Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' and the Problem with Ideology

Upon high school graduation, I was given a copy of Ayn Rand's book The Fountainhead by a neighbor. A book whose protagonist is an unwavering architect was an appropriate gift as my neighbor knew that I would be heading off to architecture school 3 months later. At that time I was a naive 18 year old with limited knowledge about architecture. Thus, the story's main character, Howard Roark, seemed a good model to aspire to at the time given his ability to never compromise his perfect integrity.

  

I devoured Rand's book with intensity- fully absorbed by her descriptive prose. I loved how Roark was unmoved by attempts to undermine his magnificent designs. Only a few years later did I fully understand that the world created in The Fountainhead could never exist in reality. While Rand's characters do exhibit traits of people in the real world, they are exaggerations of these traits to the point of absurdity. Peter Keating, the talented architect who sells his soul for material gain; Ellsworth Toohey, the conniving art critic; Gail Wynand, the omnipotent yet flawed and lonely publishing mogul: all of these characters are caricatures lacking the complexity of real people.

Howard Roark,  the protagonist of the story, is also an exaggeration of pure genius and self-interest. Roark may have been better portrayed as an artist rather than an architect, because at least an artist has more opportunity to create without the impediments facing practicing architects. Even then, no human being, save sociopaths, could be as cold and devoid of emotion as Roark.

I was reminded again of the flaws of The Fountainhead last November when I read an excellent blog post by Josh Stephens on the urban planning website Planetizen. The post, titled Deconstructing a Tea Party Muse, discusses the worrying trend of U.S. citizens involved in the 'Tea Party' movement subscribing to the Randian notions of 'individualism' (i.e. self-interest) without concern for broader social aims.

It is well documented that Ayn Rand's objectivist ideology is essentially a reaction to Soviet Communism. Communism, in its pure ideological form, was a disaster, as was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Maoism. Yet it is not communism, or its ideological opposite, individualism, that are at the root of conflict. The problem is the very notion of ideology itself.

Contrary to what many believe, the world is not binary, consisting only of 'either-or' absolutes. The world is fluid, different cultures see things through different interpretations. The Tea Party movement fails to see the world as it is, instead accusing anyone associated with anything other than rampant individualism a 'socialist' or a 'communist'- words that have lost their meaning due to their gross overuse.

Ideology of any form is dangerous, whether it be a political system or religious dogma. It is human nature to search for meaning, to make sense out of the chaotic environment around us. Ideology provides an easy solution. Unfortunately human nature is also fickle and emotions easily trump pure logic.

Perhaps this would be too unnerving a reality to face for the Tea Party free-market ideologues, radical Islamist militant groups, evangelical Christians, or any other group that strictly adheres to a fundamental set of beliefs that leaves no breathing room for differing opinions or interpretations. The further clashing of belief systems in an ever-connected world is a grim prospect indeed.