he view that rationality is a universal, faultless concept; however what of Wittgenstein’s theory? Wittgenstein believed that there could be multiple ‘rationalities’. That what is rational may differ from one culture to the next. This could mean that the Azande’s belief in witchcraft would be seen to be rational. Evans-Pritchard who does not himself believe in magic wrote that, for the Azande, ‘Belief in witchcraft is quite consistent with human responsibility and a rational appreciation of nature.’ This could almost put an end to rationality being criticised as it allows the scope for difference. But then why cite rationality at all if there is no room for translation? Even in our acceptance of ‘multiple rationalities’ we are still using rationality as a yardstick. Rationality is not the seamless model it first appears to be. First there is a danger that rationality can undermine our personal experience. Second it would seem rationality is not objective, but instead bound in our own prejudices in our definition and application of it. Third there is now no consensus on the nature of rationality itself, whether it is universal or relative. All these things make it very hard to answer the question as to whether a belief in witchcraft or magic is a rational one. After this research I can say that the answer to the question will vary depending on who you ask, but my personal belief is that the most rational answer to the question is to say that there isn’t one; and that Anthropology can function perfectly without it....
