There is, strangely, one point on which both liberals and Ayn Rand supporters agree, one point which underlies many of the errors or omissions of both political systems. That is their focus upon the elite, the top echelon, to the exclusion of all else. And while that may be fine in forming Objectivist philosophy, or in crafting a heroic novel, in terms of politics, and non-political culture, it is disastrous. And while Rand gets the political part right, though liberalism does not, she blows it when it comes to cultural factors.

Politics is the art of handling the lowest common denominator, at least it should be. Politics is about preventing the violation of rights, of maintaining order, of settling disputes when transactions go bad. In short, politics should be about preventing harm when things go wrong.

Culture is also about controlling things. At least part of it is.

Some of culture is intended to elevate. The values we set, the aspirations we try to instill in our youth, those are about inspiring the best in us. And likewise the cultural shorthand we develop, which allows us to quickly understand complex concepts, as well the transmission of accumulated knowledge, all of those are about the best and brightest, taking the elite to greater heights.

But there is a second part of culture, one that functions alongside the law as a means of control. And this is the part where Rand drops the ball. Forces such as guilt and shame, the desire to avoid the criticism of our fellows, and the need to maintain a good reputation all have a part to play in preventing the worst from coming to pass.

Rand seemed not to understand this part. The way the liberals focused on government solely as a means for the elite to transmit their orders to the lesser citizens, Rand looked at culture entirely as a shared context for the elite, and ignored the significance of culture as a means of imposing standards without resort to government. By focusing entirely on elites, on those with elevated goals, without prurient interests and less intellectual interests, she forgot the need for society to maintain standards of behavior. Looking at only at elites, she forgot the other end of the spectrum, those without the internal controls to keep themselves in line, who need social pressures to keep them from causing disorder.

Now, don't get me wrong, society can exist without cultural pressures. Government alone can keep society functioning. However, as we have seen in my posts "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Shame and Behavior" and "Our Rude Behavior", as well as in the society all around us, without some softer controls, without some social pressures, many citizens will do nothing but chase after their basest interests. Worse than that, they will also contribute significantly to the coarsening of society, to the introduction of strife and discord into social interactions. And, while this will not lead to the collapse of society, the cost is still high.

Think of only one such breakdown of social controls, the number of illegitimate children. Even excluding the poor, whose illegitimacy may be blamed partly on government subsidy, there is still a huge cost to such a phenomenon. And it cannot all be laid at the door of the state, or at least not blamed on laws. Instead, many of these cultural phenomena have nothing more than social causes.

Which shows how essential social controls can be. Yes, society can live without them. We can live in a  Rand-based utopia where shame and guilt are not used to maintain order, but would we want to? Would it not be better if some of our less agreeable members, or even some of those who are otherwise respectable but lacking in one form or another of self-control, had a bit of gentle prodding from society? I do not support using laws to enact a "social conservative" agenda. But on the other hand, I think ignoring the need for such social controls to be imposed voluntarily, is foolish. And that is where I think Rand failed in understanding human society.

POSTSCRIPT

I don't mean this to read as the cultural mirror image of the liberal arrogance that leads to their authoritarian systems (see "The Best Historical Example"). I do not believe some elite needs to impose cultural controls to keep the ignorant masses in line. What I suggest is that a proper sense of shame, a fear of disapproval serves well to ensure that everyone, the best and the worst, comport themselves in a way that society in general finds most useful. Rand's heroic individualism, if adopted as a universal principle, short circuits this and leads to the same problems in the end that liberal non-judgmental ethics do. Unless, that is, every individual has the total self-control requried to keep themsleves in line without any external pressures. Somehow I doubt that will happen, and so Rand's implicit rejection of conformity as a tool of social engineering would, in the end, have the same result as the liberal rejection of a common culture.