“This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,—often the surfeit of our own behaviour,—we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars.”
-William Shakespeare, King Lear, Act I Scene ii
A common problem that I have encountered is understanding the context of a given phenomenon. What I mean by this may be summarized in my confusion regarding the various numbers that have emerged regarding the current outbreak of COVID-19. For example, there was a news story circulating about how within Sweden’s population of approximately ten million people, they had had (some weeks ago) about five thousand deaths related to the novel coronavirus. What was so peculiar to me is that I saw people—both those deeply fearful of the virus and those who think most precautions are needless—using the same statistics to demonstrate the validity of their side. How can this happen?
In my view, this comes down to understanding the context of a given issue. There will always be interrelated experiences, information, and phenomena that must be understood in unison for a proper analysis to take place. On this topic, I always think of a humorous example provided by Alasdair MacIntyre in his excellent book, After Virtue. He focuses upon the importance of context particularly in the fifteenth chapter of the text, “The Virtues, the Unity of a Human Life and the Concept of a Tradition.” In this analysis, he considers an example of “waiting for a bus and the young man standing next to me suddenly [saying]: ‘The name of the common wild duck is Histrionicus histrionicus histrionicus’.” I imagine most people would probably consider quickly walking away or simply staring at the strange man who is sharing his bizarre, made-up facts. Yet, MacIntyre asks us to consider that this strange young man had perhaps “just come from a session with his psychotherapist who has urged him to break down his shyness by talking to strangers. ‘But what shall I say?’ ‘Oh, anything at all’.” Suddenly, this man’s actions can become intelligible through understanding his motivations and the context of his actions.
We can take this jocular example from MacIntyre and apply this same logic to a great many of our own actions, both those we have already performed and those we have yet to perform. We exist within a series of contingencies that do not define our behaviour substantially but which do condition our actions. To take an example, based upon the groceries I have purchased over the last few weeks, it would seem rather irrational for me to walk into my kitchen right now, look at what I have available, and say, “I shall make traditional sushi and sashimi,” as I have no sushi rice, no seaweed, and no fresh fish (nor the skills necessary to make such a dish). If I did, however, decide to make my usual bland dinner of overcooked chicken and mixed frozen vegetables (which I am certainly capable of), no one would consider that an odd choice as I have those readily at my disposal. I am not necessarily forced to make my tasteless dish, as I could just as easily have had a bowl of soup or a plate of spaghetti, but the situation does inhibit some options which no amount of my present deliberation will be capable of changing.
When dealing with problems that involve a great many people, perhaps as many as that of a whole country, these issues can only exponentially multiply in complexity. In the examples listed above of understanding a fellow bus traveller or deciding on dinner, the context needed to be understood by an individual; this allows for intelligibility and justification to be sought and settled rather easily. If, however, we must involve a great many people who live different lifestyles, have varying habits, and differ in talents and capacities, the sought and settled intelligibility and justification of a given action becomes much more difficult to establish. This is something which I believe we can see by returning to our example of the COVID-19 pandemic and the various actions taken by governments, businesses, and individuals to prevent further infections. Different people coming from different circumstances will react in a variety of ways to the changes, and we should expect this given the pluralism present in our contemporary culture.
I need only take myself as an example of someone who is not well versed in the subjects necessary to have a good grasp of what is happening with COVID-19. The main, relevant subjects are well beyond my realm of experience and knowledge. I am therefore unsure of what we should be considering when trying to understand the threat posed by the virus. Should we look only at the amount of infected and the amount dead from the virus itself? Do we compare it with other viruses such as SARS or the common flu? How do we balance the precautions we take with the possible economic impacts that could cause poverty? Does comparing COVID-19 deaths with shark attack deaths make sense? Of course, that last question seems ridiculous, but it may not be beyond the scope of questions one may ask. Thus, it seems that the context itself must be negotiated and considered in order to be properly dealt with for us to make any progress.
I think it is therefore important to address a critical point here: this issue, like nearly every other, cannot be considered merely in light of a set of numbers—a common assumption of those among us who are more scientifically minded—but must also be considered within a context of activity. Unfortunately, an epidemiologist is unlikely to have the knowledge to deal with all details of what is presently occurring. It is unlikely that he or she would be capable of understanding the ways in which ‘social distancing’ will affect people psychologically, how business closure will affect the economy, or how decreased trade relations may affect tenuous relationships between various countries. Perhaps this epidemic presents us with a circumstance in which the epidemiologist should be a more prominent voice than in other moments; however, if we think that his or her voice should be the only one, we have gone astray.
Michael Oakeshott touched on this point in his essay “Rational Conduct.” In this essay, Oakeshott seeks to reinterpret what we mean when we say that something is “rational.” So often, particularly in our ‘modern’ times, we use an abstracted concept of rationality that usually means something like being without prejudices, assumptions, or beliefs. The rational man is he who enters into an endeavour with nothing but his ‘blank slate’ of a mind to resolve any problem that may arise—but I, along with Oakeshott, believe this is evidently nothing more than a fiction. We live in a world of prejudices, assumptions, and beliefs which are necessary to act at all. If we were to question every detail of our experience in every moment, there would indeed be no possibility of ever acting for there is always a further proposition we could inspect and seek to understand (which is indeed the great plight of the philosopher—he can never stop thinking to act).
We must ensure that our experts, as valuable as they are, never fall into the trap of believing that their slices of expertise are a sufficient fix for a given issue. They will bring in their own necessary assumptions to perform their needed work, however they should heed the cautions of others who may not share those assumptions. There is no one expert or perhaps even field of knowledge which will be capable of “rationally” approaching a grave situation, such as the one we presently find ourselves in, or providing a solution that will fix all our issues absolutely. Indeed, I believe it better to consider Oakeshott’s revised understanding of rationality: “human conduct may be said to be ‘rational’ when it exhibits the sort of ‘intelligence’ appropriate to the idiom of activity concerned.” To be rational is to act, as MacIntyre implies above, within a contextual flow of events in which one finds himself or herself. When we are considering the well-being of an entire society, we cannot merely consider one or a few aspects of our lives (such as bodily health and the medical system). Indeed, we may even consider this irrational; I mean this only in the sense that the totality of changes being suggested goes far beyond those of medical knowledge. We should therefore consult those who may understand other realms such as economics, psychology, or international relations to make better decisions for us all provided the complexity of the relevant context.
In my proper fashion, I have no concrete answers here, which—as I pointed out—I believe I would be unqualified to even suggest. I merely believe that in looking to such intellectuals as MacIntyre and Oakeshott we may better understand the nature of how we think and act. We must remember that we all exist within complex, contingent circumstances that will have some considerations that are deeply relevant to a present issue and others which lack any relevance at all. In understanding that the context of our actions must itself be consciously negotiated and considered, I hope that all of us may make decisions and seek conversations that lead to a clearer and more delightful tomorrow.
“Again: to know that the earth is spinning through space at some incredible speed is to know nothing significant.”
-Michael Oakeshott
Hoping for Clarity 
A breath of fresh air. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person