From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Apr 04 2006 - 16:02:50 EDT
> A rational choice as such only involves evaluating consciously, > through some kind of inferential process, various possible options, in the > light of relevant facts and arguments, to arrive at a consistent or > workable > behavioural strategy. But this choice may not involve all facts and > arguments bearing on the case, nor does it necessarily imply anything in > particular about the values or interests involved, other than the > intrinsic practical value of the inferential process itself. Jurriaan, Suppose someone makes choices which s/he considers to be rational. Then you ask her/him, "why did you make the choices you did?". If the person can't reasonably answer WHY choices were made then the choices can't be said to be rational. If the person answers "That's what I wanted" or "those are my preferences" without -- upon further questioning -- being able to explain WHY they wanted something or WHY they prefer one thing over another then the choices can not be said to be rational. Truly rational choice assumes that the person choosing is able to understand the BASIS for her/his decisions. I.e. s/he is able to grasp -- without circular reasoning -- WHY s/he makes a particular choice. Now let us turn again to the subject of sexuality. This is not merely a question of sexual preference in terms of whether individuals are heterosexual, homosexual, or bi-sexual. It also concerns the physical, social and personal attributes of others that are considered to be sexually attractive. Oh, it's easy enough for people to say that they prefer e.g. one color and type of hair over another. That's easy. What very few people are able to articulate is WHY they have a particular preference for hair color and type. They simply take their preference for granted and leave it at that. This is irrational _because_ they haven't rationally asked WHY they have this preference. And, how is it that individuals come to prefer a particular type of hair, body shape, skin color, weight, age? How is it that they are able to say that a person is sexually attractive or not based on clothing, cosmetics, jewelry, etc? How is it that they are able to identify certain personality characteristics that they find appealing? Etc. Etc. Etc. To answer those questions requires that one question and understand on some level the way in which social institutions shaped one's preferences. This would be no small task since the answers to some of those questions require that we explore our own personal development and unconscious desires. You might say, for instance, that you desire to be with an emotionally or physically weak or strong person, but how many people understand _themselves_ to know why they have that desire? This requires that one confront one's own personal development (in many cases going back to adolescence) _and_ the complex way in which we have interacted with and been shaped by all social institutions, including our families, peer group members, and those which I have mentioned previously. So -- to refer back to the paragraph you wrote above -- we need to know WHY we prefer one characteristic to another before we can rationally say what are the "relevant facts and arguments." While choices are made "consciously" we have to know what are the relevant _unconscious_ facts and arguments for us to make rational choices about sexuality. This is because so much of the terrain of sexuality, sensuousness, and desire lies in the realm of the unconscious, a realm that most people are only dimly aware of. _If _ sexual choices are in general rational in capitalist society, why do so many (most?) people feel guilty and insecure about their sexuality? Embedded within many of these choices in different cultures are (different) cultural understandings of "love". When love comes in the front door, does rationality go out the back? Is love in bourgeois society even consistent with the concept of rational behavior? We like to _think_ we are rational but if we consider the matter more deeply and critically then the grounds for that belief become very problematic. Like capitalism itself, we are both rational and irrational. We can not, however, identify, _how_ rational or irrational we are unless we understand ourselves. How many of us really understand ourselves? How many of are even introspective -- let alone _critically_ introspective? How many of aren't introspective because we are _afraid_ of what we might discover about ourselves? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT