Are people rational; do they use reason especially when it
comes to governance and politics? The
founders of this nation believed they are capable of it and this ability is
universal. This blog has made the
argument that the mental construct, traditional federalism, served as the
dominant perspective of governance and politics at the beginnings of this
nation. This belief in the capability of
people to be rational and logical in their public affairs, was part of this
construct.
According to Daniel Elazar,
federalism is, in part, derived from assumptions that include beliefs from the Enlightenment.[1] George Lakoff[2] points
out that central to those assumptions is the belief that people are capable of
being rational[3]
and that that capability is universal. Of course, if that is the case, certain
consequences will result.
That includes: people can govern themselves; they do not have
to bow to higher authorities like kings; they are equal in their use of reason;
they can be governed by the same laws on an equal basis; they inherent rights
and freedoms; and ultimately, democracy and individual rights are possible
because they are dependent on reasoned governance.
And how can one conceptualize reasoned
thinking? Lakoff offers the following
list of attributes: it is consciously
done; universally applies to all people; disembodied in that it is free from
perceptions or actions; follows classical logic; is applied unemotionally;
reflects neutral-values (i.e., a person can rise above one’s values); is derived
from one’s interests; and views reality as logical. Problem is, according to Lakoff, people do not
reflect these thought patterns or that they are even aware that they are
lacking these thought patterns.
But any objectified view can readily
see that biases, prejudices, and emotions more accurately describe a typical
person’s thought patterns. Beyond that,
people can’t help it – that’s how people are “wired.” In addition, these modes
of thinking are contrary to how reason and emotions were thought off back in
the 18th-Century – that is, as opposites. Contrary to that characterization, it is
currently believed (known) that emotions are part of reasoned thought.
As evidence of this last point: people who have damaged portions of the brain,
responsible for emotions, cannot think rationally. Why? Without emotions, one cannot judge over what concerns
are worthy enough to expend the effort to think rationally. This blog has cited the work of Daniel Kahneman
and his explanation on reflective thinking – he calls System 2 thinking[4]
– of which reasoning is an example. He
points out that that type of thinking takes effort.
Consequently,
the mind needs to be motivated to activate itself to engage in that sort of
thinking. Hence, one can see the central
role that emotions play in activating reasoned thought. Any interest a person might have – be it a conscious interest
or an economic interest – begins with an emotion. Emotions provide the feelings for what is
valued.
Think about it; if one doesn’t have
emotions, all things are equally unimportant.
Hence, there is nothing out there about which one is motivated to exert
the energy to think rationally. As
Lakoff writes, “[t]hey cannot feel what decisions will make them – or anyone
else – happy or unhappy, satisfied or anxious.”[5]
Another observation by cognitive
psychologists is that most of “reasoned” thought is unconscious! Here, Lakoff informs his readers that reason
isn’t what the Enlightenment envisioned.
It is not reflective, it is mostly reflexive. It also accounts for 98% of a person’s
thoughts. That’s right, people, for the
most part, don’t consciously know what they are thinking.
And that shortfall has
consequences. For one, it determines
what one finds moral and what one finds immoral. That is, most moral calculations, in everyday
interactions or reactions to what’s happening, are reflexive and are based on
subconscious moral determinations.
Rhetoric, on the part of anyone who
is trying to sell something, like politicians, and is couched in an understanding
of this subconscious state of thinking is apt to be more successful than
rhetoric based on “reasoned” arguments.
That is why messaging and its utilized language is so important in
understanding what works in political discourse.
This subconscious and reflexive
thinking is the natural way the brain operates.
But it is argued here, and this why societies spend so much on education
(or should), a person can be taught to be more proactive in his/her
thinking. It takes effort, as just
indicated, but it is possible.
What one cannot assume is that
people, to further their own interests, will readily engage in reasoning. This blog will revisit Lakoff’s ideas in the
future and further look at this aspect of political thinking. It further argues for a newer version of
federalist thought – one that takes a more realistic view of an Enlightenment
principle.[6]
[1] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation
materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute,
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994).
[2] George Lakoff, The
Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand
21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain
(New York, NY: Viking, 2008).
[3] To be clear, reasonable does not necessarily include
a person using reason or logic. To be
rational does. But the language is
further confusing in that to ascribe to rationalism is not to use reason. Huh?
What the Enlightenment argued was that people are able to use reason and
logic and, therefore, they are capable of being rational.
[5] George Lakoff, The
Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand
21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain,
8.
[6] For the benefit of any first-time reader of this
blog, the blog is dedicated to advance a newer version of federalism – a
version the writer calls liberated federalism.
