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 support@jstor.org.

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 of

Ayn Rand1

Slavoj Ži^ek

Ayn Rand's fascinationfor male figuresdisplayingabsolute,

unswayabledeterminationof theirWill, seems to offerthe best
imaginableconfirmation of SylviaPlath'sfamousline,"everywoman
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
excessiveidentification withit. Her over-orthodoxy was directedat
capitalismitself, as the tide of one of her books : The
(Capitalism
Unknown Ideal;Rand 1967) tellsus; accordingto her,thetruly heretical
thingtoday is to embrace the basic of
premise capitalism without its
communitarian, collectivist,welfare, etc. sugar-coating. So what
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 direcdythefantasmatic kernelofAmericancapitalist
ideology. The elementary ideologicalaxisof herworkconsistsin the
opposition between the "primemovers"or "men of themind,"and
"second handers"or "mass men." The Kantianoppositionbetween
ethicalautonomyand heteronomy is herebroughtto itsextreme:the
"secondhander"is searchingforrecognition outsidehimself,hisself-
confidenceand 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
ofЛуп RandStudies
Vol. 3, No. 2

hiscreativity,
selfishin thesensethathis satisfactiondoes 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
opponent; simply doesn't care about him. Here is the famous
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
contrary, the highestself-assertion.Love forothersis the highest
formof properlyunderstood"selfishness,"i.e., of my capacityto
realizethroughmyrelationship withothersmyowninnermostdrives.
And also on thebasisof thisopposition,AtlasShruggedconstructs
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 disinte-
sets
gration in, and the desperatesociety callstheprimemoversback.
They return, but on their own terms.
Whatwe have hereis thefantasyof a man findingtheanswerto
the eternalquestion "What moves the world?"- the prime mov-
ers- and then being able to "stop the motor of the world" by
organizingtheprimemovers'retreat.JohnGait succeedsin suspend-
ing 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.
TheFountainheadgives us a clue as to thematrixofintersubjective
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
crowd-manipulation (he was not awareof how his media manipula-
tionof thecrowdactuallymakeshima slavewho followsthecrowd's
whims);Keatingis a simpleconformist, a whollyexternalized, "other-
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
exemplified in thetenserelationship betweenRoarkand Dominique,
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
is ready,and you'reafraidof themall I neveropen again
anygreat book I've read and loved. It hurtsme to thinkof
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
imaginaryother,the competitive-envious double, but primarily the
big Otherof thesymbolicInstitutionthatguaranteesproperty), and
thisgaze of theOther thatoverseesme in mydesiringcapacityis in
itsveryessence "castrative,"threatening.3
Thereinconsiststheelementary matrixof thedialectics
castrative
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- ofЛуп Rand
TheActuality 2 19

thewill,creativity,etc.of thepeople,but,on theotherhand,he gives

us everything we have, so we have to be gratefulto him forevery-
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
whichtheonlywayto remainfreeis to sacrificeeverything one cares
to
for, destroyit, to never have a job one wants and enjoys,to marry
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
evensearchingfor,theutmosthumiliation - she marries
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
strategy to cope withherunconditionallove forhim,to inscribethis
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
position pure drive: they want to break him down in orderto
deliverhimfromtheclutchesof his drive.
This dialecticsprovidesthe keyto what is perhaps the crucial
scenein TheFountainhead. Dominique,whileridinga horse,encoun-
terson a lone countryroad Roark,workingas a simplestone-cutter
in her father'squarry;unable to endurethe insolentway he looks
backat her,thelook thatattestshisawarenessofherinability to resist
beingattracted to him,Dominique furiously whipshim. (In thefilm
version,thisviolentencounteris renderedas thearchetypal scene of
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 TheJournal Vol. 3, No. 2
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

destroyRoark- thewillingness expressionofher
thatis thestrongest
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
animal. I'm goingto praythatyou can'tbe destroyed - I tell
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
destroying hisagalma(or,rather, 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
worthless - thereinresidesher
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
purity;likeDominique,Kundrysimultaneously wantsParsifalnot to
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 (sexual-
ized) tensionbetweentheprimemover,thebeingof puredrive,and
hishystericalpartner,thepotentialprimemoverwho remainscaught
inthedeadlyself-destructive dialectic(betweenRoarkandDominique
in TheFountainhead,betweenJohnGait and DagnyinAtlasShrugged).
When,inAtlasShrugged, ' one of theprimemoverfigurestellsDagny,
who unconditionally wantsto pursueherworkand keep the trans-
continentalrailroadcompanyrunning,thatthe primemovers' true
enemyis not thecrowdof second handers,but herself,thisis to be
takenliterally.
Dagnyherselfis awareofit: whenprimemoversstart
to disappearfrompublicproductivelife,she suspectsa darkconspir-
acy,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 getsridof
subjectfinally

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 per-
verted existingorder is none other than her attachmentto her
productivegenius: a primemoveris readyto payanyprice,up to the
utterhumiliation of feedingtheveryforcethatworksagainsthim,i.e.,
thatparasitizeson theactivityhe officially
endeavorsto suppress,just
to be able to continueto create. What thehystericized primemover
mustacceptis thusthefundamental indifference:
existential shemust
no longerbe willingto remainthe hostage of the second-handers'
blackmail("We willlet you workand realizeyourcreativepotential,
on conditionthatyou acceptour terms"). She mustbe readyto give
up theverykernelof herbeing,thatwhichmeans everything to her,
and to acceptthe"end of theworld,"the (temporary) suspensionof
theveryflowof energythatkeeps theworld running.In orderto
gain everything, she mustbe readyto go throughthezero-pointof
losingeverything. And, farfromsignalingthe"end of subjectivity,"
this act of assumingexistentialindifference is, perhaps, the very
gestureof absolutenegativity thatgives birthto the subject. What
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 intelli-
gence, etc.); theirinnermost featureis theirlack of the falseguilt
feeling,their freedom from thesuperegoviciouscycle- whenyouare
caught in this cycle,you are guiltywhateveryou do. This superego
logic was nicelyformulatedby Rand apropos of the antitrust laws:
a
everythingcapitalist does becomes a crime- ifhis are
prices higher
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 223

49).
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
distinctionbetweenethicsand morality:whenthesubjectgathersthe
strengthto break out of thisvicious circle,he leaves behind the
sphereof morality whilesimultaneously 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
provideto accomplisha good deed of helpingone's neighbor" - the
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
thathisstubbornattitudecould costhimdearly - thelowestgradehe
could getwould seriouslydamagehis standing - my friendinsisted
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
absolutelyunpalatableforhimwas to findnarcissisticsatisfaction in
observing himself doinggood deeds. In his mind, such a reflexive
turnequaled theprofoundestethicalbetrayal.
Is therenot somethingprofoundly"Randian" in this stance?
Thereis a well-knownstoryabout Rand whose superficially scandal-
ous 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
amongthemselves,here,theexchangetookplace among women - one
woman borroweda man fromanotherone. Second, more impor-
tandy,Rand did notcheats the writer'sblock was not an excuse to
in
indulge promiscuity. Once theworkwas done, she returnedthe
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 impact Howard Roark makes
on themembersof the audiencein the courtroomwherehe stands
trial:

Roark stood beforethemas each man standsin the inno-

cence 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- ofAyn Rand
TheActuality 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

betrayed - theone who, even when actuallybetrayed,does not lose
anything. How, then,is thisRandianMasterfiguresexuali^ed? We are
dealingherewithtwo radicallydifferent narrativesthatare not to be
confused: thestandardmasculinenarrativeof the strugglebetween
theexceptionalOne (Master,Creator)and the"crowd" thatfollows
theuniversalnorm,as wellas thefeminine narrative
of theshiftfrom
desireto drive,i.e.,fromthehysteric's entanglement in thedeadlocks
of the Other's desire to the fundamentalindifferenceof the
desubjectivizedbeingof drive.
The Randianherois not"phallocratie" - phallocratieis ratherthe
figureof the failed Master (Wynandin TheFountainhead, , Stadlerin
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
formsthebasisofmilitary - itis forthat
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
subjectundergoes"subjectivedestitution," is nota kindof subjectless
loop of the repetitivemovement of drive,but,on the contrary, the
subjectat its purest,one is almost temptedto say: the 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 indifferencetowardstheOther'sdesire,
gettingrid of thehysterical of
game subjectivizations, aftersuspend-
ingtheintersubjective gameofmutual(mis)recognition, thatthepure
subjectemerges.

Notes
1. Thisisanexpanded andrevised versionof"TheLesbian Sessions,"an
essaywhich appeared inLacanian Ink12(Fall1997):58-69.
2. Rand'sideological limitation ishereclearlyperceptible:inspiteofthe
newimpetus themyth ofthe"prime movers" gotfrom thedigital
industry (Steve
BillGates),
Jobs, individual capitalists aretoday, inoureraofmultinationals,definitely
notits"prime movers." Inother words, whatRand"represses" isthefactthatthe
"ruleofthecrowd" istheinherent outcome ofthedynamic ofcapitalism itself.
3. SeeAssoun1995,v.2,35-36.
4. AtlasShrugged contains a wholeseries ofsuchhysterical inversionsof
- suffice
desire ittoquotefrom theblurb onthecoverofthepocket edition:ťťWhy
does[John Gait]fight hishardest battle againstthewomanheloves?. . . whya
productivegenius became a worthless playboy. Whya great was
steelindustrialist
workingforhisowndestruction . . . why a composer gaveuphiscareer onthenight
ofhistriumph . . . whya beautiful woman whorana transcontinental railroadfell
inlovewiththemanshehadsworn tokill."SeeRand1992b.
5. Alongthesamelines, oneistempted tomakethesameclaimabout
TomRipley, theheroofa series ofPatricia Highsmith'snovels:insofar as the
uncannycoldness heevinces characterizes a certainradical
lesbianstance, than
rather
beinga closetgay,theparadox ofRipley is thatheis a male . A seriesof
lesbian
outstandingtextsinFeminist Interpretations
o/Ayn Rand andSciabarra
(Gladstein 1999)
indetail
elaborate thehomosocial andgaydimensions ofRand'swork, especially
thoseessays byJudith Wilt,ThomasGramstad, andMelissa JaneHardie.While
deeplyindebted tothem, thepresent essay justwants toadda specifictwisttotheir
insights.

References
1995.La VoixetLe Regard.
Paul-Laurent.
Assoun, 2 vols.Paris:Anthropos.

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- ofЛуп Rand
TheActuality 227

Branden,Barbara.1986. ThePassionofЛупRand.GardenCity, NewYork:

Doubleday & Company.
MimiReiselandChris
Gladstein, Matthew 1999.Feminist
Sciabarra. Interpretations
ofЛуп Rand. Series: Re-reading the Canon. University
Park:
State
Pennsylvania University Press.
Sylvia.1981. Daddy.In TheCollected
Plath, Poems, edited
byTedHughes.New
York:Harper andRow.
Rand,Ayn.1967. Capitalism:
TheUnknown Ideal NewYork:NewAmerican
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