| | I posted the above, but thought I should add the following.
While the paragraph makes perhaps a small contribution to our understanding of Rand's views -- she seems to have voiced approval of the struggle of gays for freedom, momentarily at least setting aside her disapproval of their lifestyle, where normally she would focus on that aspect and certainly not encourage gay activism -- there may be less to it than appears at first glance. A sloppy researcher or thinker might make more of it than is justified.
Observe how little is actually between quotation marks. The first quotation, the only complete sentence of Rand's given, tells us nothing we didn't already know about her views. The second quotation is a compound noun around which the interviewer constructs her own sentence. Granted, it does not seem likely that the interviewer misinterpreted Rand on such a simple point, but journalists' general record in the matter of Ayn Rand does not inspire confidence. In fact, the interview, which is actually in the form of an article, is written in a tone of faint ridicule and borderline hostility. I find it hard to believe Rand would allow publication of this article if she had made the journalist sign that long list of conditions she is said to have demanded of those who wrote about her with her help.
Perhaps Ayn Rand was merely making nice, bending over backwards to be agreeable in her first interview after a period of silence. Sometimes non-objective researchers make too much of isolated statements and writings, forgetting the fact that something might have been said or done carelessly or spontaneously under the influence of a mood or the constraints of a situation.
Even so, if we assume the accuracy of the interviewer's summation, the paragraph does tell us something about what Ayn Rand was willing to say at that time and in that place. And of course, it is fully in accordance with her political philosophy, if not her ethical one as she applied it to the issue of homosexuality.
Rodney Rawlings
|
|
