Words Go Here
EMIYA, Rand, and Social Justice
by , December 7th, 2015 at 10:46 PM (5332 Views)
The topic is a little old now, but I'm feeling restless. This is not a general endorsement of the presented ideas.
Originally Posted by Howard Roark, from The Fountainhead
In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand suggests the altruist as an empty individual, devoted to filling their interests by accepting the desires of others and dedicating their time to expressing the value of charity. These characters are without exception represented solely to highlight their flaws. Like caricatures, they are empty of true competence, emotionally bland, or histrionic, and ultimately, reliant entirely on others to achieve validation. Like the tentacles of a great kraken, or perhaps merely like crabs in a bucket, they bring down things of value without any real thought at all. This class of person either detests or cannot begin to consider that something done entirely for oneself can be good.
Groupthink and the need to prove oneself as properly concerned with those less fortunate presents itself, in the social circles of the story, as the factor that destroys any real creativity or solvency of application. People concerned solely with the opinion of others decide that it is proper to believe what others believe. Endlessly seeking affirmation and really, creating nothing at all.
Donations, charity events, social work, the development of low-income housing projects, and sympathy for the unremarkable all represent the shallowest form of altruism in this novel. Acts like these are validation of the self through others. At the same time, it is a reaffirmation that the person who gives has power over the person who receives, because one exists at the whims of the other.
This is what Rand means by selfless: eternally seeking validation in the collective.
And then there is Shirou, who Nasu presents as the closest a person can become to selfless. But, within the narrative, it's quite clear that he doesn't exactly match the pattern that Rand sets for this sort of character.
Shirou presents strong internal motivation. He believes in taking care of himself, and a rigorous exercise routine. Socially, he's almost well-adjusted from an external perspective. Note, however, that he maintains a clear division between the opinions that are his and those that belong to others. He gives large portions of his time to the correction of problems, to the point that he earns himself a nickname for just that.
There are already a great many analyses of his character that I agree with (i.e. all of Fate/Stay Night), and I don't have the space to rehash those points here.
But, isn't that interesting? Toward his chosen goal, Shirou expresses all the single-minded passion of Roark working on his buildings. His chosen priority is difficult to grasp from an external perspective. As far as it goes, his is a character dedicated to becoming an ally of justice, and the story is a multifaceted explanation of why that can't be. Consider one final thing about him: that he is, for choosing to continue despite acknowledging these contradictions, quite insane. Turn this around, and it seems clear that for establishing his good on the condition of others, Shirou is about as selfless as the unreal creature that Rand painted as empty.
But we like him, because he fights for justice, right? That makes him good, doesn't it?
Of course, that's because his world gives him the villains to fight. His endless determination is also admirable in its own right. But, there is no "villain" that holds the strings of all the real world's injustices.
The fundamental tenet of the world's most prominent religions is that suffering is the central virtue of existence. It promises "salvation" in the afterlife through endless repentance. Compare this with the ideology of Ellsworth Toohey, who establishes a cult-like following by expounding upon the "higher satisfaction" to be gained by erasing the ego and accepting the will of a collective.
Now, what is the sum of infinite zeroes?
The central problem with social justice as a movement is precisely the same. Like organized religion, or the bizarre quest to reject the ego, social justice movements speak primarily of the guilt of the status quo, pointing to highly-publicized incidents and drawing from them the justification for behavior that is unproductive, for the most part, and actively destructive, in minority.
Much like the architects of the Cortlandt homes fussed and wasted the resources of the public on adding their own flourish to a complete building, the general proponents of the social justice movement(s) justify toxic, rude behavior as an acceptable action because the goal itself is defined as positive a priori.
Consider the testimony below:
In general, statements made on the internet about a particular issue are not effective solutions to the issue. In presenting a criticism of the status quo, one only reaffirms one's moral virtue by screaming out an opinion into the largest echo chamber that has ever been opened for human use, without taking on the effort of contributing a reasonable point of discussion for the education of others or having to expend the effort necessary to actually produce something interesting for the world to consume and experience.
And at the same time I make the concession that suffering has been propagated by systems of oppression, such as African apartheid, National Socialism, and African slavery and segregation, but just as we do not demand restitution for the innocent Frenchmen beheaded in the Reign of Terror, it would also be prudent to focus not on righting the ills of the distant past, but instead on doing something of productive value in the present.
h y u u
Email Blog Entry
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
