A Rationalist Mea Culpa

Since long I've regarded myself as a critical member of the rationalist tradition, especially of that nasty, uncouth tribe called rational-choice theory. So it doesn't pain me at all to say that rational choice theory is wrong about certain things. I've said it before about many topics and will say it again. But there is one topic I didn't see coming and that reading Zizek helped me get straight. (I've slowed down my progress with Zizek's book so, instead of one review, I'll comment little by little.)

You see, one of the standard tricks we rational-choice theorists use to entice young, impressionable minds is the magic word of "microfoundations." We tell our students that, unlike other paradigms in social theory, ours do have them, that is, we can explain social phenomena all the way down to the actions of individuals. (This is a topic I'm thinking about a lot these days so I'll post much more on this.) 

There are many difficulties with the microfoundations we rationalists proffer and that is a subject of lengthy debate. (For the record, I don't think the problems are so damaging as people often think. In fact, in my work I am fairly orthodox in this regard.) But one thing I had not realized fully, but should have suspected is that microfoundations are not the monopoly of rationalists.

It is a bit embarrassing for me to say it, but before reading Zizek's book I had no serious exposure to the work of Lacan and other social theorists influenced by psychoanalysis. Yes, I am a long-standing sympathizer of the Frankfurt School, but that's mostly with regards to the new generation, especially Habermas, that has little use for Freud. (By the way, whatever happened to Alfred Schmidt? His book on Marx's concept of nature was pretty good and I imagine that now, with all the talk about the environment, could use a rereading.) 

One thing that becomes pretty clear from reading Zizek's book, and his presentation of Lacan's ideas, is that these people, like it or not, DO have microfoundations. Lots of them. Their theories of society are based on an account of how the self develops. It doesn't get any more "micro" than that.

That is not to say that I agree with their microfoundations. I'm very much doubt that they are getting the mechanisms right and sometimes I just can't understand what's going on. So, don't worry, I'm not going to become a convert to post-modern, Lacanian, psychoanalitic social theory any time soon. But one thing I will do is to change my sales pitch. I promise I will never again tell my students that the good thing about rational-choice theory is that it has microfoundations. I'll try to argue that it has the right ones (or the less wrong ones) but not that it has the only ones.