Technical Rationality

Vijitha Rajan

Faculty member, School of Education, Azim Premji University

https://azimpremjiuniversity.edu.in/people/vijitha-rajan

In an episode of the famous television series ‘The Crown,’ Prince Philip meets Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. He hopes to hear profound insights from their lunar journey but is disappointed by their focus on material issues, such as the defective water cooler in the spacecraft. The astronauts’ world, akin to the modern world, is dominated by technical rationality that lacks the deeper meaning Prince Philip yearned to hear. Technical rationality, as explored by the German sociologist Weber, is based on objective, impersonal means-end calculations and universally applicable rules and regulations. It prioritises efficiency and standardisation over other human interests, emotions, traditions, and values. In Weber’s own words, rationalisation means that:

principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation. This means that the world is disenchanted. One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform the service. (Weber, 2009b, p.139).

Technical rationality manifests in multiple realms of society and human action. For example, in the realm of authority and domination, rationalisation entails the substitution of traditional and charismatic authority by legal-rational authority; in the religious realm, professionalisation of priesthood and spiritual knowledge; and in the realm of law, a shift from traditional common law into codified and universally applicable modern law (Atalay, 2007). In the institutional context, rationalisation often takes the form of bureaucracy, characterised by rules and regulations, strict division of labour, hierarchy and graded authority, written documents and expert training (Weber, 2009a). The impact of rationalisation in schools, characterised by bureaucratic structures, transforms teachers into bureaucratic figures with an emphasis on technical and impersonal teaching, which can be at odds with students’ preference for educators who follow a humane and engaging approach to education (Madan, 2019). This may result in bureaucratic alienation for both students and teachers. For instance, teachers toiling within a school organisation to create and maintain meaningless work of documentation or research scholars within universities made to be at the mercy of administrative functionaries for obtaining their scholarship or getting their viva is normalised in the Indian context. In modern classrooms, teachers and students often feel trapped in rules and paperwork, reminiscent of Kafka’s protagonist in ‘The Trial,’ where every step taken seems to pull them further into the bureaucratic maze. The actual purpose of an educational institution and roles imagined for different stakeholders get overshadowed by ideals of bureaucratic efficiency and productivity. Success in examination takes over meaningful processes of teaching and learning. Weber (2009) argues that the modern evolution toward complete bureaucratisation prominently highlights the emergence of a rational, specialised, and expert examination system. The bureaucratisation within capitalism, necessitating proficiently trained specialists and clerical staff, extends these examinations globally. Particularly, this progression is significantly driven by the societal prestige associated with educational credentials obtained through such specialised assessments.

The arbitrary nature of bureaucratic work and the technical rationality employed in it are completely taken for granted in the above examples. As a result, far from being productive and efficient, the power invested in bureaucratic authority also becomes arbitrary. This is further mediated through dynamics of social stratification and exclusion in Indian classrooms. In a recent study that I was part of (Rajan et al., 2023), conducted with children in an informal settlement in south Delhi, children constantly brought out the arbitrary bureaucratic rules that were integral to their experience of school. For example, we have been told by several children how schoolteachers tell them that if a child has not bathed, they will not be allowed on school trips. Or a child can be failed if they do not meet some arbitrary requirements set by the teacher. Parents can be told to take their child out of school if the child is difficult to manage or has some physical or mental challenges in the perception of the teachers.

At a more significant level, rationalisation exerts influence on education by subjecting it to economic principles, treating it as a form of capital amenable to cost-benefit analysis. This is starkly evident in neoliberal times when standardised outputs, efficiency, and productivity become paramount, turning education into a commodified industry where learners are viewed as customers and institutions as service providers. The emphasis on preparing individuals for the job market and individualisation neglects critical thinking and shared societal values. Moreover, this neoliberal rationalisation sidelines democratic concerns and perpetuates inequality, reducing the transformative potential of education to mere economic utility. In the educational policy context in India, rationalisation is often employed to address the issue of surplus schools and create composite schools ensuring efficiency and optimal resource allocation. The school closures that happened as a result of rationalisation have made access to schooling difficult for the marginalised – this has rarely been systematically studied or addressed. Another context where rationalisation is widely used is in the context of syllabi and textbooks, aimed at reducing content load. This process is not only criticised as being arbitrary but also guided by the ideological interests of the state. These examples show that the employment of technical rationality may neither be efficient nor value-free. In the post-pandemic era, the widespread adoption of online learning, primarily centred on completing syllabi and lacking meaningful teacher-student social interactions, illustrates the limits of neoliberal technical rationality.

Weber believes that substantive rationality, which focuses on values and meaningful consequences, is superior to technical rationality. Substantive rationality means choosing actions based on values, like social justice. Living a meaningful life is possible when our actions align with deeper values, even though there might be conflicts with the orientations of technical rationality. In the realm of education, embracing substantive rationality implies a shift from a purely technical and efficiency-driven approach to one that considers the broader values and purposes of learning. It suggests prioritising educational practices that align with ethical and meaningful outcomes rather than solely focusing on measurable outputs. It can help us imagine an education that can foster critical thinking, social responsibility, and democracy over narrowly defined success metrics.

In today’s context, the discourse of rationality has expanded beyond Weber’s conception, illustrated by examples like nationwide computerised information systems and the governance of scientific control over human genetic material (Albrow, 2014). Applying the concept of technical rationality, as formulated in the Western context, directly to understand the distinct history and experiences of modernity and education in other regions may also raise new challenges and directions. For instance, Mangla’s (2022) ethnographic study of Indian bureaucracy demonstrates varying kinds of bureaucracies with distinct norms revolving around the concepts of legalism and deliberation. For Mangla, bureaucratic norms encompass the informal rules that shape how bureaucrats interact among themselves and comprehend the collective objectives of an agency and thereby play pivotal roles in shaping the implementation of public services. While legalistic bureaucracies emphasise adherence to administrative rules and protocols, deliberative bureaucracies prioritise adaptability and the resolution of issues. These contrasting bureaucratic frameworks are founded on different guiding principles and uphold diverse organisational commitments. Such exploration underscores that bureaucracies in countries like India need not conform to a homogenous model; instead, they exhibit diverse norms and operational structures, reflecting unique contextual factors and varied approaches to governance. Recognising these varied dynamics will open the door to a more contextualised approach, helping us confront the taken-for-granted existence of technical rationality in modern society and discern the complex ways in which it guides human sensibilities, social action and educational practice.

References

Albrow, M. (2014). The Application of the Weberian Concept of Rationalization to Contemporary Conditions. In S. Whimster & D. S. Lash (Eds.), Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. Routledge.

Atalay, Z. (2007). Rationalisation. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosr027

Madan, A. (2019). Education and modernity: Some sociological perspectives. Eklavya.

Mangla, A. (Ed.). (2022). Making Bureaucracy Work: Norms, Education and Public Service Delivery in Rural India. Cambridge University Press.

Rajan, V., Dalal, J., & Anand, C. (2023). Education, Margins and City: Examining the Linkages Through an Ethnographic Exploration. TESF India, IIHS. https://iihs.co.in/knowledge-gateway/education-margins-and-city-examining-the-linkages-through-an-ethnographic-exploration/

Weber, M. (2009a). Bureaucracy. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Routledge.

Weber, M. (2009b). Science as a Vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Routledge.