Perspectives on Freedom: Ayn Rand and Kurt Vonnegut

Literary criticism is not my strongest point, and I'm trying to improve. Below is a short essay I wrote a few weeks ago on the contrasting views of freedom found in two very different authors. It's not strictly related to the current fights, but it could make a nice jumping off point for beginning a conversation about what balance of freedom and equality we would like to see.

* * *

The contrast between Vonnegut and Rand’s views on freedom is best approached by evaluating their portrayal of both the Act and of the Uebermensch [overman]. The contrasting portrayals of the Act are best approached by discussing the the actions of the two protagonists (Harrison Bergeron and Prometheus) in the works analyzed.

Harrison Bergeron is a physical specimen: beautiful, a giant, a “genius”, and an “athlete” (Vonnegut 10). In this way, he is quite similar to Prometheus who – in addition to being “beautiful” – has “limbs [which are] straight and thin and hard and strong” (Rand 80). These physical similarities are acts in and of themselves. Though acts of nature and not of man, each is an integral part of the being of the characters – without his genius Prometheus would be useless, and without his physical attributes Harrison Bergeron would be equally useless. Here, we see that though the acts of nature are similar, the authors view them as different. Vonnegut places a special emphasis on physical might while Rand places emphasis on intellectualism.

Though Bergeron is a “genius”, his takeover of the televised ballet is one of brute force (Vonnegut 11). Immediately following his burst through the door, Bergeron proclaims “I am Emperor” and he orders all to “watch me become what I can become” (Vonnegut 11). Here, we see a primal animal force. Reason has been removed from reality and the act of rebellion is one in which the savage animal man claims his throne. The act of rebellion explicitly described in Harrison Bergeron, however, is a secondary act of rebellion. We are told initially that Harrison Bergeron “has just escaped from jail”, and we are not told what his initial transgression was (Vonnegut 10). We may, however, reasonably infer that his initial act of rebellion was being born the way he was. Harrison’s self-transcendence is similarly naturalistic. After casting off his restraints he is “revealed [to be] a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder” (Vonnegut 12). Vonnegut’s choice of a deity is critical. He does not choose Loki (the Norse trickster God) or Athena (the Greek Goddess of wisdom) but instead chooses a being of uncontested power.

Vonnegut’s choice in deities reveals his perception of freedom. For Vonnegut, the powerful is the free. The act must therefore be the action of the empowered self-transcendence of the Uebermensch. It can be no other. Consequently, for Vonnegut, Bergeron’s exercise of freedom must be ended by a power greater than he: “a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun” (Vonnegut 13). Vonnegut then ends his story with the death of Bergeron’s idea. For this reason, we must conclude that Vonnegut views freedom as a thing-in-itself: an object which exists by itself but which must be created by human beings in a singular act of self-transcendence.

Rand’s portrayal of the act as a thing-for-itself is quite different than Vonnegut’s portrayal of the Act as a thing-in-itself. For Rand, the free act is a thing which exists by- and for-itself. For Rand, there must be many acts of minor rebellion before the singular act of revolution. For this reason, Prometheus first rebels by “Prefer[ring]” then rebels by “being alone” before rebelling by “writing” before finally rebelling by exiting society and “enter[ing] the Uncharted Forest” with Gaea (Rand 22, 17, 76). These Acts of rebellion, like Bergeron’s natural rebellion, all lead to the final act: self-realization. In order to self-transcend, Prometheus must first develop a linguistic conceptualization of self. We may consequently conclude that for Rand, the individual must flee society while for Vonnegut, escape from society is impossible and the individual must instead work to enact change.

This paradigm of interpretation is presented with some difficulty, because for Vonnegut the idea never dies but is arrived at by individuals independent of those who previously thought of it. Conversely, for Rand’s protagonist Prometheus, the idea is deathless but must be periodically rediscovered rather than realized a priori by an extraordinarily gifted being. Ideas may therefore be said to be deathless for both Rand and Vonnegut. The way in which individuals arrive at those ideas, however, is the difference.

The nature of the individuals must also be different; Vonnegut’s Uebermensch is a mortal man. Rand’s Uebermensch on the other hand must be “The Unconquered” (Rand 56). For Rand, The Unconquered must also be unconquerable and incomparable to all others around him. This bastardization of Nietzsche’s philosophy(1) results in a different type of overman than Vonnegut’s natural overman. For Rand, The Unconquered is one who has triumphed over society in a way lasts for all time.

Once the nature of the individual is established, the opposing views of society are easier to spot. For Vonnegut, society is omnipresent (and holding a ten-gauge shotgun) while for Rand society is only sometimes present and can be escaped. Rand does not reflect this view in Anthem, however. Instead, she merely has Prometheus form a new society with Gaea – a society in which the dominant social contract will be imposed upon each member. Ironically, the imposed lack of free choice was what Prometheus rebelled against in the first place. Similarly, Rand only attacks equality in Anthem by creating a society of inequality – but without admitting as much. Vonnegut, on the other hand, acknowledged the hierarchy in Harrison Bergeron when he described the role of the ‘Handicapper General’.

Each author’s character embodies their view of what the perfected being ought to be. Despite opposing views on society – the individuals relationship with it, and on what the individual owes to it – Rand and Vonnegut’s protagonists have one similarity which cannot be disputed: the ability to transcend societal bounds. The duration and success of this transcendence is debatable, but the initial ability is not. Consequently, we may derive the existence of at least one commonality: self-transcendence.

* * * * *

Endnotes:

1. It can be reasonably argued that the end goal of Zarathustra was to allow all men to become overmen. “I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him” (Porter 2000, 622).

* * * * *

Works Cited:

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich. "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." Classics in Political Philosophy. Ed. Jene M. Porter. Trans. Horace B. Samuel. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 2000. 622.

2. Rand, Ayn. 1999. Anthem. Penguin Books.

3. Vonnegut, Kurt. 1961. "Harrison Bergeron". Welcome to the Monkey House.