Reason, Reasons and Rationalizations, Part 3 In an effort to inspire honesty in those who may find it easier to be otherwise, the phrase "rationalization" has come to mean the process of giving inappropriate reasons for some explanadum. This means, act first, find reasons for it after the fact. Rationalization can wait until someone is actually called on to explain their actions. This sort of rationalization is often associated with the morally immature and active alcoholics. Those who have to deal with these people or, worse, depend upon them may find the procedure frustrating.

Rationalization can also be something that one does to a production process. Rationalizing a process means considering each of the parts of the process and putting them together in a more effecient manner. Rationalzing a factory floor means placing the end point of each sub-process as close as possible to the next sub-processes in a production line. It also means making sure that only the appropriate number of people are hired to work on the process and that they carry out their tasks in a way that maximizes effeciency. Minimal time should be lost to unrequired movements or interactions. This sort of rationalization is often associated with industrialists and consults. Those who have to deal with these people or, worse, depend upon them may find the procedure frustrating.

Since the Enligtenment, an emphasis on reason and effeciency as primary values has eroded the skeptical impulses that lead Enlightenment thinkers to carry out their various projects. This can happen if one simply assumes that there must be an explanation for some possible subject and then proceeds to construct one based on little but this assumption. The same goes for construction solutions which may not have an optimal solution (or, at least, may not have a method for determining an optimal solution, such problems are everywhere). A disciplined reason giving project, however, should be limited by some sceptical guidelines. Don't conjecture beyond the available data. Or, if you must, then recognize that this is what you're doing.

Appendix: I've been discussing very impressionistic notions of what reason means, and making something of an attempt to defend "Enlightenment rationality" from what I've been assuming is a commonly held set of criticisms of the role of reason since the Enlightenment. Of course, these criticisms aren't all that common, and there's no way that I could reasonably expect my intended audience to be familiar with them.

I would suggest that the following two books typify this criticism:

Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul
and
Cosmopolis by Stephen Toulmin.

I've linked to the Amazon pages for both texts, but if you're really interesting in reading either of them, I would strongly suggest borrowing them from the library.
  ¶ #

0 comments Post a Comment