The title, The Fountainhead, refers to the source of human progress which, according to Rand, is ego – act on the virtue of rational self-interest. By 2018 Ayn Rand and her novels had become widespread cultural reference points among wealthy bankers, CEOs, tech moguls, and right-wing politicians. Rand’s philosophy had its roots in nineteenth-century classical liberalism and in her impassioned rejection of socialism and the welfare state in the twentieth century. Her anti-statist, pro–“free market” stances went on to shape the politics of what came to be called libertarianism, during a period of rapid expansion in the 1970s. The Mont Perlin Society was drawn together by the common sense of crisis. The gap between the public face and the relatively hidden political planning of neoliberals has been described by David Harvey as a contrast between the utopian theory of neoliberal freedom and the practical class project of installing oligarchical elites at the center of economic and state power.
Rand’s influence floats over all libertarian theories as a guiding spirit for the sense of energized aspiration and the advocacy of inequality and cruelty that shaped their worldviews. Drawing on deeply familiar cultural narratives derived from the fantasies of European empire, she outlines heroic characters and romance plots that appeal especially to white teenagers. Rand’s novels present “superior” characters and eroticize their contempt for and cruelty toward “inferior” others. She presents readers with her ideal capitalist: a haughty individualist with no need for the collectivism of government, unions or human solidarity. Donald Trump describes himself as an Ayn Rand fan. But she despised Trump’s kind of crony capitalism tied with government favors and corruption. Atlas Shrugged tells us that if left unresolved, conflicts between reason and whim can lead even great men and great nations to destruction. Rand noted: “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”1
Organized primarily by economist Friedrich Hayek, the more than one thousand economists, journalists, policy makers, and other thinkers who eventually gathered under the Mount Perlin Society umbrella formed what Philip Mirowski has called a “Neoliberal Thought Collective” – an intellectual/political intervention that eventually defined a new era of capitalism. Hayek published his book The Road to Serfdom in 1944 with new ideas, sounding the alarm that the West was rapidly abandoning its inheritance of individualism. He claimed there was a slow process under way in which important personal liberties were being extinguished by the state. The neoliberals set out to retool the state in relation to the market values of property rights and corporate hegemony. While their public propaganda efforts emphasized the keyword freedom and linked so-called free markets with free minds, they set out via activist interventions in state policy to create a decidedly planned version of “laissez-faire.” 2
Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence is pivotal in understanding the subtle mechanisms of power and dominance in society. This concept refers to the non-physical means by which social hierarchy and power relations are maintained, often internalized by individuals to the extent that they accept and perpetuate their own subjugation. Symbolic violence refers to the subtle and often unnoticed forms of domination and control that are exerted through social norms, values, and cultural practices. They challenge the universalising ‘truths’ of the economic system, calling it a ‘double discourse which, although founded on belief, mimics science by superimposing the appearance of reason… on the social fantasies of the dominant’. Symbolic violence operates through cultural means, such as language, education, and social norms, to legitimize the status quo. Many of Trump’s speeches enable rather than demand violence and ultimately, they provide a warrant for any violence that ensues.
Bourdieu’s approach to social change – it is necessary reconceptualise society in order to make visible power relations and injustices which are hidden through processes of ‘dehistoricisation and universalisation’. We must escape what Bourdieu terms the symbolic violence within our own minds which prevents us from thinking critically. He argues that this is a necessary step towards creating a more just society. In the current dominant framework of neo-liberalism, individualism, and self-responsibility, symbolic violence often leads people to (unjustly) blame themselves for their own suffering whilst the role of society remains hidden (Bourdieu et al, 2000). Bourdieu describes neo-liberalism as a ‘mental colonisation’ which operates globally. The sheer scale and pervasiveness of neo-liberalism and the many damaging effects it has, make it a pressing target for criticism – a project which Bourdieu has contributed much to. An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and personalities.3
For Bourdieu, neo-liberalism is deeply complicit in numerous types of symbolic violence. Not only does it ‘betray’ and abandon of all types of social work, but the ideals of individualisation and self-help serve to hide the role of neo-liberalism in the creation of suffering and “[make] it possible to ‘blame the victim’ who is entirely responsible for his or her own misfortune”. Thus, both social workers and those receiving help are denied much of the support they need and exposed to a logic which claims that their worsening situation (meaning tougher working conditions) is their own fault. Ultimately, neoliberalism acts as a veil that obscures systemic social relations of power in its quest to crown each person as an individual who is master of their own fate. It thereby becomes an overwhelmingly influential, yet cloaked and diffuse, discourse that persuades people to deny their interdependence with each other, as well as with the environment.
The neoliberal considers a particular use of symbolic violence to humiliate and crush one’s political opponents in public settings with the backing of institutional power. The current populist US president Donald Trump is such a case. His manipulation of language and of the television cameras are the two main elements of the symbolic warfare he wages against anyone who challenges his authority. His use of disparagement and ridicule, his conman-like manipulation of the interactional context and his use of Twitter to address his supporters directly, not only discredit the very institutions that have brought him to power but are raising fundamental questions as to the future of presidential power and democracy in the United States. This extraordinary abuse of power is leading the country to a constitutional crisis forcing Americans to rethink the very bases of their electoral system, the separation of powers of their government, and the undemocratic values promoted by their commander-in-chief.4
But Trump’s dark power is also playing out among a larger group – GOP lawmakers who disdain his strongman radicalism but are afraid to speak out against him because they think loyalty is the only way to save their political skins. The acquiescence of most Republicans has long enabled Trump’s assaults on the rule of law and shows little sign of hardening into opposition to the President. And it played out again when President Trump issued full commutations and pardons to those indicted and/or sentenced for the January 6th attack, GOP senators dodged calls to condemn Trump’s actions. But appeasing Trump’s culture of violence is not limited to the RNC. In a continuing attempt to ignore the violent scenes, multiple Capitol Hill Republicans have whitewashed the truth of January 6. Many others have tried to obstruct the committee or mislead about its purpose. Pam Bondi, as new Attorney General, is disbanding anti-corruption teams, and ending FBI efforts to combat foreign influence in US politics, for some reason.
The framing of news stories is another example of symbolic violence. Media outlets often highlight stories in ways that reflect and reinforce societal power structures. For instance, the focus on crimes committed by minorities can perpetuate the stereotype of these groups as inherently criminal. Conversely, the achievements and positive contributions of these groups are often under-reported, contributing to a biased public perception and justifying discriminatory policies and practices. Advertising is replete with symbolic violence through its reinforcement of gender norms and beauty standards. Advertisements often depict women in subordinate roles or emphasize unrealistic beauty standards, contributing to body image issues and the internalization of gender roles. This not only affects women’s self-esteem and behavior but also perpetuates a societal structure that values women primarily for their appearance rather than their abilities or accomplishments.5
Rand popularity reappeared with the financial crash and the presidency of Barack Obama that followed. Spooked by the fear that Obama was bent on expanding the state, the Tea Party and others returned to the old-time religion of rolling back government. Neoliberalism has produced a broad landscape of cruelty, precarity, and disposability. The recent circulation of public narratives and public displays of cruelty and moral indifference continue to maim and suffocate the exercise of reason and social responsibility. What we have been witnessing in the United States since the 1980s and the Reagan-Thatcher disavowal of all things social is a kind of hardening of the culture marked by an increasing indifference to matters of empathy and an erasure of ethical considerations. Rand lionises the alpha male capitalist entrepreneur, the man of action who towers over the little people and the pettifogging bureaucrats – and gets things done.
The polarizing of American politics has its strongest roots in Rand’s classic, Atlas Shrugged, where a capitalist elite engage in a perpetual cultural warfare for the soul of America, fighting society’s “moochers, looters and parasites,” anyone and everyone demanding government money to solve their problems. But neoliberalism is more than a standard right wing wish list. It is a way of reordering social reality, and of rethinking our status as individuals. In short, neoliberalism is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made just to support the autocracy. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practice and believe: that the only a way of structuring all reality is the model of economic competition. Project 2025 includes Christian nationalists wish list for Trump’s second term. American democracy is at a dangerous inflection point, as Americans evaluate the long-term consequences of Trump’s recent mean-spirited policies outlined in a series of executive orders.
By choosing Rand’s theory of objectivism, which turns selfishness into virtue, libertarians get around the need to explain social Darwinism. Trump’s culture of cruelty views violence as a sacred means for addressing social problems and organizing society. His cabinet and donor lists are full of Rand fans who support neoliberal cruelty. For tycoons of the digital age, Vanity Fair suggests, Rand is the most influential figure in the industry. The Rand influence is manifest less in party political libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the impact. Musk is following Rand’s golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others. Project 2025 is symbolic warfare – installing oligarchical elites at the center of economic and state power, replacing symbolic political violence – voluntary submission to legally-sanctioned relations of domination resulting in and sustaining a social power imbalance. Americans are now in the streets protesting this confusion, chaos in their government.6
1 https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/ayn-rand-and-the-cruel-heart-of-neoliberalism/
2 https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/ayn-rand-and-the-cruel-heart-of-neoliberalism/
3 Pierre Bourdieu – Challenging Symbolic Violence and the Naturalisation of Power Relations https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/181