I feel an urge to clarify something. It’s probably superfluous after this ramble, but given the response around the web to my comment yesterday, made in an old thread, I want to be as clear as I can be.
My comment was largely independent of reading Kate Hilpern’s article on Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio. My limited exposure to his ideas on family—which will be presented a bit more deeply in the forthcoming Salon—had disturbed me sufficiently that I was uncomfortable recommending any of his content to people seeking freedom. But in researching for the Salon, I found that it was much worse than my earlier explorations had suggested; and so I wanted to make it clear that I do not support Molyneux’s projects in any way, on the page here where most visitors searching for content related to him are likely to find it.
I don’t intend to turn this into a Stef-bashing post; I have never been in direct contact with him and have not deeply explored his extant corpus of work. That said, I find many of his specific assertions and suggested actions regarding the family to be very problematic. I know that horrific familial abuse happens; I am not suggesting elsewise. However, the family is not the universal evil Molyneux portrays it to be. In my case, it was precisely because of some issues I had with my parents and upbringing that I came to be an anarchist—and for that I am grateful, however unintentioned their actions were.
Maybe I was more fortunate than most, because one thing I learned very early from my family dynamic was that my parents were not infallible sources of information, ideas, or anything. Thus I started questioning just about every one, and every thing, to some degree or other. That habit has served me very well—sometimes even despite myself. When I first discovered the freedom philosophy, it was via Ayn Rand—and like so many others, I went a little overboard at first, despite identifying some problematic areas in her philosophy. After exploring them more with some friends, I was able to accept her invaluable contributions to my thinking and eliminate the junk.
That process deeply reinforced my childhood lesson: principles and ideas matter more than the individuals who advocate them. It also helped me realize something that I touched on briefly here, earlier: true maturation involves gaining not just economic independence, but psychological independence as well. While I understand the shorthand of labeling oneself, for example, as a Rothbardian or Stirnerite, I cannot help but wonder how many individuals who tag themselves as an adherent of another are also inadvertently revealing a measure of psychological dependence upon that important person. Sometimes the line separating appreciation and fanaticism can be vanishingly thin—especially if we believe that the key to our own freedom lies outside of ourselves somewhere.
Thus, my deeper distate for Molyneux’s work lies in his self-aggrandizement and insistence that one way—his way—will work for us all. As far as I’ve been able to determine, his sole potentially valid claim to expertise in philosophy and psychology lies in having a counselor as his wife. Now, I’m not asserting that degrees make the expert: it is the deep study of ideas and learning how to critically evaluate all ideas that’s vitally important; and I have seen little evidence to support the idea that Molyneux has done this kind of work.
And the core of the issue for me—as is always the case when I encounter someone who claims he can lead others to salvation of any sort—is simply this: Only you can set you free. Sure, others can help; but they help best when one’s critical faculties are fully engaged, grokking similarities as well as differences between the leader’s and one’s own circumstances, values, and goals. And when someone truly helps another, he cheers when he sees the person flying on his own wings, rather than trying to keep him tethered. If there’s no way to “graduate” from a leader, then it isn’t a path to real freedom. This is as much true for the family environment as it is any other would-be leader.
For those who come here seeking more about Molyneux, Freedomain Radio, and defooing, I have little more than the above to offer. However, in the course of my research on him I found a forum that seems to be a good place to gain more information, and specifically, some support for family members who’ve been rejected, at Molyneux’s urging—Liberating Minds (that link will take one directly to the FDR area).
For those of you whose brains are buzzing at my title, it isn’t original to me—it’s a line in a hard rock song from the 80s that I adored from my very first listen: Cult of Personality by Living Colour. (Sorry, embedding of that vid is disabled.)
“Only You Can Set You Free”
Creeps
I have not listened to Molyneux often, but every once in a while click on a link and end up watching or listening to one of his talks.
He gives me the creeps every time I listen or read his stuff. Even when I agree with his position, such as his criticism of libertarians who were enamored with Ron Paul, I find his presentation disturbing. Also self aggrandizing. At one point it occurred to me that he seems to consider himself both Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden rolled into one.
Given that I found him creepy I did not explore further. His position on families is new to me and horrifying.
But you have to give him credit, he has found his cultists, and like Rand has done so under the guise of the voluntary and rational.
Unfortunately, there are people who want to be lead, and there are those who are going to take advantage of this. Some, like Molyneux, will do so under the guise of freeing them.
I wish I knew how to effectively stop both sides of this.
Benefit of a doubt
I guess I am very good at picking out "the good" and ignoring "the bad" when I read a person's writings. I don't completely agree with anyone, but have found some very helpful ideas in Stefan's stuff. I just finished reading "Everyday Anarchy" and enjoyed it very much.
I don't agree with his way of ditching family members who don't value freedom, or who derail your own path to freedom. I'd have no family (or real-life friends) at all if I did that. But from some of the things of his I have read or listened to, I would say he was seriously damaged in his childhood. Maybe we are seeing the scars and judging him by them. That doesn't mean he is right, just that his wrongness is understandable. I can pass up the crap while collecting the pearls. Since I have never met him personally, I will not pass any judgement other than that.
Understandable?
Just because he was seriously damaged in his childhood does not necessarily mean that every child who hears a harsh word from a parent, or is denied anything his parents, is similarly “seriously damaged”. Yet, from the little I was able to stomach of the podcasts I downloaded, that seems to be his perspective. Someone who apparently has greater familiarity with his material than I do has written a thorough analysis of Molyneaux’s public response to the Guardian article; and it supports my interpretation.
What’s understandable about referring to the family as “the ultimate WMD”? That isn’t the only epithet Molyneux used, either. And the context made it clear he wasn’t referring to his family, but “the family”—the concept itself. Sorry I can’t point to a run time in that MP3 for the quotation—I was so disgusted by the podcast that I didn’t finish listening to it, and deleted it, along with several others that I didn’t even bother opening.
No amount of singing the praises of anarchism, voluntaryism, or any other pro-freedom idea makes that understandable or acceptable to me.
Babies and bathwater
Of course not all children will be similarly damaged even if they were raised in "identical" circumstances. His views on the family don't hold water with me. And that is why I will ignore that part. Just because he is wrong in this area doesn't mean he is wrong in other areas, too. It just means you should use discretion and rationality when exposing yourself to his views, just as you should with anyone's ideas. Otherwise I would be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as I think he is doing by clumping all families together).
Here’s why I won't ignore it.
I understand your points, Kent, and respect your freedom to choose differently than I have. Based on my explorations into his work, the value he may offer in liberty-oriented areas simply doesn’t offset the problematic content in others. More importantly, there are many other pro-freedom writers who cover the same ground better than Molyneux. So, I don’t lose anything by not supporting his freedom content.
But here’s why I cannot and will not overlook his deeply disturbing position on the family: his casting of the institution of family as “the ultimate WMD” is based on a reduction of billions of complex, dynamic interactions over millennia down to a simple groupism. Family = evil. It is such simplistic thinking that it can barely even be called that! And to hear it from someone who calls himself a philosopher ... it boggles the mind. If Molyneux is unwilling or unable to conceive of the possibility that his horrific family situation was and is not the situation of billions of other individuals—or to admit that this is so, then I honestly can’t take anything he says very seriously.
And yes, I do take this personally—as a child and as a parent, how can I not do so? He is attacking some of the most important relationships I’ve had or am currently in—without any evidence to support his assertion. In a very real sense, he is condemning every single person who’s ever lived! Lobo and I have taken our parenting responsibilities very seriously, and work hard to respect our children and their sovereignty—and in that process, have come under criticism from some friends and family. To have someone who could reasonably be thought a potential supporter deliver instead such scorn and derision absent any justification is beyond disappointing.
I know some people have awful childhoods. I know many families are full of coercion and emotional bullying. But not all are. And here, where the blood ties seem to bind less strongly than on other continents (and where geography also makes it easy to slip those bonds), it’s pretty easy to let family relationships fade if one so desires, without the situation becoming confrontational and ugly. I managed that by myself, and I’m sure millions of others have as well.
Freedom as I grok it requires acknowledging individuality. Molyneux seems to be doing all he can to deny human individuality on some fundamental levels. I have no use nor patience for that.
OK
I suppose I just don't take it personally. I know I am the best parent I can be, and I keep trying to be better. I know where/how my parents damaged me, and I understand where they were coming from. I don't hold it against them, as I hope my kids will not hold my faults against me.
This just goes to show the danger of forming a cult of personality around anyone. My own views are the ones that matter most to me. I will run everything else I run across through the "filter" in my head, and keep what I find value in and excrete the rest.
It seems to all come down to whether or not you as an individual benefit from being exposed to a particular person's viewpoint or not. If you don't, then by all means spend your time doing something else. (I first wrote "someone else"!) Life shouldn't be wasted.
Whew!
Boy, am I glad to see this addressed here. I've been worried that every anarchist/libertarian other than myself thought of Molyneux as a guru of sorts; I'm relieved to see that's not the case.
I found "Everyday Anarchy" to be helpful in the beginning of my plunge into freedom-thinking; the Freedomain podcasts, however, were sufficiently disturbing to me that I haven't been able to keep going with them (I've only listened to the first dozen or so). I thought they were very chilling and soulless, with no room for traditional virtues such as mercy and forgiveness.
More relief for you.
The news article seems to be stirring up a lot of pro-freedom individuals, and getting more to examine Molyneux’s stuff more broadly. And someone thought highly enough of this post to include it in today’s Rational Review issue.
Take good care!
Dishonesty
What bothers me most about Stef is his dishonesty. I participated briefly in his forum and my comments are based upon that experience. His ideas about the family are interesting and, like many things, appear to me to have some small measure of potential truth to them. Early on in his evolution as a guru he or his wife started using the phrase "It all begins with the family," as an indicator of why people accept government as being some form of perfect incarnation of something or other. I do believe there may be some important thinking there. But where they've (Stef and Christina and the tribe) gone with it from there is simply hideous.
But back to the dishonesty part. Stef speaks of truth and honesty, but if you challenge any of his proclamations he fails to engage in honest discussion. More often he simply bans you from the board with no discussion whatsoever. He simply cannot stand not being worshiped. He banned me simply because I had engaged in a few posts at Liberating Minds. Posts which actually were supportive of him.
So I guess the part that bothers me the most is his dishonesty. I can abide someone who honestly disagrees with me and is open to discussion. I learn things from such people and grow and change. I actually enjoy having someone blow holes in my beliefs. But dishonesty I will not abide.
Which is sad, for Stef does have a lot to offer. He is a smart and thoughtful man.
- NonE
Thanks.
I appreciate you sharing some of your direct experiences here, NonE.
I've never really followed
I've never really followed Molyneux at all; he's been on my radar, of course, through some of the reading I've done around Left Libertarian circles. But, after seeing some bit of his on the evils of family, I'm now actively avoiding reading/listening to him.
Creepy's the word for it.
Rambling Thoughts
I think that it is sad that Molyneux seems to have fallen into some cult-like behavior. I read and listened to some of his work in earlier days, and found some of it interesting. One of the many things that brought me to the point of leaving the evangelical church was its cult-like aspects. Ironically, it was the work of Evangelical anti-cult activists Walter Martin and Hank Hanegraaff that made me see the cult-like aspects of mainline Evangelicalism and churches in general. If Molyneux has become cult-like, it is too bad. I thought that he had potential to become a very good writer, but he wasn't quite there yet, IMHO.
Unfortunately, there are those who are drawn to leaders to think for them, and the freedom movement isn't immune to them. There are unquestioning Randians, Misoids, Rothbardians, and many others. That doesn't eliminate the value I find in having read any of the works of Rand, Mises, or Rothbard. I try my best to separate the wheat from the chaff in their writings, as well as anyone else that I read, including you, my dear Sunni, and I hope that the three people who have read anything that I have wrote do the same with me. I worship at no one's feet, except in play, of course! ;-)
Regarding Molyneux' criticisms of the family, I think that it is important that even our core beliefs and assumptions are questioned from time to time. If I hadn't, I wouldn't ever have become an anarchist. I don't agree with him, but I am glad that I have listened to it. I have several friends that feel the same way that he does about the family, and all of them had bad family experiences growing up. I had some bad experiences as well, but I haven't abandoned my birth family. I think that Molyneux has had similar bad experiences, and I feel for him if he has.
I agree with the family's critics who say that family should be completely voluntary. Sometimes you have to leave your birth family and start another with close friends and loved ones.
There are better critics of the concept of family, but their names escape me at present, and I have to leave soon and will be gone for a couple of days. If I remember them, I will post them here. Take care.
Of Course I Agree...
With everything you have said here Sunni, Jorge, NonEntity...
The really horrible thing, which QuestEON notes, is that Molyneux himself likely does not realize what he is really doing. He is as a child with a gun to use the classic illustration. He has a great and terrible power in his hands, but little if anything of the knowledge and sense of personal responsibility required to properly use it.
Getting Molyneux in focus
Thank you for linking to my analysis, Sunni! It is painfully long, but I wanted to help people understand the meaning that often lies hidden behind Molyneux's words.
The problem with getting Molyneux in focus (with respect to his views on relationships and family) is that he puts little bits of arguments here and there and you never quite see the picture until you pull it all together. It's the same with freedomainradio, which is a layered and deep organization--difficult to understand at first glance. I wanted my analysis to put all of that on display for someone who has no prior knowledge of Molyneux/FDR.
I hope you found it useful.
The thanks are due you.
Given your goal, nothing but “painfully long” would stand a chance of achieving it. And I think you did so, and admirably. Thank you for all your efforts in that regard.
only you can set you free
preaching to the choir here, but the key that has helped me in my own understanding of so called leaders/mentors or other ego forms is to not subordinate to that type of relationship.
i start with the premise that everyone is your guru. yes, even the state. but that doesn't mean i subordinate to it or others. the state has taught me more about freedom & liberty by providing the exact opposite, causing thinkers to write and expose, so that others can learn, grow in knowledge, and pass it on.
while molyneaux is pope of his village of wisdom, his villagers will have to decide to what level they will follow him. he may be a catalyst to someone searching for freedom or he may turn others off with his goofy take on family. at the end of the day he's just a guy either spreading a message or masturbating an ego. you be the judge. there will always be egos craving the light of leadership, bureacracy, politics, mentorship, etc. and there will always be people lined up to seek their advice & direction.
the truth contained in those six words titling this thread is lost on so many seekers. they are wired/taught to look outward for their answers rather than introspect and reason for themselves, test against new knowledge, and revise accordingly. i've learned as much from those i've observed in dysfunction as from those who display wisdom. when the seeker exhausts the external and still lacks, the search becomes directed inward to the mirror of the self. from that point, wisdom can grow.
Very true.
Excellent points, galacticmonk, particularly in regards to the state informing us as to the true nature of liberty so well. Thank you very much for contributing your thoughts—sometimes even the choir benefits from a reminder or two.