“Be rational” is the advice we always give to others, and we often try to present ourselves as rational. Practically, being rational entails some kind of systematic ordering of our thoughts and actions in almost all domains of our lives, including the economy, science, music, architecture, education, administration, law, and so on. Rationalization characterizes our current human condition with conscious deliberation, planning, and calculation; as such, our belief systems are also rationalized by a process of intellectual refinement to transform them to become more consistent and comprehensive.
The increasing uniformity of the world and how we live are the outcomes of such rationalization. Sometimes referred to as globalization and perhaps most reflected in the service economy -- in fast food restaurants, shopping malls, movie theatres, motels, entertainment, transport, farming, education, bureaucracy, healthcare, etc -- wherever we look, the imprint of rationalization is visible within their orderly and predictable routines. The process of rationalization -- touching every aspect of our social lives -- is a systematizing process and organizing force.
To exemplify the rationalization process, I will cite some examples:
First, the Payra area in Patuakhali is set to become a central economic hub with a seaport, a special economic zone, an airport, and the country’s biggest coal-fired 1,320 megawatt power plant. With an enhanced business climate, this economic zone is expected to raise the country’s GDP by 2%. This growth-focused global development model is at its peak, and we are continually using the natural resources at a greater pace, having improved technology at our disposal.
But we rarely think of the environmental vulnerability the rush of economic activity will ensue.
Second, developments in technology, robotics, automation, and digitization in the RMG industries have enabled diverse production processes at the same site in one seamless, efficient, sustainable operation. The improved technology is expected to remove the requirement for harmful textile chemicals (a huge concern for global fashion retailers) and make production possible using a minimum amount of water.
At this juncture, rationally, the RMG factory owners would adopt recent technology; a key benefit of digitization would be speeding up to market demands and responsiveness. However, on the other side, this eco-friendly garment industry, through digitalization, would contribute to the fast-fashion industry as every fast-fashion retailer is now trying to decrease the time it takes to get the latest fashion styles in retail stores.
Third, for traffic management, the Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) mayor recently revealed his plan to allow cars with even and odd registration number plates on alternate days. This would lessen the number of vehicles on the road and ease traffic congestion. The plan seems rational, but there is hindsight: Once possible means of transportation are halved, people will undoubtedly struggle to reach destinations -- offices, schools, and other businesses would suffer.
If only privately used vehicles were axed from roads, it would increase pressure on the already cramped public vehicles. If Dhaka remains central to everything, the aim to reduce traffic on city roads will hardly be successful.
The three examples I cited will attest to the country’s advancements and the policymakers’ prude decision-making -- if considered through the rational lens of development and prosperity. But there are dark sides to these processes that rational and logical thinking hardly finds. Max Weber distinguished between two conflicting forms of rationality -- formal and substantive rationality. While rationality contributes to making social action orderly and consistent, there’s a difference in the two forms.
This exposes a paradox, ie, the irrationality of the modern rationalized world.
Formal rationality promotes orderliness through technical criteria. Profitability dominates economic activities, or bureaucratic administration works through established protocols or fixed rules -- thereby, every social action in our society becomes calculable and predictable. On the contrary, substantive rationality operates through a value criterion -- hence social life becomes ordered in particular ways to remain in harmony with some ethical and political ideal, eg, fairness, justice, or equality.
Max Weber found that these two forms of rationality are constantly at odds. As for Bangladesh, the country is building on formal economic rationality -- it is more governed by market calculations and economic growth and less by substantive normative goals of equality or justice.
We can identify moral ambiguities, and Bangladesh’s situation is not unique. Economic profitability dictates, and modern-day social institutions’ rational qualities engender substantive irrationalities. As from a formal rationality perspective, profitability matters the most; business operations hardly uphold moral considerations.
Hence, the sustainability debate revolves around technological innovation to sustain growth while slowing down environmental degradation. One could argue that economic growth is essential for building an equal society. But, this is nothing more than a myth because over the past 100 years, while we have had unprecedented economic growth, income inequality has also soared. Besides, we have brought irreversible destruction to the earth’s ecosystem.
So we must let go of economic rationale if we want to change for the better. For instance: To build an equal society, we can rely on a progressive income tax and taxes on inherited wealth. Thomas Piketty theoretically proved that it is possible to set up an egalitarian economy if we can set income tax and inheritance tax around 60% to 70% for the rich.
We must now answer: How committed are we to building a fair society? If we are not committed enough, we will be in the downward spiral of the trap of economic rationality.
Mohammad Tareq Hasan is an anthropologist and teaches at the University of Dhaka.
