July 2, 2012
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Rationalization
Yi-Fu Tuan
[Dr. Tuan is no longer writing regular Dear Colleague letters. This is a special essay written for his readers.]
We like to think of ourselves as rational animals, which isn’t saying much, for all animals are rational; that is to say, all animals use their intelligence to achieve a rational end, namely, survival. We humans, although we too strive to survive, have other rational ends in mind, outstandingly, the acquisition of knowledge and the improvement of society. In the last two to three centuries, much is achieved in the acquisition of knowledge, but the improvement of society lags behind and is certainly less progressive. Why? The answer is that we humans, unlike other animals, not only reason but also rationalize, and that we rationalize much more in the social sphere than in the sphere of learning.
How come this strong tendency to rationalize in the social sphere? At a personal and individual level, I am impelled to do so because I need to maintain an image of myself that has communal approval. Let’s say that I abuse my students. Rather than recognize the fact, which my intelligence is fully competent to do, I use it either to build a wall around that activity or persuade myself that it isn’t really abuse but is rather a form of tough love. To give another example, let’s say that I am lazy, a condition I know society disapproves of. To retain a good image of myself both in my own eyes and in the regard of society as a whole, I blame my laziness on my school’s failure to provide me with stimulus and inspiration. The blame is couched in “reasons,” but are in fact rationalizations that do not bear critical examination. If the individual is strongly tempted to rationalize in defense of its self-image, even more so is this true of the group, which requires a group self-image of distinction and superiority in order to bind its members. Unfortunately, such image-making and its purpose of binding members is all too frequently achieved, using dubious facts and specious arguments, at the expense of another group–the outsiders. The result, whether at the individual or at the group level, is antagonism and conflict that can be extremely difficult to eradicate because they are rooted in a history of rationalizations. As someone wisely said, “That which has not been reasoned into cannot be reasoned out of.”
These are generalities. Let’s take a more concrete case. In the last sixty years, Americans have come to realize the gross injustice of racial discrimination, and particularly discrimination against blacks, many of whose ancestors came as slaves. To gain equality for blacks, a number of basic political rights–the right to vote, to seek office, and to form caucuses–were legislated and varyingly enforced. On this, the political front, there has been measurable success. Reason was applied to correct an egregious wrong, and it proved to be effective. Unfortunately, social equality between whites and blacks still eludes. No doubt many factors enter into play for this intractable wrong. One that, to my knowledge, has not been explored is rationalization. Both white liberals and black political leaders rationalize, rather than use reason, when they put the blame for social inequality–the lack of respect for African-Americans--almost entirely on white prejudice. But if white prejudice is so widespread and profound, how is the political gain of African-Americans ever possible?
Ironically, the political gain may have actually retarded the achievement of social equality. Why? Because if the political route is so successful, why try any other? What other routes do I have in mind? Let my answer take the form of a dream scenario. Suppose blacks, from the end of the Civil War onward, used their limited resources not on politics, but on education. A hundred and fifty years later, isn’t it possible that the best schools, the best teachers, professors, and scientists are predominantly African-American? And won’t African-Americans as a people then enjoy a social status that black governors, congressional representatives, corporate CEOs, and even a black president have not been able to confer? Another advantage of this dream-scenario is this. If African-Americans are leaders in education, if they make intellectual achievement a primary goal, then all Americans, whatever their ethnicity–Native American, Mexican, or Hmong--will want to follow suit. Certainly whites will not want to fall behind on the ground that being good in science and a nerd makes them “black” and hence unacceptable to their white peers.
Sad to say, the actual scenario is the opposite of the dream one. In the actual scenario, black leaders, with the encouragement of well-meaning whites, have opted for the political route. The result of their efforts is less than what one might expect from the immense expenditure of resources: blacks, for all their political and economic gains, still lack a firm feeling of self-worth that lies at the core of equality and, hence, at the core of well-being. Morever, resorting to politics as the cure of fundamental social and racial injustice is not only ineffective, it risks bringing the ideological, rationalizing bent of politics into other areas of worthy endeavor, such as the arts, the sciences, and learning generally. So far, in the United States, the physical sciences have been largely free of political contamination. Hence, their continuing, remarkable progress. But, one wonders, for how long?
We humans are sometimes advised to emulate animals. I am skeptical of this advice, but maybe one animal quality does merit our emulation: animals do not rationalize.
Yi-Fu Tuan
Terms of Use, How to Cite.