Gustav Ichheiser on Rationality and Irrationality

Chapter
Part of the Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences book series (THHSS)

Abstract

Since Aristotle, scholars provided different answers to the question whether humans are rational. Some scholars, e.g. Descartes, presupposed that rationality is a norm, while others, e.g. Freud, claimed that humans are basically driven by irrational tendencies which they cannot control. For Gustav Ichheiser, rationality and irrationality were social and relational concepts. He argued that although it is meaningful to make a distinction between these two concepts, it is wrong to treat them as separate from one another; even more, he questioned whether the ‘cold rationality’ is ‘superior’ to ‘irrational’ impulses. It is the latter that instigates generous actions and spontaneous help to others. In analysing different meanings of irrationality and their attributions to the Self and Others, Ichheiser contrasted values of technological progress and of cultural-spiritual welfare in modern societies in their international contexts.

Keywords

Rationality Irrationality Self and Others Relational concepts Values 

References

  1. Bauer, M. W., Harré, R., & Jensen, C. (2013). Resistance to rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benedict, R. (1942). Race and racism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Bergson, H. (1907/1998). Creative evolution (A. Mitchell, Trans.). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  5. Buxton, R. (Ed.). (1999). From myth to reason? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cassirer, E. (1946). The myth of the state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. R. (1859/1974). The origin of the species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  8. Descartes, R. (1637/1955). Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason and seeking for truth in science. In E. S. Haldane & G. R. T. Ross (Trans. & Eds.), The philosophical works of Descartes (Vol. 1, pp. 79–130). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on individualism. Modern ideology in anthropological perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id (J. Strachey, Ed.; J. Riviere, Trans.). London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Gellner, E. (1992). Reason and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Gellner, E. (1998). Language and solitude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentile, E. (2000). The sacralization of politics: Definitions, interpretations and reflections on the question of secular religion and totalitarianism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1, 18–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gronow, J. (1988). The element of irrationality: Max Weber’s diagnosis of modern culture. Acta Sociologica, 3, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962). History of Greek philosophy (Vol. Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Halfin, I. (2003). Terror in my soul. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Harré, R. (2011). A catalogue of follies. In C. Jensen & R. Harré (Eds.), Beyond rationality (pp. 11–20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  19. Heidegger, M. (1954/1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lowitt, Trans.) (pp. 3–35). New York: Harper & Tow.Google Scholar
  20. Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (Eds.). (1982). Rationality and relativism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Husserl, E. (1936/1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ichheiser, G. (1940). The image of the other man: A study in social psychology. Sociometry, 111, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ichheiser, G. (1941). Some social psychological obstacles to an understanding between the nations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 428–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ichheiser, G. (1943). Misinterpretations of personality in everyday life and the psychologist’s frame of reference. Character and Personality, 12, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ichheiser, G. (1949a). Misunderstandings in human relations: A study in false social perceptions. Supplement to the September issue of the American Journal of Sociology. Google Scholar
  26. Ichheiser, G. (1949b). Sociopsychological and cultural factors in race relations. American Journal of Sociology, 54, 395–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ichheiser, G. (1951). Misunderstandings in international relations. American Sociological Review, 16, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ichheiser, G. (1968). Six meanings of the terms “rational” and “irrational”. Sociologia Internationalis, 6, 96–100.Google Scholar
  29. Ichheiser, G. (1970). Appearances and realities: Misunderstanding in human relations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1955/1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1959/1964). The early growth of logic in the child (E. A. Lunzer & D. Papert, Trans.). Abington, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, C. R., & Harré, R. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, I. (1784/1996). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In M. J. Gregor (Ed. & Trans.), I. Kant: Practical philosophy (pp. 15–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Loader, C. (1985). The intellectual development of Karl Mannheim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lukes, S. (1982). Relativism in its place. In M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 261–305). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and society (E. Shils, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Mannheim, K. (1975). Letters to Lukács, 1910–1916 (E. Gábor, Ed.) New Hungarian Quarterly, 16(57), 93–105.Google Scholar
  38. Marková, I. (2012). Confession as a communication genre: The logos and mythos of the Party. In I. Marková & A. Gillespie (Eds.), Trust and conflict: Representation, culture and dialogue (pp. 281–300). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Marková, I. (2016). The dialogical mind: Common sense and ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Minogue, K. (2010). The servile mind. How democracy erodes the moral life. New York: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  41. Moscovici, S. (1988/1993). La Machine à faire des dieux: Sociologie et psychologie [The invention of society, W. D. Hall, Trans.]. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Moscovici, S. (2011). An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities. Social Science Information, 50, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Most, G. W. (1999). From logos to mythos. In R. Buxton (Ed.), From myth to reason? (pp. 25–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nestle, W. (1942). Vom Mythos zum Logos: Die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen Denkens von Homer bis auf die Sophistik und Socrates (Zweite Auflage) [From myth to logos: The self-unfolding of Greek thought from Homer to the Sophists and Socrates (2nd ed.)]. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
  45. Pascal, B. (1670/1995). Pensées. A. J. Krailsheimer, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  46. Patočka, J. (1973/1989). The dangers of technicization in science according to E. Husserl and the essence of technology as danger according to M. Heidegger. In E. Kohák (Ed., & Trans.), Jan Patočka: Philosophy and selected writings (pp. 327–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  48. Rosa, A., & Valsiner, J. (2007). Rationality, ethics and objectivity. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 692–707). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. H. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Shweder, R. A., Minow, M., & Markus, H. R. (Eds.). (2002). Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Singer, C. (1958). From magic to science. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  52. Sorokin, P. (1992). The crisis of our age. Oxford: Oneworld Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Sperber, D. (1982). Apparently irrational beliefs. In M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 248–280). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Steuer, M. (2011). Evolved irrationality. In C. Jensen & R. Harré (Eds.), Beyond rationality (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Pinter & Martin.Google Scholar
  56. Tönnies, F. (1887/1957). Gemainschaft und Gesselschaft. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag [Community and Society] (C. P. Loomis, Ed., & Trans.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Vico, G. (1744/1948). The new science of Giambattista Vico (T. G. Bergin & M. H. Fisch, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. An outline of interpretative sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy (Commentary A. W. Moore). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, B. R. (Ed.). (1970). Rationality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Zafirovski, M. (2005). Is sociology the science of the irrational? Conceptions or rationality in sociological theory. American Sociologist, 36, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ziegler, D. J. (2002). Freud, Rogers, and Ellis: A comparative theoretical analysis. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 20, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations