Jennifer Burns

Yeah, I mean, there's a couple different ways I think it happens. I really am interested in the relationship between the thinker and then the reader and the interpreter of the ideas and then the conditions on the ground that make that idea resonate or not resonate. And so I think a lot, so as an intellectual historian, I'm studying ideas and I'm always putting them in their historical context.

Like what is happening that is making these things resonate, that is making them, people seek them out? So for Rand's case, she has this credibility because of her experience of communism, which is one of these defining moments of the time. And then I think the idea comes out in a sort of pure form and then other people rework it and reshape it as they read it.

Like what is happening that is making these things resonate, that is making them, people seek them out? So for Rand's case, she has this credibility because of her experience of communism, which is one of these defining moments of the time. And then I think the idea comes out in a sort of pure form and then other people rework it and reshape it as they read it.

Like what is happening that is making these things resonate, that is making them, people seek them out? So for Rand's case, she has this credibility because of her experience of communism, which is one of these defining moments of the time. And then I think the idea comes out in a sort of pure form and then other people rework it and reshape it as they read it.

And I'm really interested in how people form communities around these ideas. So a bunch of people started calling themselves objectivists and getting together to read Rand's work. That was spontaneous and ground up. and wasn't supported by any money. Nobody planned it. It just happened.

And I'm really interested in how people form communities around these ideas. So a bunch of people started calling themselves objectivists and getting together to read Rand's work. That was spontaneous and ground up. and wasn't supported by any money. Nobody planned it. It just happened.

And I'm really interested in how people form communities around these ideas. So a bunch of people started calling themselves objectivists and getting together to read Rand's work. That was spontaneous and ground up. and wasn't supported by any money. Nobody planned it. It just happened.

Friedman's a different case in that he joins an established tradition of thought that's been institutionalized in universities. So people are signing up and paying money and getting credentialed to learn these ideas. So to my mind, these are two different ways, but really emblematic ways of how ideas spread. So Rand, I think of as more bottom-up, like people encounter the idea in a book.

Friedman's a different case in that he joins an established tradition of thought that's been institutionalized in universities. So people are signing up and paying money and getting credentialed to learn these ideas. So to my mind, these are two different ways, but really emblematic ways of how ideas spread. So Rand, I think of as more bottom-up, like people encounter the idea in a book.

Friedman's a different case in that he joins an established tradition of thought that's been institutionalized in universities. So people are signing up and paying money and getting credentialed to learn these ideas. So to my mind, these are two different ways, but really emblematic ways of how ideas spread. So Rand, I think of as more bottom-up, like people encounter the idea in a book.

They're kind of blown away by it or they imbibe it without even realizing they're imbibing it. And then they're like, well, maybe I don't like Franklin Roosevelt so much or maybe I'll look another time at Barry Goldwater. And then whereas Friedman, you get the idea more top down. I know I'm getting the idea. I know I'm being positioned within a sort of elite discourse of economics.

They're kind of blown away by it or they imbibe it without even realizing they're imbibing it. And then they're like, well, maybe I don't like Franklin Roosevelt so much or maybe I'll look another time at Barry Goldwater. And then whereas Friedman, you get the idea more top down. I know I'm getting the idea. I know I'm being positioned within a sort of elite discourse of economics.

They're kind of blown away by it or they imbibe it without even realizing they're imbibing it. And then they're like, well, maybe I don't like Franklin Roosevelt so much or maybe I'll look another time at Barry Goldwater. And then whereas Friedman, you get the idea more top down. I know I'm getting the idea. I know I'm being positioned within a sort of elite discourse of economics.

And so I think they kind of go top down and bottom up and then they hit the events and Right. Friedman's ideas wouldn't have gone anywhere without that episode of stagflation that really made people think they proved out. And I think Rand's ideas really caught fire in Cold War America that's looking for a statement of like, what does it mean to be an individual?

And so I think they kind of go top down and bottom up and then they hit the events and Right. Friedman's ideas wouldn't have gone anywhere without that episode of stagflation that really made people think they proved out. And I think Rand's ideas really caught fire in Cold War America that's looking for a statement of like, what does it mean to be an individual?

And so I think they kind of go top down and bottom up and then they hit the events and Right. Friedman's ideas wouldn't have gone anywhere without that episode of stagflation that really made people think they proved out. And I think Rand's ideas really caught fire in Cold War America that's looking for a statement of like, what does it mean to be an individual?

What does it mean to live in this mass society? Because it's also a time of great social conformity and where people are suddenly, you know, they're working for large corporations. Right. They've been served in a large military. You know, the United States is stepping out onto the world stage. Everything is bigger. What does it mean to be an individual in that world?

What does it mean to live in this mass society? Because it's also a time of great social conformity and where people are suddenly, you know, they're working for large corporations. Right. They've been served in a large military. You know, the United States is stepping out onto the world stage. Everything is bigger. What does it mean to be an individual in that world?

What does it mean to live in this mass society? Because it's also a time of great social conformity and where people are suddenly, you know, they're working for large corporations. Right. They've been served in a large military. You know, the United States is stepping out onto the world stage. Everything is bigger. What does it mean to be an individual in that world?

And that's where Rand's ideas catch fire. So I think a lot about that, about how they trickle through different levels of society and then how ideas collide with experience, I think is critical.