaneHardie.While byJudith totheir twist indebted tothem, thepresent toadda specific justwants essay deeply insights. References 1995.La VoixetLe Regard. 2 vols.Paris:Anthropos. Paul-Laurent. Assoun,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Žifyk-

TheActuality ofЛуп Rand

227

Barbara.1986. ThePassion NewYork: Branden, ofЛупRand.GardenCity, & Company. Doubleday MimiReiselandChris Matthew Sciabarra. 1999.Feminist Gladstein, Interpretations the Canon. University Park: ofЛуп Rand. Series: Re-reading State Press. Pennsylvania University Poems Plath, , edited Sylvia.1981. Daddy.In TheCollected byTedHughes.New York:Harper andRow. TheUnknown Ideal NewYork:NewAmerican Rand,Ayn.1967. Capitalism: Library. . 1992a.TheFountmnhead. NewYork:Signet. . 1992b.Л^ Shrugged NewYork:Signet.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.134 on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:39:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions