What is Rationality?

We’re judgmental creatures. Innately. We hold our interactions with others, we analyze them, and then we create our in-groups and out-groups based on those analyses.

It even affects how we communicate with each other now, despite our attempts to keep it discreet. Practically every conversation nowadays, whether about those new robots or how the Oscars went, is emotionally charged. It’s intense. It’s passionate.

And, despite all these emotions, it’s always going to have a winner. Somebody has to be right, and the other wrong.

Somebody has to be the voice of reason – they have to be rational.

It’s a seemingly straightforward concept, and one which we all subscribe to – those who are reasonable are in the right, while those who are irrational are in the wrong.

Yet, it can’t be. We know that we’re rational, yet we still make emotional decisions. We know that some rational decisions don’t lead to the best consequences. We know that rationality is not always the best criteria of judgment.

Philosopher Val Plumwood, in her book Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, introduces the concept of dualisms, which she claims are "the process by which contrasting concepts are formed by domination and subordination and constructed as oppositional and exclusive."

And if we take a moment to look around, we can see these dualisms everywhere. We’ve practically constructed our society around them: man vs woman, mind vs body, public vs private.

But the one that’s most important, that undermines every other dualism, is perhaps one that we’re not even conscious of falling subject to – the dualism of rational vs irrational.

In claiming that someone is rational, we’ve created a standard, a hierarchy in which one person is superior to the other. In a way, we’ve purposefully created an inequality of our own.

It’s just as Orwell said – “sympathy towards one group almost invariably entails callousness towards another.” Claiming one group to be rational almost invariably entails calling another irrational, almost invariably entails condescension towards the other.

Inevitably, some people will see this as an overreaction. That just because you said your friend was acting irrational yesterday, you don’t automatically think of them to be inferior to you. And that’s ok – I’m not claiming that you think you have the moral high ground over all your colleagues just because of a few words.

But what I am encouraging you to look at is the pattern of rational vs. irrational in the world around us, and how the language is used. Take these quotes from popular news outlets which discuss acting “rationally” or “irrationally”:

“Coming to grips with the comforting realities of post-vaccination life is going to take some time for most of us. It’s only natural that so many vaccinated people continue to harbor irrational fears.” the New York Times on COVID-19 vaccination fears

‘Let’s expose China to our market economy, let’s give them the opportunity to see how we behave, let’s be conciliatory to China, let’s look the other way, and eventually they’ll behave in a more rational, more market-like fashion’. – Sen Bill Hagerty to Fox News, in this article.

“I think he is a rational actor who has miscalculated significantly.” President Biden on Vladimir Putin, to CNN’s Jake Tapper

Drawing from these three examples, what does rationality mean then?

For the first example, fears about COVID-19 continuing to spread despite vaccination status are irrational, so rationality would be along the lines of continuing to work and placing the global pandemic on the backburner.

In the second, rationality is essentially capitalistic or “American”. The CCP and their economy is deemed to be irrational, so rationality requires not only conforming to American economic standards, but neglecting China’s goliath economy on the global stage.

And lastly, in the third, rationality could include any action committed by Vladimir Putin, excepting the invasion of Ukraine, which President Biden claims to be a “miscalculation”.

Disagree yet?

The Cambridge Dictionary argues the definition of rationality as “the quality of being based on clear thought and reason, or of making decisions based on clear thought and reason.” Thus, in claiming that one is irrational, for having COVID-19 fears, for example, we’re essentially discrediting their opinions. Since they don’t have “clear thought”, we should take anything they have to say with a grain of salt, we think.

There’s countless examples that can follow. Even from an empirical standpoint, it’s clear that rationality is no longer a proper criteria for us to judge actions by. In not only neglecting, but also discrediting emotions, rationality is no longer fit to lead us in an age where emotional responses are no longer considered taboo.

The dismissal of emotions and external factors on decision-making creates an inherent blind-spot in human understanding. Just as unbridled emotion can be destructive, our uncontrolled wielding of rationality can be just as harmful.

And deep down, we know this. We know that we all don’t fit into the box. We tell ourselves that we’re people of science – yet we believe the myths. We tell ourselves that we’re rational – yet we live by the messages of fairy tales.

Another of Plumwood’s most prominent dualisms is that of reason vs nature – the fact that we see ourselves as rational creatures and nature as an irrational resource to be exploited. It’s quite easy to see why: our exploitation of natural resources and the environment has led to catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Yet, it’s indicative of a greater dualism – the one in which we see ourselves as rational, and anybody who doesn’t conform to our self-image as irrational.

Rationality, as much as we believe it has an objective standard, is used as a tool to make ourselves feel comfortable. To make ourselves feel superior. To push away those with stronger emotions, those from other cultures, those with different perspectives.

And, as I’ve said before, the truth is unsettling. The very tool that we wield to unravel the complex world around us is very much a mirage, deceiving our perceptions, our thoughts. It’s a label that we wear with pride, yet one that weaponizes and ostracizes millions of people. It’s one that we tout while it builds walls around us, pushing us further and further away from realizing the biases that color our opinions.

It’s not that wielding rationality leaves us stronger, more educated, or more superior – it’s that it leaves us invulnerable. The use of such a term, of such a dualism reinforces our need for order, our fetishization of an inequality which a modern society “promises” to rid itself of.

But what happens if rationality crumbles? What happens if, by some miracle, we abolish these terms, these dualisms which are so dear to us? Are we left in a sea of emotions, where gut feelings and passions run amuck?

Maybe.

But maybe that's not the worst fate. Vulnerability and a willingness to acknowledge the limitations of our "reason” may be the key to unlocking a deeper understanding, a more holistic way of being. The path forward might be shrouded in uncertainty, but it's a path we must tread.

Because in a world where rationality is weaponized, the cost of clinging to an illusion could be our very humanity.