This post examines Mills’ view of biography through the Post-Truth lens. The first section explores how biography, rationality and reason interrelate. The second section explores the relationship between rationality and technology. The final section examines using reason and a ‘Sociological Imagination’, as the potential antidote to excessive rationality.
Biography, Rationality & Reason
Writing in 1959, Mills stated the world was transitioning from the Modern era to a post-modern Fourth Epoch, which shares similarities with Cosentios definition of the Post-Truth era (Cosentio, 2020, p.3). Mills argued the structures and descriptors that defined relationships in the Enlightenment and Modern era such as capitalist, liberal or conservative, were inadequate in the Fourth Epoch (Mills, 2000, p.167). In the Fourth Epoch, exposure to the irrationality and contradictions of the world through digital means, challenges descriptors and other “cherished values”, such as freedom, nationalism etc (McManus, 2020, p.10). These challenges subsequently destabilise established identities at both the individual and group level. Feeling adrift, some people search for identity in simple narratives that resonate with them emotionally (Mills, p.17). However, most people do not exercise a ‘Sociological Imagination’ and critically examine narratives and their origin; Mills framed this as the struggle between rationality and reason.
Mills conceived of rationality as the individual operating in a society, efficiently and logically with the technologies available to them (Mills, p.168). Individual actions appear rational, as they enable the individual to operate harmoniously in their environment; for example, using Google maps to find addresses (Mills, p.171). Yet whilst acting rationally, most individuals do not or cannot question the ends they serve, by examining the technologies they use or the influence of organisations above them (Mills, pp.168-170). Individuals subsequently struggle to identify the forces that shape their world. This is particularly prevalent in the Post-Truth era, despite unprecedented access to information.
Rationality
Mills stated this situation creates three types of rational actor. First is the Cheerful Robot, who uncritically accepts values and descriptors given by the organisations that structure their daily lives (Mills, pp.174-176). Rather than view Cheerful Robots from a condescending position, Mills reminds us “all men do not naturally want to be free; that all men are not willing or not able…to exert themselves to acquire the reason that freedom requires” (ibid). We should instead use reason to consider the conditions that enable Cheerful Robots.
As a result of the destabilising effects of the Fourth Epoch/Post-Truth era, the second actor uses technology to find values and descriptors that resonate with them. However, the actor does not or cannot consider how those technologies influence them. This conceptualisation agrees with the Post-Truth perspective, that information technology constitutes our ontological and epistemological reality, instead of mediating it (Beer, 2009, p.987). It argues technologies’ economic models and content algorithms, provide information that appeals to users’ interests and biases (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). This channels users into cognitive and cultural silos, rather than exposing them to multiple perspectives (Salgado, 2018). This channelling denies users the opportunity to formulate alternative perspectives, by engaging in meaningful dialogue. The result is a collection of rational individualists without reason. (Mills, pp.173-174).
Reason
The solution is to operate as the third actor, by employing rationality with reason. Reason for Mills, meant consciously resisting the influences that pushed the second actor to become excessively individualistic, and prevented them considering alternative perspectives (Mills, pp.171-174). Whilst using technology to explore values and descriptors, researchers should consider how their tools shape their information feeds, and actively explore alternative or contrary perspectives. In other words, when examining social phenomena, we should seek to understand as many perspectives as possible, whilst acknowledging the limits of our knowledge (Mills, pp.171-174). Additionally, Mills stated that having too much reason without rationality is also harmful, and researchers should not retreat into a state of Luddism (Mills, p.175). Instead, researchers should reflexively consider how the tools they use impact them, and apply the same level of consciousness to the subject of their studies.
Bibliography
Cosentino, Gabriele, (2020) Social Media and the Post-Truth World Order: The Global Dynamics. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan.
Echeverría, M. & Mani, E. (2020). ‘Effects of Traditional and Social Media on Political Trust’, Communication & Society, 33 (2), pp.119-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.2.119-135
McManus, Matthew, (2020), The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture and Reactionary Politics, Ed. Edited by Hardwick, D. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillian
Salgado, S. (2018). ‘Online media impact on politics: Views on post-truth politics and post post modernism’, International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,14, pp.317-331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.14.3.317_1.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Anti-Social media: How Facebook Disconnects us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright Mills, C, (2000), The Sociological Imagination. 14th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Great post, Tom!
This distinction between ‘rationality’ and ‘reason’ is interesting. Would you mind expanding on this?
Considering the etymology of the word ‘rational’ which comes from the Latin rationalis meaning “of or belonging to reason, reasonable” (source: etymonline) – I’m curious about what ‘rational’ means in Mills’ vocabulary or your own for that matter.
“[U]sing Tinder to find a partner because everyone else does” – is this ‘rational’ or ‘logical’ because ‘everyone else does’ can be argued to be the ‘logical’ nowadays? This is coming from the perspective that to me, personally, doing ‘what everyone else does’ would be an more of an irrational thing than a rational thing. Of course, depends on context.
Also, thought of Wisdom of Crowds book that I remember seeing somewhere.
Interested to hear your comments.
Hey Linda,
Many thanks for taking the time to read and comment; it hit me for 6 and after several cups of coffee and low-fi playlists, I’ve tried to make it clearer for you and others.
Tl;dr: Rationality is operating efficiently with the technology you have in your life to achieve your goals. You might make superficial decisions about what technologies to use and jobs to take, but don’t or can’t question the wider impact of these technologies and organisational arrangements. If you do try to question arrangements but don’t consider how technologies, organisations and your biases shape your access to knowledge, you end up with an incomplete awareness of what’s going on. Reason is questioning the wider impact of your actions and the actions of others. In addition, you consider how organisations, technologies personal biases etc, might be shaping your opinion when trying to find out what’s going on in the world. Now you can consider multiple perspectives and make better choices.
With Tinder you may choose not to use it and that’s fine, but it means you potentially have fewer opportunities to meet people. It would be logical and reasonable (adj) that if you want to meet the most people, using the app with most people on it also looking to meet up would make sense. If you were being as rational and efficient as possible, you’d probably use a variety of dating apps.
For Mills, the important question is why did you, as an individual, delete or not decided to use Tinder. Now it gets more complicated. You’re right in saying just doing what everyone else does is not particularly rational or irrational depending on context. It’s being able make choices about what you want to do, that makes you above a Cheerful Robot. However, you might have read one-sided conservative or feminist articles on the dangers of Tinder to society. You’ve achieved a skewed awareness of what’s going on, maybe using Google to find articles (rational because it’s efficient). Yet you might not have employed reason (verb) to consider there might be alternative perspectives you aren’t reading. Maybe Google is giving you more article that appeal to your biases?
The quote below best sums it up: “Caught in the limited milieux of their everyday lives, ordinary men often cannot reason about the great structures—rational and irrational—of which their milieux are subordinate parts. Accordingly, they often carry out series of apparently rational actions without any ideas of the ends they serve, and there is the increasing suspicion that those at the top as well—like Tolstoy’s generals—only pretend they know. The growth of such organizations, within an increasing division of labor, sets up more and more spheres of life, work, and leisure, in which reasoning is difficult or impossible” (2000, p.173).
Hopefully this makes more sense. Please get back to me and let me know if I need to refine anything else – but you’re buying the coffee.
Tom