How rational we?

How rational people are is a question of interest to social sciences, public policy, and all educated persons. The answer depends, in part, on how widely or narrowly one defines the term. Wide definitions tend to make the term tautological. By narrow definitions, the recent evidence that people act rationally is not overwhelming and evidence that they frequently act on impulse or out of habit, considerable. This points to a binary approach, one that will take into account both kinds of behavior. The specific ways the two approaches may be combined are beginning to be discerned.     

Moral dialogs

Moral dialogs are social processes through which people form new shared moral understandings. They differ from reasoned deliberations because they are focused on values and not on facts, logic or reason. They differ from irrational passions because value statements require moral justifications. Such dialogs take place not just in families and communities, but often on national levels and sometimes even on transnational ones. They played a core role in major societal changes brought about by social movements, such as those that advanced civil rights, women's rights, and the protection of the environment. Most importantly, when successfully concluded, moral dialogs affect not just attitudes and values, but also voluntary behavior as well as laws. Although dialogs may differ greatly in their normative content, they have the same basic sociological format and follow the same basic ‘natural history.’ The article introduces the author's conception of what constitutes moral dialogs by drawing on available evidence, and provides a framework for additional research on the subject at hand.     

Consensus and Reforms in the "Great Society"

One main reason the Great Society never took off was that its programs were not buttressed by a thorough bargaining process with the appropriate interests. While innovative programs can be "sold" to the voters, a consensus among the myriad interest groups and publics that comprise the American polity, such as supported federal aid to education, is vital if they are to survive. To this end, a mechanism that would function outside our relatively ineffectual representative structure, one used successfully in France, is proposed: participatory planning. Existing components of such a plan and others that would be required, such as more sophisticated social data, are outlined.     

Socio-Economics Revisited

Parsons' Marshall Lectures were an important and still are a relevant contribution to the critique of the utilitarian, rationalist, radically individualist paradigm which still dominates scholarship, especially economics, today. Parsons advised economists to stop ignoring the broader societal context of which the economy is only a sub -system; economic actors are not impersonal, fully independent individuals but should be viewed as people with internalized moral and social values, values which cannot be accounted for as mere external, environmental constraints. Parsons, however, paid little attention to the role of power in the market. Socio-economics incorporates issues addressed in the Marshall Lectures, treats the leverage of interventionist power (large corporations and labor unions) as significant, and seeks to grow as a coherent alternative to the neoclassical paradigm.     

The Moral Effects of Economic Teaching

Over the past 2 decades, dozens of studies have explored the relationship between exposure to economics and antisocial behavior. With a few exceptions, these studies find the economists and economics students are more likely to exhibit a range of “debased” moral behavior and attitudes, both in the controlled environment of the laboratory and in the outside world. This article presents a review of these studies. It draws on the various studies to address the question of whether the found differences are due to a selection effect—that is, those with antisocial tendencies tend to study economics—or an indoctrination effect whereby exposure to economic theory causes antisocial behavior. The article suggests there is evidence that both effects play a role in explaining the debased behavior of economists and students of economics.