Rational Choice

Have you ever wondered what it means to be "rational"? Does this imply that you will always behave based on your best interests? There is a school of thought that uses human "rationality" to predict and understand human actions; this is the school of rational choice theory. Still, others ask: "what are your best interests"? What shapes the things you hold dear? Is there a chance that some day you might act in an irrational manner? So then, rational choice (and game theory) has become a major debate in the social sciences.

Rational choice theory is based on unitary actors; it carries the underlying assumption that singular entities are the primary unit in politics and that these actors will always make decisions based on their own material interests. A "unitary actor" can be any singular entity such as a country, business, party or person. People will behave, vote and protest based on their own expected utility from the action. ("Utility", by the way, means the usefulness or gain from an action "from the perspective of that individual.") So, under rational choice theory, it makes sense that a rich man would vote for the party with the more fiscally conservative agenda; the individual's utility is maximized by a politician that will save the man money. Now, it should be noted that many rational choice theorists stress that it is most applicable when "the stakes are relatively high and the number of players relatively low."*

Many critiques have arisen in response to rational choice theory and can most aptly be summed into three categories: sociological, psychological and scientific. Scientific concerns tend to center on these models not following scientific norms; rational choice is deductive as it begins with general assumptions about human nature, and then proceeds to make specific inferences. Psychological critiques of rational choice look largely at the way humans make decisions; it could be the case that depending on socio-biological factors, certain actors may choose in an "irrational" manner. Furthermore, these critics look at personality types and the opinions and viewpoints on issues highlighted by those personalities.

Finally, the largest and most recognizable critiques are sociological in their nature. Social critics argue that the explicitly material nature of rational choice downplays other characteristics that influence decision making. Consider human traits such as honor, nobility, love and friendship; how can these necessarily be fitted into mathematical models? In actuality, some actor may make a decision based on love that is entirely "irrational." Though perhaps this is an anomaly, it is such concerns that make rational choice difficult to apply to large scale and seemingly "minor" problems. In the political world, it is often a series of "minor" issues that lead to major evolutions. While rational choice may be applicable when "the stakes are relatively high", it seems strikingly inconsistent when the stakes are apparently low.

Ultimately, rational choice teaches that economic concerns are at the forefront of human logic; it does tend to be the case that actors will function in their own "best interest." However, rational choice theory may, in many ways, ignore non-quantifiable interests of the human. Perhaps it will be our own "rational" natures that will allow us to never forget that humanity is not entirely understandable through numbers and patterns, but must also be considered as irrationally human.
-Mike Ryckman

* Fiorina, Morris P.. "When the Stakes are High, Rationality Kicks In." The New York Times (Feb 26, 2000): Section B; Page 11; Column 4.