r to us can, solely due to their being alien, appear irrational or strange. In Anthropology we are quite aware of how descriptions and unfamiliarity of the ‘other’ can influence our ideas even when we think we are being rational. Horace Miner presents the best example of this in his famous article from the 1950s called ‘Body Ritual Among the Nacirema’ ‘The daily body ritual performed by everyone includes a mouth-rite. Despite the fact that these people are so punctilious about care of the mouth, this rite involves a practice which strikes the uninitiated stranger as revolting. It was reported to me that the ritual consists of inserting a small bundle of hog hairs into the mouth, along with certain magical powders, and then moving the bundle in a highly formalised series of gestures.’ Here Miner uses anthropological language to describe a form of mouth-washing that is practised within a so-called ‘tribe’, the true identity of which can be discovered simply by reversing the name of ‘Nacirema’. Miner is merely describing the brushing of teeth, but through his use of language he influences our opinions and gives perhaps the best demonstration of how our perceptions on people change when we make them the ‘other’.Considering all these things: that self-evident truths, the uses of language and unfamiliarity are all closely linked to the very way we evaluate, can we now say that rationality which is reliant upon all of these things is an objective process? I would argue ‘No’. Rationality cannot be a flawless concept if its components are flawed.There are many ongoing debates in the social sciences about rationality. There are those that believe it is a universal concept such as Charles Taylor and those that believe rationality is not independent of culture and context for example Wittgenstein. I have already demonstrated the problems of subscribing to t...
