A critique of rationality and liberalism

A central tenet of liberalism is the idea that rationality or rational thought will lead states or actors in the international system to act in a manner that will lead all rational states to being able to accomplish their self interests since they would share those interests and common beliefs with other states through bargaining and negotiation.  I have a quibble with this line of thought because actors acting rationally refers to acting on “an action belief or desire if we ought to choose it,” as defined in class. I believe rational thought can mean different things in different contexts. For example, in economics, a rational thinker will do the best to achieve their objectives, according to Greg Mankiw’s 10 principles of economics. To a liberal, acting rationally economically might entail relying on another state for trade.  Realists would view this kind of interdependence as a glaring weakness since a state’s economic stability is so contingent on the stability of a different state. Through reasoning and thinking rationally, a realist could easily come to the conclusion that the risk of entrusting your economic security in another nation outweighs the benefit of economic stability. To use another economics term, the realist thinker is risk averse and the argument could be made that reason and rational thought were used to come to this conclusion. It seems to me that liberals see the idea of rationality as concrete and objective. That if one is thinking rationally, they are adhering to a set of principles that coincide with liberal thought. However, I believe actors have the capacity to reason but I do not think that there reasoning inherently leads to action or outcome that is viewed rational. Like Professor Shirk mentioned in class, a jihadist terrorist who believes conducting suicide-bombing missions is best for their interests could say their actions are logical. As someone who is not religious, I can say that action is unequivocally illogical.  But people can use religion to rationalize and justify their actions because it is ingrained in their schema that all actions in this life will determine if they are rewarded or punished in the afterlife. This is a hurdle that is difficult to ignore and I think liberals tend to overlook when assessing socio-political structures in international relations. In that extreme instance, the political actor is, subjectively, acting rationally. Liberals believe that we can use rationality to end politics, which I think is a hopelessly optimistic notion. I believe as long as we have different states, with different cultural backgrounds, and different beliefs, customs and norms, there will always be politics. I do agree that there are other actors that matter in international relations, however; institutions, for example, are often manifestations or extensions of states power. Like we addressed in section, the UN is arguably a manifestation of the U.S. power and its interests are often shared with the United States and other democratic republics in the world. States interests change and adapt of overtime and like constructivists, I believe they are socially constructed and not necessarily developed through deliberation and negotiation. Additionally, like constructivists, I think making sure that everyday practices like rationality are defined and not just assumed is important. Assuming actors will act rationally because that is what is best for everyone’s interests is dangerously presumptuous.