Rationality comes in all shapes and sizes (figuratively speaking) and exists in many different spaces and times. In certain circumstances, we rely on practical rationale and in a totally different circumstance, we rely on formal rationale. Weber highlights the four different types of rationality as a way to understand our reasoning when making decisions: practical, theoretical, substantive and formal. Each have a different motivation for decision making and each level may have a different outcome. Weber is adamant on the fact that once the world came to know that there were other way of rational thinking apart from just formal, we were able to optimize means to ends.
I came across a YouTube video called “THE BULLYING EXPERIMENT!” a few months ago. A basic summary of the video is that two friends decide to see how people on a college campus will react to one student being bullied by another student right in front of them. When analyzing this video in terms of a sociological perspective, there are other applicable social theories but rationality is one theory that really sticks out in my mind. Breaking down the decision making process of the on-lookers based on the four different levels of rationality will help us to better understand the rationale of the on-lookers.
In this video, there are lots of different reactions to the student being bullied, which raises the question of rationality. Many of the on-lookers choose to completely ignore the situation at hand and not intervene. From a practical rationality perspective, many people have simply accepted that bullying has become a standard amongst young people. Perhaps one might think “well, this really isn’t any of my business and I have places to be.” While this may seem unfortunate and unjustified to some, it is simply the rationale of another.
Some of the on-lookers reach a theoretical level of rationality as they witness the bullying. One on-looker seems to have a quick and subtle internal risk-benefit analysis and he watches the situation escalate and makes a quick decision to walk away. In this case, the on-looker may be thinking “What happens if I intervene and I get beat up too? Is that really worth trying to defend a complete stranger? Nah.” Even looking at this level of rationality from the bully’s point-of-view gives a helpful perspective of theoretical rationale. In this case, the bully resorts to intimidation because his homework wasn’t finished by his victim. At some point, the bully has to think in his mind, “If I physically harm this kid in public and get caught doing so, what will the repercussions be? And will that be worth a simple homework assignment?”
From a substantive standpoint, it is easy to see which on-lookers are having an internal debate, carefully evaluating their own moral compass and implementing their own value system into the situation. After it was revealed to the on-lookers that it was only just a setup, many of them felt terrible. One student said he felt “horrible” and when asked why he didn’t intervene he said “I was about to if you continued.” In this case, the student’s values were suddenly put to the test and he had to decide whether or not his actions (or lack thereof) would be at the expense of another. One of the few students who chose to intervene was a young female on-looker checking her email when the situation unfolded in front of her. She was quick to defend the victim saying “that’s not right.”
“An important aspect of formal rationality, then, is that it allows individuals little choice of means to ends” (The Past, Present, and Future of McDonaldization, page 25). Although this point may come off as somewhat close-minded, it may actually be beneficial in such a situation as bullying. One on-looker had no problem stopping and addressing the situation, stating that even though he was not the victim, it is still his problem because it is taking place at his university. Physical and verbal harassment is illegal and in terms of formal rationality, this on-looker likely felt bound by the law to step in.
Weber favored rationality because of “its many other advantages over other mechanisms that help people discover and implement optimum means to ends” (The Past, Present and Future of McDonaldization, page 25). It’s easy to think that as we sit here in front of our computers that we would know exactly how we would react to situations like this. Of course we would intervene, and that’s easy to say when you’re not in the middle of it. The idea of rationale may not always lead to a just answer or action in the eyes of the world, but it is how we come to understand the world and why people make the decisions that they do.
THE BULLYING EXPERIMENT!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EisZTB4ZQxY
I came across a YouTube video called “THE BULLYING EXPERIMENT!” a few months ago. A basic summary of the video is that two friends decide to see how people on a college campus will react to one student being bullied by another student right in front of them. When analyzing this video in terms of a sociological perspective, there are other applicable social theories but rationality is one theory that really sticks out in my mind. Breaking down the decision making process of the on-lookers based on the four different levels of rationality will help us to better understand the rationale of the on-lookers.
In this video, there are lots of different reactions to the student being bullied, which raises the question of rationality. Many of the on-lookers choose to completely ignore the situation at hand and not intervene. From a practical rationality perspective, many people have simply accepted that bullying has become a standard amongst young people. Perhaps one might think “well, this really isn’t any of my business and I have places to be.” While this may seem unfortunate and unjustified to some, it is simply the rationale of another.
Some of the on-lookers reach a theoretical level of rationality as they witness the bullying. One on-looker seems to have a quick and subtle internal risk-benefit analysis and he watches the situation escalate and makes a quick decision to walk away. In this case, the on-looker may be thinking “What happens if I intervene and I get beat up too? Is that really worth trying to defend a complete stranger? Nah.” Even looking at this level of rationality from the bully’s point-of-view gives a helpful perspective of theoretical rationale. In this case, the bully resorts to intimidation because his homework wasn’t finished by his victim. At some point, the bully has to think in his mind, “If I physically harm this kid in public and get caught doing so, what will the repercussions be? And will that be worth a simple homework assignment?”
From a substantive standpoint, it is easy to see which on-lookers are having an internal debate, carefully evaluating their own moral compass and implementing their own value system into the situation. After it was revealed to the on-lookers that it was only just a setup, many of them felt terrible. One student said he felt “horrible” and when asked why he didn’t intervene he said “I was about to if you continued.” In this case, the student’s values were suddenly put to the test and he had to decide whether or not his actions (or lack thereof) would be at the expense of another. One of the few students who chose to intervene was a young female on-looker checking her email when the situation unfolded in front of her. She was quick to defend the victim saying “that’s not right.”
“An important aspect of formal rationality, then, is that it allows individuals little choice of means to ends” (The Past, Present, and Future of McDonaldization, page 25). Although this point may come off as somewhat close-minded, it may actually be beneficial in such a situation as bullying. One on-looker had no problem stopping and addressing the situation, stating that even though he was not the victim, it is still his problem because it is taking place at his university. Physical and verbal harassment is illegal and in terms of formal rationality, this on-looker likely felt bound by the law to step in.
Weber favored rationality because of “its many other advantages over other mechanisms that help people discover and implement optimum means to ends” (The Past, Present and Future of McDonaldization, page 25). It’s easy to think that as we sit here in front of our computers that we would know exactly how we would react to situations like this. Of course we would intervene, and that’s easy to say when you’re not in the middle of it. The idea of rationale may not always lead to a just answer or action in the eyes of the world, but it is how we come to understand the world and why people make the decisions that they do.
THE BULLYING EXPERIMENT!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EisZTB4ZQxY