Introduction
Collins asserted that nonrationality is society’s foundation owing to the free-rider problem, the contractual nature of society, and limitations of rationality. Contrary to popular assumptions, human beings are not distinctly rational. Therefore, they do not use rational principles to form a society.
Why Collins believes in nonrationality
Collins explains that rationality is not a definitive aspect of human relations because it is not absolute. If rationality lived up to its expectations, then adherents would always agree with each other (Collins 4). Additionally, actors who follow rigorous processes often end up with unwanted consequences (Collins 5). One such instance is bureaucracy, which is a seemingly rational structure that creates irrational outcomes.
Another scenario is capitalism, which advocates for profit maximization; it creates irrational results by reducing the value of human life thus destroying the very system that created it. Rationality is a situational quality that cannot work in many instances (Godwyn & Gittell 55).
Society is held together by social contracts. The Durkheimian view of religion illustrates that religion is a social ritual rather than an absolute belief. People identify with groups owing to religious beliefs. Values espoused in these social institutions lead to social cohesion as they define morality and the consequences of immorality.
Members of religion, therefore, choose to meet their moral obligations and perform rituals to maintain harmony within their groups. Religion is strongly based on emotional processes that conjure up feelings of trust and belonging. In essence, these are the building blocks of society. Social contracts are a conventional explanation of the basis of cooperation in society.
However, for social contracts to work, then the actors need to believe that all parties will meet their end of the bargain (Collins 10). Additionally, they need to believe in the content of the contract. If people were purely rational, then they would be inclined to cheat. It is more rational to cheat than to meet one’s end of the bargain.
If one’s contractual partner were to meet his obligations, then the cheater would not only get the pre-stated advantages but would not need to pay any price. Conversely, if all parties cheated, then they would gain or lose nothing since no input has been made. Alternatively, if parties stay loyal to the contract, then they would have to sacrifice something in turn.
It makes more sense to cheat, but this would create social disharmony. Religious entities or emotional processes cause people to trust each other and honor their social contracts (Godwyn & Gittell 38). Pre-Contractual solidarity exists among members of society. The social organization thus depends on elements of rationality and emotional processes; one does not function without the other.
The free rider problem is yet another reason why nonrational foundations affect society. Rationalism, as a school of thought, supports free riders. When a rational person is confronted with a situation in which he or she can get benefits without making any input, then he or she will let other people play his or her part.
If society were made up of rational actors alone, then all would assume that someone else will contribute, and this would create a free-rider problem. However, if a collective effect exists, then individual sentiments become inconsequential (Collins 17).
Conclusion
Social life depends on collective and organized structures; otherwise, society would cease to exist. This implies that rational and individualistic thought is insufficient to bring people together to form a society.
Works Cited
Collins, Randall. Sociological Insight: An Introduction to non obvious sociology. NY: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.
Godwyn, Mary & Jody Gittell. Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships. London: Sage, 2012. Print.