In the Rand Archive, Part 4: What Will Happen Next?

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

In the Rand Archive, Part 4: What Will Happen Next?

Sunday, 25 October 2009 17:04

The letter I received from Leonard Peikoff was a mere formality; he simply signed off on a standard request to publish specific unpublished material from the archives (a list of which stretched to more than 14 pages). The most notable thing about the letter was Peikoff’s fragile signature, which reminded me the generation who knew Rand intimately is aging and that it won’t be long before we are left with only the written record. What the letter signified, however, was truly remarkable: for the first time, the Estate of Ayn Rand had granted publishing permissions to an outside scholar who had authored a full length, critical study of Rand.

Why did the Estate grant me permission to publish? Though I will never know the answer for certain, I can offer some ideas.

(Please note: I have not ever met or spoken to Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s literary heir and the custodian of her estate, and what I suggest here is my opinion, supplemented by information from those who do know him well).

One reason was clearly the book itself, which had sufficient merit to warrant support. I also believe that more than twenty years after her death, Peikoff may have realized that being excessively protective of Rand’s legacy has damaged rather than helped her. This is certainly something I noticed at the outset of my project in 2001: though there were many books about Rand, most were written by friends or foes, with a noticeable lack of the kind of critical academic attention other contemporary novelists attract as a matter of course. Not a single scholar in my field, American intellectual history, had written a peer-reviewed article or book on Rand. For Peikoff, trusted by Rand to advance her legacy and like her a believer in the power of intellectuals, this situation must have been distressing. I also believe that granting me permission to publish flowed naturally from his earlier decision to establish the Ayn Rand Archives; after all, implicit in the establishment of a research center is that some of this research be published.

Perhaps the more important question is: what does the publication of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right mean for the future of Rand scholarship? Are the doors now wide open, and will we see a boom of new archival work on the life and legacy of Ayn Rand? Again, I can offer only tentative hypotheses and ideas. As I have written in this blog series, my experience in the archive was positive. Nor was the permissions process unusual. Several other heirs asked to see relevant portions of the intended work before granting permission to publish, and some even charged me for the privilege.

It is worth, noting, however, that the archive’s access policies remain in transition. The Archive is currently undergoing a digitization process to preserve its holdings (to those conspiracy theorists out there: I’ve seen the cameras, and the work queue, and this project is indeed happening). This preservation project will logistically limit the numbers of scholars who can be accommodated. It is also possible, though I dearly hope not, that the publication of my book will trigger a backlash against any further openness. I do not believe this will occur. So what happens next?

Here I will offer a few predictions (always risky for the historian!):

1.) I believe the archive will continue to offer access to scholars interested in Rand’s work, and by scholars I do not mean those exclusively associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, but persons enrolled in or working for a degree granting institution or those who can demonstrate, through the formulation of a cogent research proposal, that they have a serious intellectual interest in Rand.

2.) Scholars primarily interested in the personal or biographical aspects of Rand will encounter difficulties, at least until the publication of Shoshana Milgram Knapp’s authorized biography of Rand. Knapp, an English professor at Virginia Tech, is devoting significant time to this project. Though I do not know the details of her arrangement with the archive or the Estate, it is my understanding that authors working on projects which may compete or conflict with hers will not be given access to the Ayn Rand Archive (this is the reason Anne Heller was denied permission to view Rand’s papers.) The publication of Knapp’s book should be good news for the entire community interested in Rand. She is a serious scholar who does careful work, and she will likely produce a detailed and intelligent account of Rand’s life. Knapp has shared some of her preliminary findings with me, and I know they will arouse great interest. Her project was originally limited to the years prior to 1957, but may have developed since.

3.) The Estate’s tenderness around the personal aspects of Rand’s life leads me to predict it will be many years before there is a full and impartial outside account of the Rand-Branden affair. This is rather a shame, since I know from my research the Archive has ample holdings that would more than satisfy the widespread curiosity and controversy about their relationship and its ending. Both because of my agreement with the archive and since my interest in Rand was primarily intellectual, this material informs only a small portion of my manuscript. I hope and expect that within my lifetime, another writer will give this aspect of Rand’s life the attention it deserves.

4.) As for the published letters and diaries of Ayn Rand, that they have been edited is now widely known within the Objectivist community and is freely spoken of within the Ayn Rand Archives. I have heard some talk of a “scholar’s edition” of these materials, complete with footnotes and annotations. However, since recent work published by the Estate continues the practice of editing Rand’s words, I do not expect a revised edition anytime soon. However, to the extent the Archive remains open to outsiders, this problem can be surmounted. Rand’s legacy will thus exist on two levels: one for the general reading public, and one for the scholarly community.

Those are my thoughts. Yours?

Comments (16)

|2009-10-25 17:45:03 Brant Gaede - archives

The archives and how they will be handled will be the primary legacy of Leonard Peikoff and I think from your description it will be very positve. As a long-time severe critic of his over many decades I am gratified and heartened by this.

|2009-10-25 18:11:31 Neil Parille - Archives

Prof. Burns,

You write:
___

For Peikoff, trusted by Rand to advance her legacy and like her a believer in the power of intellectuals, this situation must have been distressing.

___

I don't know Dr. Peikoff, but he has always seemed to have a dismissive attitude toward intellectuals. A book that treats Rand like other intellectals wouldn't appear to be his cup of tea.

|2009-10-25 20:22:05 Anonymous

In regards to opening the Archives to you, wouldn't it be more logical to think that the reason you were allowed this access was mainly due to your own intellectual record? Now I can't say I know your work background at all really, but wouldn't be safe to assume that those at ARI either looked into your background themselves or you had offered your credentials to them (you could fill us in on this if you wish in a separate post). And so based upon their judgment of your previous work, your proposed project on Rand, and specifically any previous work you've done on Rand herself they found you to have enough merit to attempt an unbiased critique of her work.

This is merely my perspective on the matter. But that would seem more sensible to be the case instead of some supposed contradiction in Peikoff's mind that he "despises" intellectuals while at the same time wants others to think well of Rand and himself by having them produce academic work.

|2009-10-25 20:25:32 Michael Caution - Judge, and be prepared to be judged

Sry, to clarify the anon comment above was mine.

|2009-10-26 10:58:38 Paul R - Another theory

Perhaps Dr. Peikoff let this go forward because the now Prof. Burns was then a rookie. There was nothing on the record to justify a denial.

|2009-10-26 13:03:53 KPO'M - Re: Another theory

It's doubtful, Paul R. If anything, Peikoff ought to have been suspicious of someone with "nothing on the record." For all he knew, the book could have turned out to be a hatchet job pieced together with out-of-context scraps from the archive.

|2009-10-30 19:27:27 Craig

Jennifer,

Do you have any idea how Knapp is likely to treat the Rand-Branden affair given how sensitive that topic still is at A.R.I.?

|2009-11-01 09:52:12 Neil Parille - Rand-Branden Affair

Craig,

I'm not sure how sensitive the topic is among the ARI anymore. Everyone knows it happened and it's also clear that NB lied to Rand. There are some other questions, such as whether Rand lied about having it (Heller says she did) and its effect on Frank.

I wonder what the general take of Milgram's bio will be since it now looks like it will be full-length. If Milgram takes the Peikoff line that Rand's only flow was blowing her top, I don't think it will be taken seriously.

Of course, Prof. Burns might see things differently.

-Neil Parille

|2009-11-25 12:29:01 Jennifer Burns - response to comments

Hi all,

As to my credentials, I had then only an undergraduate degree (from Harvard) and was a second year doctoral student in history at UC Berkeley. I had no publications, only the positive estimation of my advisor, a prominent intellectual historian.

I am not sure how Shoshanna Milgram Knapp will handle the Branden relationship. Originally her book was projected to end in 1957.

-Jennifer

|2009-11-29 18:04:46 Vincent Bersamina - How did Ayn Rand change your life?

Dear Ms. Burns,

You have done tremendous research on the life of Ayn Rand. You learned that academics, socialists and religionists hated her and called her unprintable names. I'm interested to know your personal view of Ayn Rand. Thanks

|2009-12-10 07:38:17 Jerry Biggers - Peikoff's self-defeating insult of intellectuals

Leonard Peikoff does indeed display a contradiction in his writings and verbal statements of despising "intellectuals while at the same time wanting others to think well of Rand and himself by having them produce academic work."

His antagonistic attitude is prominently displayed in his Preface to his book, "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,"1991), which he claims as the most comprehensive statement of her philosophy and, based on a lecture course that she attended and approved.

Peikoff stated, "Like any proper work of general philosophy, this book is written not for academics, but for human beings (including any academics who qualify)."

This form of gratuitous (and self-defeating)insult displays a callous disrespect for an audience that Rand had repeatedly emphasized was key to the expansion and success of her philosophy (i.e., her "For The New Intellectual").

|2009-12-10 12:16:07 Paul R

Not gratuitous, well earned. As important as philosophy is, it is necessary to call out systematic professional failure when it happens.

It is not a contradiction either because it is not the same set of academics being referred to at the same time and in the same respect. The set of academics who have closed ranks against her will have to die off in their tenured positions before another set can even begin to grapple with her ideas.

Faked respect would be the true contradiction.

|2009-12-10 19:44:00 Michael Caution - Normative Evaluation of "Intellectual"

I second Paul R's point. Rand called for the advocates of reason, the "New Intellectuals", to pick up where the old have abdicated. Any claim to the title of "intellectual" was lost by them when they gave up their responsibilities and lowered their gaze away from the study of man the rational animal.

Rand and Peikoff do not denounce intellectuals as such, Peikoff himself is an intellectual with a PhD. Any negative criticism is directed at non-objective, irrational intellectuals. These are the intellectuals who are not living up to their own title. They've stopped celebrating man and instead call him base and seek his destruction. The enemies of man are numerous in today's world, it is only a few that celebrate the values necessary for man to live.

|2010-02-16 15:12:57 anonymous - Peikoff distressed?

I am not Peikoff, but know him and have discussed the Archive policies with him. Regarding your assumption that he feels "distressed" that his behavior has damaged Miss Rand's legacy or ideas: Do you know the line from the Fountainhead where Toohey meets Roark one day and asks Roark "what do you think of me?" I would venture to guess that his attitude to your intellectual peers in the universities would be the same as Roark's answer to Toohey.

|2010-02-16 17:04:30 Jerry Biggers - Peikovians' self-imposed and self-defeating exile

Not surprisingly, the Peikovians don't get it. They can't fathom why only a tiny minority of academic and other intellectuals have rallied to advocate for Objectivism. They cannot understand why academics would be offended by Peikoff implying that they might not qualify as human beings. Rand started off in "For The New Intellectual" by declaring that they were an audience that she was addressing, and inviting them to examine her revolutionary philosophy. Peikoff responds with his gratuitous insult, and then acts surprised by their rejection of the rest of his book.

Peikovians are most likely upset by this criticism because: 1) they believe that if Peikoff said it, it MUST be true; and 2) the idea that an "official" advocate for Objectivism can make a tactical mistake is just too much for them to handle.

As for the rather strained attempt to make an analogy between Roark's response to Toohey and Peikoff's attitude toward his "intellectual peers in the univ...

|2011-09-27 06:42:06 HOLLYSIMS - re

When you're in a not good position and have got no money to get out from that, you would need to receive the loans. Because that will help you for sure. I take small business loan every time I need and feel myself OK just because of it.