IRRATIONALITY OF THE RATIONAL WORLD

According to Ritzer irrationality of rationality is a seemingly inevitable by product of the rationalization process. The concept of irrationality of rationality can be observed as the negative effects of rationalization or the opposite of rationality. There are inefficiencies and unpredictability that are often produced by the seemingly rational system. Although bureaucracies are constructed to bring about greater efficiency in organizational work, the fact is that there are notorious inefficiencies such as the red tape associated with the operation of most bureaucracies. Besides the products of rational systems are unintended and unwanted by products some of which pose greater risk and even unpredictable risk. Of greater concern is the negative effect associated with rational systems. Rational systems are not reasonable systems. 

According to Ritzer 1998, Rationality brings with it great dehumanization aspects as people are reduced to acting like robots. Among the dehumanizing aspects of rationality systems are large lecture classes, computer letters, pray TV, work on automobile assembly line. Rationality also tends to bring with it disenchantment leaving much of out lives without any mystery or excitement. A fully rational society would be very bleak and uninteresting place.

THE MODERN SOCIETY IS A RISKY SOCIETY

Ulrich Beck was one of the first sociologists to recognize the strange paradox in late modern society; that risk might in fact be increasing due to technology, science and industrialism rather than being abated by scientific and technological progress. Beck's theory represents a continuation of the German tradition of an ethical questioning of modernity, including science and technology, that runs from Max Weber through Jürgen Habermas. Rather than a world less prone to risk, late modernity might actually be creating what Beck famously described as a “world risk society.” Anthony Giddens developed a similar theory in Consequences of Modernity in 1990. Both Beck and Giddens discuss the idea of risk and its unintended consequences in response to a long-standing tradition of Weberian theory of rationalization and bureaucratization. Ulrich Beck work has tapped the cultural psyche of contemporary society and the elevated fears shared across national borders about risks as far ranging as degradations to the global ecology, global health pandemics such as AIDS and SARS, international terrorism, or the health consequences feared as a result of exposure to a myriad of technologies; GMOs, electromagnetic radiation, chemicals, industrial toxins and pollutants––to name but a few. According to Beck, "risk may be defined as a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization itself". Risks no longer take traditional or natural forms; instead, they derive from decisions deliberately made by humans, often for the sake of technology and advancement. The notion of a "risk society" can be applied in relation to a number of different circumstances in the world today, notably the war on terrorism, oil spills, BSE (mad cow disease), and the Chernobyl disaster. 

 

Many sociologists interested in social change focus on modernization and look at modernization as process by which a society’s social institutions become increasingly complex as the society moves towards industrialization. They use the term modernization to describe the far-reaching process by which society moves from traditional to more developed societies. Modernization theory emphasizes on culture, on the ideas and attitude that promote savings, investment, and economic innovation. Modern societies tend to be urban, literate and industrial. They have sophisticated transportation and media system. Families tend to be organized within the nuclear family unit rather than the extended family model. On the individual level, members of societies which have undergone modernization shift allegiance from such traditional sources of authority as parents and priests to newer authorities such as government officials.

MAKING THE RIGHT CAREER CHOICE BY UNDERSTANDING VARIOUS DISCIPLINES.

I am a lecturer in a local college here in Nairobi and every time I speak to students the question of career choice always emerges. The understanding of different disciplines is important in evaluating personal potentials and corresponding the same to relevant career lines. With the ever increasing rate of unemployment, it is important to make excellent choices on one’s career paths by emphasizing on one’s strengths and weakness as well as the passion and enthusiasm to various disciplines. Blind choices on career path may lead to frustrations and dismal performances by individuals especially later in the career life not to mention the underemployment of the said person’s abilities. 

There has been a lot of confusion about the various social sciences disciplines, humanities as well as the natural sciences. The modern world may be understood as revolving around scientific knowledge which has been divided into two major classes’ i.e the social sciences and the natural sciences. Unlike the traditional form of learning which was basically ‘routine based’, the modern form of learning involves the understanding, testing and application of concepts. The scientific knowledge acknowledged in modern learning can therefore be summarized as either knowledge on human culture and their products or knowledge on the natural environment. The two major divisions of knowledge are further divided into numerous disciplines to facilitate a better, intensive and deeper understanding of the specific discipline. 

The social sciences may broadly be defined as the cluster of human knowledge focusing on all aspects of the group life of the human beings. It seeks to understand human actions and events as influenced by the social cultural context. Social sciences may be understood as a puzzle game involving many actors who also double as the players and playing objects. Thus social scientists seek to understand the behavior and thinking of people in taking different decisions and the implications of such decisions on the social arena. Why do communities rise against each other in war? Why would teenagers rebel against their parents? Why would spouses kill each other? 

Natural sciences on the other hand deal with the natural environment within which human beings exist. The major focus been, the matter, motion, space, mass energy etc and their implications. Further natural sciences also include the biological sciences that focus on living things. 

Due to my background I would wish to shed some more light on the social sciences. I also wish to expound on a third component related to but different from the social sciences that is the humanities which deals with literature, art, music and philosophy. Social sciences deals with culture and its influence on the patterns of human behavior while humanities deals with as aspect of human culture which emphasize on expressing spiritual and aesthetic aspect of human beings.  

According to Albert Einstein politics is more difficult than physics and bad politics can easily kill a nation than bad physics. No field of knowledge may be understood as important as the social sciences. This field of study sets to establish the factors limiting peoples’ life as well as the opportunities within the societies that are key in affecting human conditions. Social sciences focus on establishing an understanding that will develop societies in which individuals are more productive and live a satisfying life. Therefore it is in order to say that a focus on natural sciences gives forth numerous products and by products such as automobiles, sky scrapers, energy etc but a lack of an understanding of the dynamics of the societies will lender such discoveries meaningless. 

The human behavior as expressed through culture is a dynamic and complex endeavor; an understanding of society must incorporate knowledge on all aspects in order to give a more complete and comprehensive picture of societies. However, social sciences is such a vast mine of knowledge that a student may not master all the principles of social sciences. Thus the field of study has been divided into various disciplines including psychology, anthropology, history, social work, geography, economics, community development and political sciences.

UNDERTSANDING HUMAN ACTIONS

Parsons theorized and hoped to give an understanding to social science with principles just the same way as the physical sciences. His work was actually synthesized from the following theorists; the conception of the social system and the bases of its integration by Emile Durkheim, comparative analysis of social structure and the analysis of the border line between social system and culture by Max Weber and articulation between social systems and personality by Freud (parsons 1937). 

Parsons was interested in coming up with a general theory of social action that transcended disciplinary boundaries that is sociology, psychology and anthropology. His goal was to take elements from previous theories and combine them into a single abstract theory that explains the general process in the social world. 

Parsons tries to understand society by first looking at the basic level of the society that is the action. He begins his work by looking at voluntaristic actions of individuals based on structural aspects of the society to create social order. Action theory composes of theories that focus on the human action rather than concentrating on the structure. According to action theorists, action theory can be studied by looking at those that centre on meaning and interpretation and those that concerned themselves with the nature of human action.

According to Weber, simple behaviour or any action can be distinguished from social action by looking at the subjective orientation of the actor. A social action refers to an act which in its execution takes into account, reactions of other individuals as informed by social institutions that is the decisions of an actor in reference to the situation the actor finds himself in. According to Weber the process of doing something (action) becomes social `if the acting individual takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course’. Thus an action is an activity which is related in some manner to principles of relationship/inter-relationship to things outside the organism. The action is connected to the organism and with other persons’ social situations and culture. 

Max Weber from whom parsons synthesises his theories of social structure, looks at both the above concepts of action theory and develops a typology of social action based on the following contexts; ‘In terms of rational orientation to a system of discrete individual ends, in terms of rational orientation to an absolute value, in terms of affectual orientation especially emotionally determined by affects and states of feeling of the actor or traditionally oriented through the habituation of a long practice’ (Weber 1978).

An action may be motivated by a number of relatively independent ends, without any having the actors’ absolute biasness but based on rationality. An action is rationally oriented to a system of discrete individual ends when the ends, the means and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed. This involves a rational consideration of alternatives of the end to other prospective results, which may be realized through employing a particular set of means and the relative importance of different possible end. Rationality involves weighing the relative importance by evaluating whether undesirable consequences would outweigh the benefits to be derived from the projected course of action. An example of a rational orientation would be the action by the prime minister in the year 2010 to steer efforts towards the conservation of the Mau forest. Regardless of the political cost likely to be incurred by taking such action and aware of the possible options, the minister put into practice his convictions of what needed to be done so as save the forest. The environmental benefit outweighed the political cost. Another example would be the move by president Kibaki and the prime minister to sign the accord and avert more deaths during the post election violence. The decisions agreed were taken despite the cost to the both parties.

An action oriented towards absolute value, the sole important consideration to the actor is the realization of the value. Rational consideration for example of efficiency will be employed in the choice of the means, without rational weighing of the end against possible ends or counting the cost in meeting possible results other than the absolute end. It is a clearly self-conscious formulation of the ultimate values governing the action and planning the course of action based on this value. The more the value to which action is oriented is elevated to the status of absolute value, the more irrational the action becomes. For example the action to form the G7 political alliance in the country can be associated with a direct impulse action to revenge. The end is not negotiable and there is not any rational evaluations of options to the end. 

Affectual orientation to action is not guided by rational. It is much the same as action oriented to absolute value with affect guiding the outcome or ends and means. For example the decision to form the G7 political alliance in the country can be attributed to dissatisfaction among some members of Orange Democratic movement and thus the affects maybe employed to explain the course of their action. 

Traditional orientation is often an automatic reaction to habitual stimuli which guide behaviour in a course which has been repeatedly followed. The great bulk of all everyday life action follows habits. Decisions by parents to have their children go through formal education system and get good jobs as opposed to exploring other careers such as sports may be influenced by habits and traditions as opposed to rational and children physiological and psychological capabilities.  

The focus of Weberian action theory is on the degree of rationality in human behaviour based on absolute rationality and individual ends rationality. Other theories such as exchange theory and rational choice theory take up Weber’s action theory focus of rationality and argue that action is best understood in terms of people making rational choices in which they maximize their utilities. 

Reconciliation

The concept of reconciliation can be viewed, as either a goal to be achieved or as a process to a particular end. Reconciliation can be thought of as a rebuilding process which takes place after a post conflict situation – when the conflict has ended and a settlement between the two parties has been reached and the two parties are struggling to construct a new society. 

The process of reconciliation involves building of working relationships between the previously worrying parties. Reconciliation can be summarized as a process of finding a way for previously enemies to live together harmoniously. It is that process of moving a community from a divided path to a shared future. 

The concept of reconciliation can be analyzed at different contexts - either at the household level between husbands and wife, or at societal level between offenders and victims within the community or at national level between communities. 

Reconciliation can be discussed as a process of reuniting individual victims in order to enjoy their right or a process of understanding the existing areas of differences and discrimination with a view of acknowledging and overcoming such discrimination.

    

The aspect of reconciliation has over time been institutionalized by various countries with numerous truth and reconciliation commissions over the world. The need for such commissions was first appreciated after the end of the World War II with the formation of Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. Over the years, various countries in Africa including South Africa, Sierra Leone, and Kenya among others have formulated similar commissions. 

Truth is the foundation of reconciliation since it allows people to understand what really happened in the past as a building stone to moving forward and breaking away from the sense of victim hood. The legitimacy of the reconciliation process may wholly depend on the ability to accept and appreciate past occurrences and to move forward with a mutual understanding of togetherness based on facts, faithfulness and trust. 

Reconciliation should be based on respect between the parties and a real and truthful understanding of each party’s needs, fears and aspirations. The success of the reconciliation process is based on helpful habits and patterns. The foundation of such habits is a truthful expression of the conflict and the role of different parties in order to guard against a return to violence on the bases of mistrust.