Tip-Off #138 - Are You Unreasonable?
"Listening is a democratic force." - Mary Scudder, Beyond Empathy and Inclusion.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F23eda932-fddd-425f-ae09-a6533f220b7d_1100x600.jpeg)
"I could try to be reasonable, but that would complicate things for both of us." True enough. Being sensible doesn’t always make sense. Think of arguments at home with an unruly teenager or your own stubbornness. Max Weber, the renowned sociologist, is among the foremost modern thinkers who have explored the complexities of being reasonable. His insights into rationality are not just academic but also shed light on everyday interactions and decision-making.
Weber identified four types of rationality: purposive or instrumental rationality, which focuses on achieving practical results; value rationality, which is driven by upholding higher values regardless of the outcome, such as strong political beliefs; affective rationality, which prioritizes emotion, feeling, and relationships; and traditional rationality, which follows the wisdom of previous generations through long-standing habits and customs. Most of us are well settled into one way of being reasonable, resigned to our blind spots.
This explanation offers more profound insight into conflict, similar to how understanding different cultures provides mutual benefits. One of the first tasks Nelson Mandela undertook in prison was to learn the language of his captors—the language of their rationality. He believed that black South Africans could not fight their way to freedom; they would only achieve democracy through talking, which meant talking to South Africa's white rulers. During his 27 years of captivity, Mandela mastered Afrikaans, gaining the confidence of prison authorities and engaging more effectively with them. He delved into Afrikaner history, explored the feats of their war heroes, and immersed himself in Afrikaans literature and poetry.
Mandela genuinely believed Afrikaners and black South Africans belonged to the same land. He forged a close relationship with a critical figure in the government, General Constand Viljoen, known for brutality as commander of the country’s Defense Force, which would still shock us today. Without diluting his demands, Mandela convinced Viljoen that justice for blacks meant greater justice for all. He could still proudly be an Afrikaner, a military veteran, and a South African citizen. Viljoen ended up calling off all assaults on black citizens, as well as helping to make Mandela credible to other government leaders. A hard-core enemy had become a key collaborator. In May 1994, Mandela took office as president.
The story of Nelson Mandela is a challenge that hits close to home. Most of us don't rely on just one mode of making sense, one mode of rationality; we often switch between them or use more than one. Forensic psychologists believe that successful interrogation techniques can be instructive in other settings. To be effective, interrogators must suspend moral judgment. One psychologist noted, "No matter how criminal or crazy someone is, they are sitting opposite you for a reason beyond mere evil. If you're not genuinely interested in understanding why they are there, you shouldn't be either. The key is to assume they are acting rationally. Your job is to determine their rationality, no matter how 'crazy' they seem."
The issue isn't just understanding people's "back story" but also their “back logic,” their underlying reasoning. "Make America Great Again" taps into genuine despair about social mobility and the economy. Electoral defeat won't erase that. Countering this rhetoric with ridicule only fuels rancor already rampant. Instead, we need to tell a better story, one that inspires without demonizing opponents, something as hard for liberals to do as for the conservatives who despise them.
Sometimes, a true breakthrough is simply being heard, not just won over or tolerated. Political thinker Mary Scudder calls active listening—paying close attention—a democratic force “beyond empathy, inclusion, and compromise.” Scudder argues that, especially when democracy is threatened, it means little without the practice of listening carefully to something we may not want to hear, recognizing another's voice, making our own more credible. Listening closely and being heard ensure adverse outcomes are not the last word. Active listening is not about acquiescing or making nice; it's like learning another language without giving up our own.
It is often said that what we have in common is more important than what we have in conflict. However, unity that is only political and electoral, that ignores or suppresses deeper differences, will not last. America's democracy faces significant challenges, reminiscent of earlier turbulent times.
While violence can provoke more violence, an escalating cycle is not inevitable. The Nelson Mandela Foundation’s statement on General Viljoen's death emphasizes this reality, resonating with our own tumult: "May the memory of General Viljoen's contribution to making peace in the 1990s inspire us to work together as our country faces another time of great challenge."
Reasonable hope, like Mandela’s, can also be ours.
Notes and reading
The Challenge of Listening in Democratic Deliberation: Beyond Empathy and Inclusion - Mary Scudder (2020). “A pivotal contribution to contemporary political theory and democratic practice.” Perspectives on Politics (September 20, 2021).
Economy and Society: A New Translation (Kindle edition), Max Weber (2019) includes a substantial introduction and commentary that reflect the latest Weber scholarship. - Types of rationality, 101-102.
Knowing Mandela: A Personal Portrait - John Carlin (2013). Mandela was a visionary who understood that violence was logical, but reconciliation made more sense. His idealism was pragmatic. Carlin is widely recognized as a leading authority on Mandela.
“Forensic psychologists…” - Ian Leslie, The Guardian (October 13, 2017). “In a tug of war, the harder you pull, the harder they pull. My suggestion is, let go of the rope.” (said with no use for “cappuccinos and hugs”)
Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration - Teresa Bejan (2019). Bejan is a professor of politics at the University of Oxford. Bejan reclaims “civility” with a punch.
The Divide: How Fanatical Certitude is Destroying Democracy - Taylor Dotson (2021). How “we” are the biggest threat to democracy, whatever our politics. Dotson is a professor of social science at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
Don't Label Me: How to Do Diversity Without Inflaming the Culture Wars - Irshad Manji (2020). Manji is the founder and director of the Moral Courage College, renowned for a fresh approach to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” and other contentious issues. Manji collaborates with the Oxford Initiative for Global Ethics and Human Rights.
Thanks for your insight! And for introducing me to James C. Scott and "Domination..." Very helpful.
I think the wrong kind of power (i.e., what most of us consider power most of the time) makes listening unnecessary. Maybe it exists in part to make listening unnecessary. Listening implies a willingness to change and grow; it implies as well that the speaker might have something that could assist with that change or growth. This implication can be threatening to someone who (or to a group that) has invested a lot in something that change or growth might hurt or destroy.
Mandela's listening and learning reminds me of James C. Scott's analysis of subordinate groups in his book Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. The subordinate groups learn to learn all about the dominating group in order to have a better chance of surviving. The dominating group can afford to know little or nothing about the subordinate group, and most of what it thinks it knows about the subordinate group is wrong. (This phenomenon sometimes makes me think of this rather obscure verse from Paul: "Others are lavishing attention on you, but without sincerity: what they really want is to isolate you so that you may lavish attention on them." - Galatians 4:17 REB. Paul perhaps warns of a power play intended to make the powerful a necessary object of the Galatians' study.)
While our two-party system hasn't (or hasn't yet) resolved itself nationally into dominating and subordinate groups, its dualistic thinking leads to ideology, which I think is also not conducive to listening.