As we have already seen, Ayn Rand and self-esteem go together like Marco and Polo.
One of her “inner-circle” disciples, Nathaniel Branden, is often called “the father of the self-esteem movement.” As I mentioned yesterday, Rand and Branden (he was 14 years her junior) felt good enough about themselves to have a sexual affair with both their spouses’ knowledge. After all, as Atlas Shrugged makes perfectly clear, smart and successful people deserve each other. To object would be to admit you aren’t the kind of person Rand admired. Famously, however, sexual hijinks also ended Rand and Branden’s social and professional relationship when Brandon—apparently feeling too good about himself—had an affair with another woman without telling Ayn (their sexual relationship had already ended—Branden had blamed it on some unresolved psychological issues). To say Ayn was livid is an understatement akin to saying toddlers shouldn’t kiss rabid Dobermans.
Did you feel the love? Umm… pleasure seeking?
But, I can hear you thinking, “in spite of their sexual peccadillos the self-esteem movement is still a good thing, right?”
Wrong.
But let me back up a minute. Here are some of the principles upon which Brandon’s philosophy of self-esteem is based:1
- “I have a right to exist.” But if you are a murderer do you have the right to live?
- “I am of high value to myself.” Okay, but that’s like saying, “I can’t live without me.”
- “I have a right to honor my needs and wants….” Apparently, even if what I “want” is adulterous.
- “I am lovable.” But what if you’re just a selfish, gravy-sucking pig? Just saying that doesn’t make it true.
- “I am admirable.” Maybe not! Does anyone admire Charlie Manson?
- “I deserve to be treated… with respect by everyone.” Does Charlie Manson deserve this?
- “I am worthy of happiness.” Regardless of whether I treat others responsibly?
- “My happiness and self-realization are noble purposes.” It is true that everyone wants to be “happy” but on what basis is that want noble?
Now granted few people are like Pol Pot or Charlie Manson but the point is that simply being human, particularly from Rand’s or Branden’s atheistic worldview, doesn’t confer your right to exist, the right to honor your wants, or that you are lovable, admirable, or respected, etc.
No wonder that studies in the last ten years have revealed that the self-esteem movement is creating societally lazy, sometimes thuggish, ne’er-do-wells who, nonetheless, believe they are really wonderful.
One major study concluded that high self-esteem does not lead to better school performance and that “narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships….” Also, “High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex.” The study concludes by pointing out that “Praising all the children just for being themselves… simply devalues praise and confuses the young people as to what the legitimate standards are.”2 After all, saying “I am valuable simply because I am human” isn’t saying anymore than “I’m one in seven billion.”3
Thankfully, there is a God who created humankind in His image and so there are absolute standards upon which we can base our worth. And if we do well on this earth we can look forward to His one day telling us “well done.”
Next we’ll look at more “ugly”: the rejection of oversight.
2 Corinthians 10:17-18: “‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’ For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.”
Amen.
- Nathaniel Brandon, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (New York: Bantam, 1994), 161-162. [↩]
- Roy F. Baumeister, Jennifer D. Campbell, Joachim I. Krueger, and Kathleen D. Vohs, “Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness or Healthier Lifestyles?” Psychological Science in the Public Interest http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_4_1.pdf. Accessed 9 April 2011. [↩]
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/world-population-7-billion_n_805481.html. [↩]
Dr. Jones,
I think I may have to take issue with this statment: “After all, saying ‘I am valuable simply because I am human’ isn’t saying anymore than ‘I’m one in seven billion.’ ” The basic argument of the pro-life movement is that the life of an unborn child is valuable merely because it is human. The value of the unborn life isn’t determined by it’s instrumental value, because then who gets to decide when you or I cease to be “instrumental” and can, therefore, be eliminated/aborted. But rather based on the intrinsic value of that human life. What I hear you saying is the former (instrumental) rather than the latter (intrinsic) in this article. If so, then you would seem to be at odds with the pro-life camp.
Hi Jackie,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I don’t think you’ll be surprised to know that I completely oppose abortion. My comment was made in the context of Rand’s atheism. If atheism is true, like most Christian apologists I argue that it is impossible to come up with any kind of transcendent values. From the atheist perspective I don’t see why they should believe that humans are more valuable than kangaroos, crustaceans, or caterpillars. Indeed, atheist, “ethicist” Peter Singer agrees that for humans to value humans over other creatures is “specism.” However, from the Christian perspective, humans were created in the image of God who forbids us to take another human’s life. Thus from the Christian perspective each of the seven billion humans are valuable.
Clay
Dr. Jones,
Thank you for taking the time to respond and from reading your blog and Facebook posts it is, indeed, clear that you oppose abortion, a position with which I heartily support. I guess what confused me was the comment to which I referred in my earlier post came in the context of the weakness of the self-esteem movement and on the heals of a statement that the study you cited concluded that praising children just for being themselves devalues praise and “confuses the young people as to what the legitimate standards are.”
So, if I understand you correctly based on the article and your previous response to me, that you agree with the study insofar as praising human beings for just being human beings devalues praise and legitimate standards. Rather, that human beings should be valued intrinsically for being created in the image of God but whether that human being is worthy of praise is another matter altogether. Yes?
Hmm. I think you mischaracterize Rand’s position. I can’t speak to Brandon’s. I’m no expert on Rand, however I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. She is big on causation and earning. Your statements imply, or state outright, that Randian (self) esteem is deserved by sole virtue of being. That was simply not her position. In her mind there is no such thing as love that is unearned. Esteem must be earned through a values system. Likewise, others must earn your esteem of them by their virtue. Love or esteem is attained through the virtues of production, reason, acknowledging objective reality, etc. It is never “causeless” or asked of anyone for no reason. In fact, she perceives Christian love as being inferior because, in her view, it must be dispensed to the most morally bankrupt unreservedly and without just cause. That is, due only to the grace or sacrifice of the virtuous to the non-virtuous and undeserving. Thus your criticism is actually her indictment of causeless Christian love, which she goes to great lengths to explain. She would never say that someone should have self-esteem just for esteem’s sake.
For the record, I am a conservative Christian who wanted an apologist’s take on her views as I found them quite penetrating and challenging. I just don’t think your critique here hits the mark. This is my first visit. Found you by google. I’ll poke around for more. Thanks!