Last modified: 2018-06-20
Abstract
The concept of rationality can be considered as one of the fundamental and most controversial issues of economic theory. The simplest and widest view on economic rationality is associated with neoclassical doctrine that focuses on the behavior of individuals (consumers, firms) and assumes that their rational strategy consists in the maximization of expected subjective utility. The key criticism of this approach is known as a concept of bounded rationality firstly proposed by Herbert Simon who pointed out that human judgments are limited by available information, time constraints, and cognitive limitations. However, the grounds for criticism of the approach embodied in the contemporary theory of rational choice are much wider. The opponents criticize it, in particular, for a break with the classical tradition and normative economics, i.e. for the disregard of the role of ethical values and institutional environment.
Since there are different levels of the system environment, it makes sense to consider a peculiar hierarchy of different rationalities (from individual to meta level) and, thus, a discrepancy of various rationalities. For now, we observe a growing interest to macroeconomic rationality coming both from orthodox and heterodox economics as a response to the Great Recession of the late 2000s. But whereas a major part of mainstream economics starts from individual rationality, the modern heterodox economics (ecological, evolutionary, institutional, feminist, humanist economics) starts from macro-rationality defining the goals which should be reached normatively, and explaining them by necessity of survival of a social community, a human society or the human race), social justice and individual development in coherence with the social development.
The concept of rationality is an important element of the concept of human nature and depends on the understanding of reasons of human actions, whether we should look for them in the rational or emotional part of human nature. According to modern social psychology and neuropsychology, decisions based on emotions differ from decisions based on reason, but they help to support the macro-rationality as they allow us in our decisions to consider the interests of others. The emotional part of human nature is sometimes capable to challenge the boundaries of individual rationality, as e.g. the human love of nature contributes to the long-term preservation of the natural habitat, similarly to the rational actions based on the complex mathematical calculation of the future consequences of the present damages of the nature.
The paper is dedicated to the major changes in the concept of rationality with special interest to collective rationality. Considering, together with other relevant conceptions, the theories of social choice and collective action, it focuses on the analysis of the complexity of human nature. The paper raises a question on the irreducibility of collective rationality to individual one; otherwise, starting from a narrow individualism, positivism and short-termism, we risk getting the “one-dimensional man” (the term used by Herbert Marcuse) who similarly to the “mass man” in the theory of José Ortega y Gasset is capable to destroy the human civilisation including the intelligence which is the basis of human rationality.