Against Ayn Rand, Vol. 2: European Freedom

Two articles today about Europe merit further consideration, especially in the context of Randian thought. The first describes a Swedish preschool that is attempting to avoid instilling in its students any sets of gender norms. The second discusses European cities' increasingly anti-car urban planning. Both scenarios present something of an attack to Randian values of freedom. While the freedom expressed in each is not precisely European, and the use of such a term is an overgeneralization, it is clear that a different type of freedom is at play in these two examples than is at play in the writings of Ayn Rand.

At the Swedish preschool, instructors use a nascent word borne from feminist circles that is a gender-neutral pronoun when they prefer to visitors to the class, such as plumbers, nurses, mechanics, firefighters, etc. when they don't know the gender of that person. They also use children's stories that describe families with single parents, gay or lesbian parents, three or four parents, and other unorthodox family structures. The idea is to make everyone comfortable with the idea that different family structures aren't necessarily bad family structures, and that different gender roles aren't necessarily bad gender roles.

The criticism, while well-intentioned, is oftentimes misguided. One Swedish woman suggests that "Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued." One can't help but be reminded of the famous US Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate is inherently unequal.

Another criticism came from an American child psychologist quoted in the story, who argues that "Gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness." His jumbled lexicon makes his meaning somewhat unclear, but he would be wrong to suggest that it will be bad for men to like masculine things. Boys aren't taught that it is wrong to play sports. Rather, they are taught that it is not wrong to like to cook or sew or wear pink.

The dismantling of gender norms is not designed to be constricting; in fact, it's designed to be liberating. There is that which we call masculine and that which we call feminine. Whether one is male-bodied or female-bodied should have no bearing on that person's choice of how masculine and how feminine to be because the association of certain behavioral norms with certain genitalia is nothing more than a constricting social construction.

The other story pertaining to European freedom focused on city planning in many cities that is making it more difficult to use cars. Trolleys are given the power to change traffic lights, parking spaces are being removed, low-emissions zones are being implemented, bike lanes and pedestrianized zones are becoming more common, and some cities have even instituted fees to take a car into the very center of the city. All of this amounts to a substantial incentive to find others means of transportation.

The reasons are many. The environmental benefit is among the most touted, and it is likely the most substantial. But there will also be a personal health benefit as more people walk or take a bicycle. Getting more people to use public transportation is good for cities as well because it brings people from different walks of life in contact with on another, thereby creating a more coherent idea of community in the city's citizenry.

In both of these scenarios, the Swedish preschool and the driving restrictions, the goal is a certain type of freedom. While the Randian will argue that freedom is only freedom from coercion, the European city planners and Swedish preschool instructors would argue that freedom is having the best of all possible knowledge to choose from amongst the many different options some of which you might of thought did not exist previously.

This is quite easy to see in the Swedish preschool. If little boys don't know that it is acceptable for them to wear a dress or like to cook, and if little girls do not know that it is acceptable for them to pretend to be knights or like to play sports, they are not free to make rational choices regarding these opportunities. Gender norms are constricting for both men and women in this regard, and their abolishment leads to a freer society.

The example of encouraging public and non-motorized transportation in European cities is designed to help people realize the true cost of private motorized transportation. There is both an environmental and a social cost that is not factored into the use of one's private vehicle. By implementing fees and making it more difficult to drive in city centers, local governments have helped their residents experience these costs. In essence, they fill out what had gone unnoticed about the imbalance of the driving equation: social and environmental costs. When people experience these costs through different means, their cost-benefit analysis of the choice of transportation changes. More information frees them to make better choices.

In both articles, then, we see how Rand's conception of freedom is far from comprehensive. When people do not correctly experience costs and benefits, when people do not know the choices that are available to them, they are not free. Both exercises, non-normative gender education and disincentivized transportation by car, result in a freer populace.