A STUDY 0!- THE TREATMENT OF RATiONAUZATION 1N FOUR SELECTED PERSUASWE SPEECH TEXTBOOKS PUBLISHED SINCE 1950 Thasés for the Degree of M. A. MICWGAN STATE UNIVERSITY E. Eugene Wiiliams‘ 1961 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE TREATMENT OF RATIONALIZATION IN FOUR SELECTED PERSUASIVE SPEECH TEXTBOOKS PUBLISHED SINCE 1950 by E. Eugene Williams The primary purpose of this study was to examine critically the concept of rationalization in order to determine whether or not the unique position taken by Dr. Robert T. Oliver toward the role of rationalization in speech persuasion seemed defensible. Oliver climaxes his concept of rationalization with the statement: ”Ration- alization, a form of reasoning from false premises or by illogical means, accounts for perhaps as much as 80 per cent or more of our thinking-toward-a-decision."1 Impetus was given to this particular type of study by an eclectic approach to the problem of rationalization. An entire chapter was devoted to the collecting and winnow- ing of material concerning rationalization from a number of disciplines. This investigation also dealt with the major contributions of textbook writing in the specific field of speech persuasion as it relates to rationalization. Even though the comparisons and contrasts of these text- books, all published since 1950, were restricted to the concept of rationalization, nevertheless the research pro- duced some interesting results. E. Eugene Williams The basic thrust of the study was designed to accom- plish three things: (1) to present a survey of existing thought concerning the concept of rationalization; (2) to make a study of the treatment of rationalization in four selected persuasive speech textbooks; and, (3) to point up some areas of needed research. Chapter One, introductory in nature, indicated the creative design of this study. The writer's definition of rationalization was stated, a statement of the problem was made, procedural methodology was outlined, and a selected list of imposed limitations was given. Chapter Two presented a survey of selected litera- ture dealing with the concept of rationalization as it appears in various disciplines of study.. From this over- view there emerged certain basic considerations of ration- alization. These considerations included an investigation of the attributes and the functions of rationalization. Chapter Three presented an analysis of Robert T. Oliver's concept of rationalization as expressed in two of his textbooks, Persuasive Speaking2 and The Psychology 2; Persuasive Speech.3 Dr. Oliver treats the subject of rationalization more comprehensively than any other writer in the field of speech persuasion. Chapter Four analyzed rationalization in two additional persuasive speaking textbooks. The first of u these, Persuasion: A Means of Social Control, was written E. Eugene Williams by Winston L. Brembeck and William S. Howell and published in 1952. The second, entitled The Art 2; Persuasion,5 is the contribution of wayne C. Hinnick in 1957. The final chapter of this study offered evaluations of the material analyzed in the three preceding chapters, along with a summation and suggestions for further research. As a result of this investigation of rationalization, it was the writer‘s candid persuasion that Dr. Oliver's '80 per cent" figure, referring to the incidence of the use of rationalization in thinking-toward-a-decision, is too high to be defensible. This, of course, remains an opinion for which the writer must assume full responsibility. Dr. Oliver's more important contribution, it seemed to the writer, was the fact that he placed greater emphasis on the concept of rationalization than other writers in the speech field, an emphasis which seemed warranted in the light of the findings discovered, and an emphasis which may well become a challenge to teachers and writers in the discipline of speech to re-examine their positions in regard to the concept of rationalization. This challenge should become especially acute in the specific field of speech persuasion where the study of motivation is significant. E. Eugene Williams lfiobert T. Oliver, The Ps cholo of Persuasive 5 each (2d ed.; New York: Longmans, Green and 30., 15371, p. 293. ZBobert T. Oliver, Persuasive 3 skin - 'Princi les and Methods (New York: Longmans, Green and 50., I§301. 3Oliver, The Ps cholo of Persuasive S eech, op. cit. “Winston L. Brembeck and William s. Howell, Persuasion: A h ans of So i l Contr 1 (New York: Prentice-Hall, IEc., 5Wayne C. Minnick, The Art of Persuasion (Boston: Houghton Hifflin Co., 1957 . A STUDY OF THE TREATMENT OF RATIONALIZATION IN FOUR SELECTED PERSUASIVE SPEECH TEXTBOOKS PUBLISHED SINCE 1950 BY E. Eugene Williams A THESIS Submitted to nichigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1961 51/5727 (.6 / 2 4/0 / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is sincerely grateful to the many people who have had a part in this study.’ He , especially wishes to acknowledge the help, charac- terized by unselfishness, given by Dr. David C. Ralph, who directed this thesis. The writer 13 indebted to Dr. Donald H. Ecroyd for timely sug- gestions and constructive criticisms. He desires to thank Dr. Robert T. Oliver for the inspiration and direction he afforded the writer during the time he was a student of Dr. Oliver's at Pennsyl- vania State University. Appreciation is expressed also to the writer's wife, Ruth, his companion of nearly two decades, who by her constant encourage- ments, kindly criticisms, and steadfast love, made the writing of this study possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AC MOVEMENTS O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O 1 1 Chapter I. RATIONALIZATION O O I O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 1 Introduction Definition Statement of Purpose Significance of Study Limitations Imposed Method of Procedure II. SURVEY OF SELECTED LITERATURE DEALING WITH RATIONALIZATION AS FOUND IN VARIOUS DISC IPLINES 0F STIIDY. O O O O O O O O O O 10 Basic Considerations Attributes of Rationalization Functions of Rationalization Experimental Studies of Rationalization Conclusion III. THE OLIVERIAN CONCEPT OF RATIONALIZATION. . 72 Oliver's Introduction The Extent of Rationalization Reasons for Rationalization Rationalization Defined Characteristics of Rationalization Functions of Rationalization Detecting Rationalization Uses of Rationalization in Persuasion Methods of Rationalization in Persuasion Rationalization and Fallacies in Reasoning Conclusion IV. THE CONCEPT OF RATIONALIZATION ACCORDING TO BREHBECK AND HOWELL AND HINNICK. . . o 9# Analysis of Persuasion Analysis of Tfie IF? gthegsuasign 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS . . . Summary Evaluations Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . iv Page 117 147 CHAPTER I RATIONALIZATION Introduction The term rationalization was introduced by Ernest Jones in 1908 to denote a method of self-Justification by which acceptable, rather than real, reasons are given in explanation of behavior. Considerable has been written and, undoubtedly, much more has been said, about the subject of rationalization since 1908. In fact, rationalization emerges into view wherever human beings exist. Seemingly, no one can evade use of it entirely. The business man who believes that honesty is the best policy while mentally reserving the right to strike it rich by clever duplicity, the politician who takes a bribe, the college student who accepts grading as necessary for ability grouping but does not hesitate to cheat upon occasion, the office worker on an inJudicious vacation fling, the basketball player who makes little or no dis- tinction between team loyalty and purposefully playing the game carelessly so as to decrease the victory margin in order to receive an offer from a gambling syndicate, the housewife who shirks her responsibilities in the home, the young lady with the raspy voice who feels it is important to her self-esteem to be regarded as a talented singer by her friends and who believes that the only reason she is not asked to sing in the church choir is because the director does not like her; these, and many others, usually seek some measure of insulation from emotional hurt, some means of explanation for their conduct. Rationalization, well known ego-defense mechanism, often becomes that protective means 0 Definition Thousands of words have been employed to describe and define the concept of rationalization. And the end is not in sight. To the growing list of definitions the writer adds his own, eclectic in nature and transposed from Chapter Five in order that the reader may have a clearer understand- ing of what the writer of this paper means when he uses the word W. Rationalization ya a term 2§2§.£2 identify certain EXPEEHQL faulty thinki , clothed usually Egan socially- acce table, dece tive, aag,protective ex lanations, EELS! aya,thaught 9g,spoken.ia,ayaagflaa,produce aa;§¢justifiable .1nteraretations a; behavior that aa_objective and imaartial analysis would not substantiate. Definitions of rationalization given by other writers are presented in Chapter Two of this study. Statement of Purpose Questions seem to arise naturally when rationalization is discussed. How many persons are certain that they know what is meant when the term rationalization is used? What attributes are associated with the concept of rationalization? How does the process of rationalization function? Is ration- alization a form of conscious or unconscious behavior, or both? And what are the values and the educational impli- cations of rationalization? Is there some known yardstick by which the use of rationalization can be measured? Is rationalization a valid concept when dealing with certain types of faulty thinking, or is it merely an innocuous label? These are but several of the many questions that might be raised concerning rationalization. This study is an attempt to provide answers to some of these questions. If in the process of doing this additional inquiries, germane to the subject, are discovered, this paper will have served to meet a secondary objective. _'I'_}'_i_e_ primary purpose 9_f_'_ 2.1.1.13. aw _i_a_ pp examine critically ppa concept pg rationalization ip;ppgap‘pp determine whether pp gap Lila position pagep 2y 2;. Robert 11:. Oliver toward the role of rationalization.ip_speech.pap¢ suasion seems defensible. Dr. Oliver postulates that ”Rationalization, a form of reasoning from false premises or by illogical means, accounts for perhaps as much as 80 per cent or more of our thinking--toward--a-decision."1 ‘ _A__i 1Robert T. Oliver, The Psychology of Persuasive speech 02d ed.; New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957), p. 293. Does Dr. Oliver tend to give a meaning to the concept of rationalization that is similar to the meanings offered by other writers? Is his suggested 80 per cent figure for the incidence of rationalization in thinking-toward-a-decision too extreme, or is it seemingly justifiable? These and other questions are dealt with in this study. Significance of Study This particular type of study is both distinctive and relevant. It is distinctive inasmuch as it has never been done before. It is relevant because both rational- ization and speech persuasion are important aspects of the everyday life of most people. Added significance is given to the writing of this paper because of its eclectic approach to the subject of rationalization. An entire chapter is devoted to the col- lecting and winnowing of material concerning rationalization taken from a number of study disciplines. Rationalization is common and somewhat difficult to identify. Therefore, an investigation of its role in various disciplines should be worthy subject matter for research. This part of the study, which encompassed a span of more than three years, served the secondary purpose of building up a sizable library of books dealing with the subject of rationalization for the writer. In addition, it has produced material for an extensive bibliography. The tendency very often is to assume that the concept of’rationalization is commonly understood, and to imply a generally accepted meaning when reference to rationalization is made. An attempt to check the validity of this assumption. should add to the significance of this study. ‘ Rationalization has been neglected by the majority of the writers of genepal speech textbooks. They tend to overlook this defense mechanism entirely, or to treat it rather superficially. Perhaps this study may serve in a small way to accentuate interest in the concept of ration- alization among the writers of speech textbooks. Another significant feature of this particular study is that it deals with what generally is considered to be the major contributions of textbook writing in the field of speech persuasion. This is true because of the limited number of persuasive speech textbooks published. Even though the comparisons and contrasts of these textbooks, all published since 1950, are restricted to the concept of rationalization, nevertheless the research produced in this study indicates some interesting results. Last but not least, and in close relationship to the primary purpose of this paper, it is significant to consider carefully the rather unique position of Robert T. Oliver toward rationalization as it is presented in his textbooks on persuasive speaking. Limitations Imposed This is a creative thesis. As such it makes no direct attempt to carry out an experimental approach to the problem. This is also a master's thesis. This fact, coupled with time limitations, restrained the writer from making a more comprehensive survey of the literature dealing with the subject of rationalization. The desire on the part of the writer to use an eclectic approach to the content of Chapter Two necessitated a degree of selectivity. It would have been impossible to have read everything written about rationalization in such disciplines as psychiatry, psychology, social psychology, sociology, education, philosophy, speech, advertising, and journalism. The choice was made, for example, to eliminate consideration of the process of rationalization in the abnormal or diseased mind. Emphasis instead was placed upon rationalization within motivational and communicational frameworks. Further limitations were imposed when the decision was made by the writer to narrow his investigation within the speech field to textbooks written in the field of speech persuasion per se. Further limitations, although of lesser importance, were made when publication dates for these text- books were restricted to the decade of 1950 to 1960. This choice gave the benefit of modern scholarship and, at the same time, did not exclude any major contributions other than Oliver's first edition of Tpa Psychology p§_Persuasive Speech.2 This omission was not serious inasmuch as his later books, Parsuasive S eaki ,3 and his second edition 2Robert T. Oliver, The Ps cholo of Persua ive Speech (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 19521. 3Robert T. Oliver, Persuasive Speagapg: Principles and Methods (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1950 . 7 of $22 Paychplogy pg Persuasive S each,“ incorporated the material included in the l9fi2 publication. The decision to select textbooks from the field of speech persuasion entirely, rather than to broaden the approach to include argumentation and debate textbooks, was made for two reasons. The first of these reasons is a general one: the second is more specific. In the first place, persuasive speaking deals with all three of the out- standing resources of the public speaking process -- the logical, the ethical, and the motivational (psychological or non-logical). In other words, it uses “all available means of persuasion” to borrow an Aristotelian phrase. Argumentation and debate textbooks consider the logical aspects primarily and, thus, were not as useful as per- suasive speech textbooks for this particular study. Secondly, the statement made by Oliver which served as a strong motivating factor as mentioned in the statement of purpose is found in a textbook of persuasive speech. The challenge of determining whether the Oliverian '80 per cent estimate" of the use of rationalization in thinking-toward-a-decision was defensible or not played an important role in this aspect of imposed limitations. Textbooks, other than the two published by Oliver, chosen in the persuasive speaking area that are analyzed in this study are Persuasion, a_Meaps pg Social Control by “Oliver, loc. cit. 8 Brembeck and Howell,5 and The Art a; Persuasion by Minnick.6 It obviously is not the purpose of the writer of this paper to try to prove that one persuasive speech textbook is more meritorious than another in any respect. Instead, the aim is to learn what these authors have attempted to do with the concept of rationalization as it relates to the speech field specifically. In making the final evaluations and stating the con- clusions of Chapter Five, the writer will have to assume full responsibility, and he wishes to place no greater value upon his interpretations and evaluations than the findings of this study would warrant. If results of this study are not as definitive as some would desire, it is due partially to the nature of the problem and to the type of thesis being presented. This, it is felt, should not hinder the study from being made providing these limitations are pointed out beforehand. This the writer has both desired and attempted to do. Method of Procedure A comparison of the title of this study with the table of contents reveals that the title, ”A Study of the Treatment of Rationalization in Four Selected Persuasive Speech Textbooks Published Since 1950,“ is somewhat more 5Winston Lamont Brembeck and William Smiley Howell, .Persuasion: A Means of Social Control (New York: Prentice- Ha , Inc., 1952 . 6Wayne C. Minnick, The Art of Persuasion (Boston: IHoughton Nifflin Co., 1957 . modest than the contents would indicate. Two things con- tribute to this: the complexity of the phenomenon involved, and the writer's incapability to do justice to this com- plexity without the advantage of more extensive empirical data. In spite of these limitations and obstacles, it is hoped that this study will accomplish three things: (1) pre- sent a survey of existing thought concerning the concept of rationalization; (2) do precisely what is suggested in the title; and, (3) point up some areas of needed research. In order to accomplish these aims and to get this study underway, an assumption is made at the outset that something exists that people identify as rationalization. There seems to be no standard yardstick to measure it, and no absolute means of detecting it when it is being used. This does not imply, however, that it is impossible of being identified or studied. Rationalization is an important phenomenon and as such is worthy subject matter for investigation. The procedural methodology employed in this paper is basically outlined in the above paragraph dealing with intended accomplishments. Within the four chapters that follow this one, the writings of others are climaxed by the set- ting forth of certain conclusions reached by the writer of this paper regarding rationalization. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF SELECTED LITERATURE DEALING WITH RATIONALIZATION AS FOUND IN VARIOUS DISCIPLINES OF STUDY Rationalizing--a term adopted from the psychologists by the general public--has become a popular catchword. In the process of becoming a catchword, it has lost considerable of its original perspicuity. ' It is, therefore, the purpose of this chapter to re- view the literature in those disciplines of study where the term is commonly used in the hope that rationalization can be explained carefully and illustrated concretely. Fore- most among such disciplines are: psychology, psychiatry, social psychology, speech, advertising, English literature, education and sociology. Some controversy exists among certain writers in these various disciplines as to whether rationalizing occurs primarily on the conscious level or on the unconscious level. Many, using traditional definitions, have tended to emphasize social acceptability as the hallmark of ration- alization. Others have believed that it was not social conformity so much as internal consistency, or coherence, that characterizes this mechanism. There are disagreements. However, for the most part, there is concurrence of opinion 10 11 and this has tended to yield important data on many facets of the rationalization concept. Basic Considerations Among the authorities from whom definitions of ration- alization were excerpted there is general agreement that rationalization is a process of self-justification, a method of explaining in pseudo-rational form the errors in judgment, the inconsistencies, the mistakes which we attempt to cover by a facade of both good and “acceptable“ reasons. As Robert T. Oliver points out: Rationalization exists because our potentialities far out-run our abilities. It is a bridge linking our primitive past with our ideally intellectual future. Our animalistic residues cause actions which are unacceptable to our humanistic intellect. We can neither forgo the actions nor reconcile our- selves to them. Hence, we find explanations which will make these actions seem other than they are. This process of spreading a protective veil of verbalization over the naked fabric of e emental fact is what me mean by rationalization. In other words, rationalization is the technique of inventing acceptable interpretations of behavior which an impartial analysis would not substantiate. Oliver defines rationalization as: . . . a device of respectability by which we human beings protect and pamper our egos. It is a process of reasoning designed not to discover or to defend what may be true, but to discover and defend what we should like to represent as true. It is the colored glasses through which we look at reality. It is a preference for ”good” reasons for explaining what we have done 1 Robert T. Oliver, The P8 cholo of Persuasive Speech (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 15521, p. 184. 12 or failed to do. It is a process of justifying ourselves, our groups, and our beliefs. Rationalization becomes, then, the intellectualized defense of that which a person decidedly desires to believe. As such, it is faulty reasoning. This was stressed by Percival Symonds as follows: Rationalization may be defined as faulty think- ing which serves to disguise or hide the uncon- scious motives of behavior and feeling. Ration- alization, therefore, takes its place as another one of the defense mechanisms--a defense against having to recognize unconscious motivation in everyday life. It is a device frequently resorted to by many a person in attempting to reassure him- self of his own prestige. It is a way of fooling oneself, or making oneself seem more able, more successful, more moral, and more honorable than one really is. Rationalization is the blanket which we throw over our own infirmities and weak- nesses so that it will not be necessary for us to have to face them directly.3 In his definition of rationalization, Symonds refers to "unconscious motives” and “unconscious motivation.“ To determine whether the process of rationalization is conscious for the most part or unconscious for the most part is another important aspect that is dealt with by authorities in the various disciplines as they define the mechanism of ration- alization. Kimball Young, for example, indicates that ration- alization is often the expression of unconscious desires: 2Robert T. Oliver, Persuasive S eakin : Princi lea and Methods (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 19501, p. 131. 3Percival M. Symonds, The Dynamics of Human Adjust- ment (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 19 , p. . 13 . . . people soon learn to make excuses or justify their acts to others and to themselves. We call this habitual pattern rationalization. It is a means of keeping peace with ourselves and our fellows when our actual but often un- conscious desires and their expression, were they fully known, would make us ridiculous, disliked, or even the subject of punishment by those in. power. We all seek to justify our behavior. host of the "reasons" we give ourselves and others are not the genuine causes of our con- duct but are the excuses which we imagine will be acceptable to others and, incidentally, to ourselves. The real 8r genuine reasons are often hidden from us. Young's socio-pyschological viewpoint amplifies an earlier statement by the psychologist, Everett Dean Martin, who once observed that “any behavior which is motivated by an unconscious wish is very likely to give rise to ration- alizations of one sort or another.'5 W. N. Brigance, in a 1927 publication, under a para- graph heading in which he indicated that we tend to make wish the father of thought, stated that much of rational. ization is "purely unconscious self-deception."6 Sigmund Freud, Viennese neurologist and psychologist and the founder of psychoanalysis who has exerted a pro— found influence upon modern art, literature, and philosophy as well as on psychology and medicine, had considerable to say about the concept of rationalization and its relation ‘ 4Kimball Young, Personalit and Problems of Adjust- ment (New York: F. S. Crofts and Co., 19501, pp. 121-22. 5Everett Dean Martin, Ps cholo : What It Has To Teach You About Yourself and Your World (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 192 , p. 56. 6William Norwood Brigance, The Spoken Word (New York: F. C. Crofts and Co., 1927), p. 172. In to unconscious motives. In his original formulation of rationalization, Freud noted that it results from partial failure of repression. He saw it as a tendency of the ego to justify and defend Id impulses to oneself and to others. The term rationalization, of course, has become widely used by clinicians in the sense of explaining and justifying the acts and urges we feel do not have full social approval. The latter action takes place on the conscious level when “justification" or “explanations” are offered, when "good" reasons rather than ”real” reasons are presented. Concerning Freud, Symonds points out: He explained that we find it difficult to accept dreams which are too distorted and that there is the necessity for modifying them to give them greater apparent reality. This attempt to make the products of our unconscious agree with reality he calls a form of rationalization. It is obvious, therefore, that even the long list of illustrations given above does not begin to show the extent to which we piece out our unconscious motives with the ciothing of rational explanations in everyday life. Stagner and Karwoski refer to the Freudian approach in their book entitled Psychology: Freudian theory states that Id impulses demand- ing selfish gratifications come into conflict with Superego impulses forbidding such behavior. The area of conflict between the two desires is the area in which the Ego functions. We have proposed . . . a way of understanding how the Ego may achieve satisfaction for an Id impulse by avoiding a head-on collision between it and the Superego requirements. Here is an amusing example: Little ’Johnny's mother had baked some cookies. As she left the house, she said, “Johnny, you must not take any of the cookies." So Johnny went next 7Symonds, op. cit., p. 458. 15 door and got his playmate. They went to the cookie jar and Johnny said, ”Eddie, you take two cookies and give me one.“ Thus he obeyed the letter of his mother's command, while still getting what he wanted. Rationalization is thus a process of redefining a situation, of changing the nature of the external world so that laws and other restraini influences are said not to apply to this instance. Tendencies toward over-generalizing and over-simpli- fying are often prevalent when the concept of rationalization is being considered. Stagner and Karwoski tend in that direction in their treatment of this subject. But they are not alone in following a single thesis for the most part (i.e., “The common core of all these and many other ration- alizations is an attempt to distort the perceived situation so as to evade the conflict.")9 Lawrence E. Cole levels the same criticism, in a sense, upon the Freudian approach to the problem of rationalization: Typically, we act or apprehend directly, immedi- ately. A Freudian would add, ”from unconscious m0tives;' Kempf would phrase it, ”impelled by autonomic strivings," and Allport might phrase it, ”in accordance with our prepotent habit systems.“ Even where, as is frequently the case, we (the actors) are able to observe and report an inter- vening sequence of deliberative responses we must remember that these, too, are actions of a sort; and there is no obvious reason to posit a special type of control simply because the deliberative responses are implicit. If unconscious (and psychological) factors regulate those which constitute the ”streams of consciousness.” . . The question, "Why did you do that?‘ calls for a personal-social form of reasoning, for a justifi- cation, for an interpretation of one's conduct that will arouse approval in the hearer. And in 8Ross Stagner and T. F. Karwoski, Ps cholo (lst ed«.; New York: NoGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 19321, p. 503. 9Ibid., p. 50h. 16 our own case we are prone to assign rather worthy motives; our whole ”set” when our thought turns to our own status, our guiding “fiction” of ourself, tends to preclude any consideration of certain types of motives (i.e., certain roles, functions, goals, drives). In rationalizing our conduct we are giving something less than an objective description of our conduct; we are the attorney for the defense, not an impartial judge. - From our own analysis it would appear that the Freudians have covered but one special instance of rationalization. Few of us can contribute critical essays to the current magazines on ”The Pulse of Modern Life,” and yet we are all ip and pg this stream of modern activity, our own acts are a part of the tide. To say that we are unconscious of the forces which sweep us into actidn may mean that we are incapable of making an analysis of them; we need not invoke ego, libido, and Id, to describe this fact. And although the Freudian's assurance to his patient that he is of course totally unaware of the Oedipus complex may make the patient more ready to accept these ”monsters of the unconscious' as a part of his make-up, we need not assume that this same type of “unconsciousness“ is the root of all rationalizing.10 Cole's position sounds a note of warning against the danger of taking a position to either extreme. Rational- ization is neither all unconscious nor is it all conscious action. It is both. This aspect of rationalization has :received considerable attention in this chapter for two reasons. First of all, there seems to be a great deal of hedging among the authorities on this subject. Secondly, as Vernon Rank informs his readers, rationalization is according to Charles M. Harsh and H. G. Schrickel, and to Imimself, only a part of the total process of unconscious- conacious activity. _k *1 10Lawrence Edwin Cole, General Psychology (New York: ”OGraw-Hill Cook Co., Inc., 1939), pp. sue-5o. 17 Whether the process of rationalization is conscious or unconscious in another problem in its definition. That there are difficulties on this point becomes obvi- ous when one examines the definitions of a number of writers. Harsh and Schrickel say that ”Rationalization is the concoction of consciously acceptable (ego approved) 'reasons' or motives to cover up unconscious impulses and motives which the ego and others cannot accept.“ ”People,” they add, ”come to know when one of them is rationalizing, yet they expect and approve such rationalizations.” Kimball Young indicates that most rationalization is unconscious. Stueart H. Britt lists rationalization among the “unconscious” factors in the influence of other persons upon us, along with compensation, regression, identification and pro- jection. However, he later changes his position by saying that they are ”largely“ unconscious factors. In fact, this point receives a good bit of hedging among the authorities. Quietly unnoticed in many definitions which stressed the unconscious aspects of rationalization there is the inference that somewhere or at some time in the process the Ego becomes aware of blame- worthiness of unconscious motivations, and (recog- nizing that something is not altogether according to Hoyle) an alibi--a reasonable explanation--is then offered. According to Harsh and Schrickel, rationalization is but part of a total process--the conscious part appearing at the terminus of un- conscious impulses or motives, possibly occurring at the vague ”boundary” between the Super-ego and the Ego. To this writer the idea seems plausible. Elsewhere among those who write on Rationalization there is vagueness as to the conscious-unconscious aspect. Thus, it would appear, there is no hiatus between the conscious and the unconscious activity in rationalization. Eklth aspects are apt to be involved in any given rational- ization. When one leaves off, the other begins. The sub- 11minal impulse gives way to the conscious explanation. The explanation, of course, can be the justification to one's E 11Vernon E. Rank, "Rationalization As a Factor in figmenicationflToda 's 5 each, IV, No. 2 (April, 1956), ° 0-110 18 self or to others. It can be done briefly, almost auto- matically, or it can be done elaborately and with great emotional feeling and finesse. That the conscious and the unconscious meet does not imply necessarily that their coming together takes place in a harmonious setting. In fact, the opposite is usually the case. There is conflict, especially between the unconscious forces of the Id and the Super-ego. This conflict produces tension and the attempt to reduce the tension sets the stage for the rationalization process. Eric Berne refers to this conflict and its relation- ship to rationalization as follows: The decisions of a human being may therefore be made consciously or unconsciously. Conscious de- cisions are regulated, we like to think, by the Reality Principle and the conscious conscience. Unconscious decisions may be simplified and energy saved by means of habit in the case of actions which have little emotional significance. In most emotional situations, decisions depend on the re- sult of the conflict between the unconscious forces of the Super-ego and the Id. Once the decision has been made without the individual being aware of the real forces behind it, he takes upon himself the task of finding justifications for it and convinc- ing himself and others that it has been made in accordance with the realities of the situation. This is called 'rationalization.'12 Berne, a well-trained psychoanalytic psychiatrist who :follows in the Freudian tradition, also observes: 'A human being is a living energy system whose tensions give rise to Wishes which it is his task to gratify without getting into trouble with himself, other people, or the world around g .s_ 12Eric Borne, The Mind In Action (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1947), pp. 5- . 19 him."13 In referring to Berne and his contribution to the rationalization concept, Oliver remarks: In another passage Berne declares, "The problem of a human being is the same as the problem of an energy system, namely to 'find' the path of least resistance for the discharge of tension.” This process of finding the path of least resistance or of most comfortable release (rationalization) is vastly different from finding the path of reality (along which the individual might be projected directly away from his own concept of his own well— being). Psychiatrically, then, rationalization consists of “finding justifications” for the ”dis- charge of tension" that has been built up by the discovery of the individual that what he is think- ing or doing is in conflict with what is socially approved. In such an instance the individual hastily concocts an "explanation“ that will gloss over his real motivation in socially respectable terms. It is by precisely this process, psychia- trists declare, that our sexual and homicidal desires, which assert themselves freely during sleep, are masked in conventionally acceptable dream symbols.1 The search to discover explanations which cover the real reasons in socially acceptable terms is a vital aspect of the process of rationalization. It would not be “accepta- ble' were it not ”respectable.“ Thus, rationalization needs a cloak 0f respectability. This is provided when the one who rationalizes adopts the form of logical reasoning. It is only the form of reasoning that he follows: he does not reason logically. He imitates. He assigns to his emotion- alized stream of thoughts what he alleges to be rational motives and arguments. These arguments and explanations he 13Ibid., p. 36. 11‘Robert T. Oliver, The P8 cholo of Persuasive Speech (2d. ed.; New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 957), p. 277. 20 uses to justify his nonrational, or nonlogical, beliefs and desires. To make the whole process appear respectable he tries to use the best form of logical reasoning that he can find. Oliver confirms this when he says: Far from flouting reason or denying it, ration- alization pays to reasoning the sincerest tribute of imitation. As H. L. Hollingworth explained in Tag Psychology p§_ppa Audience, "It is not quite , true that the average man reasons scarcely at all. t On the contrary, he has a passion for argument, and prides himself in it; but he reasons stupidly. He mistakes coincidence for proof, correlation for causality, confidence for necessity, publicity for expertness, and appearance for reality. Habit, suggestion, and imitation constitute his instruments of thinking, as distinguished from his emotional reactions, and his inadequate background of know- ledge, coupled with the urgency of his needs, makes him the ready prey of the faker and charlatan.“ As Hollingworth has so specifically indicated, the processes of rationalization parallel those of reason. To most of us in most situations the appear pp pa reason. Since man prides himsel upon sing a reasoning creature, rationalization could 'not achieve its primary purpose (the preservation of self-pride) unless it did assume the respectable aspect of seeming to be reasonable. One of the commonest uses of rationalization is denial that it is being used. It can only filfill its function of rotecti and pampering the ego when the ego bliHEE-IgggIT'to the fact that it is rationalizing.15 Hollingworth, to whom Oliver refers, also points out that ”we would, it seems, prefer them (our neighbors) to think that we ourselves believe on the grounds of the logical arguments. Social education, indeed, has taught us that there is something childish about an attitude that lacks cogent support."16 So we attempt to give our attitudes 15Oliver, Persuasive Spaaaapg, op, cit., pp.-131-32. 16H. L. Hollingworth, The P3 cholo of the Audience (New York: American Book Co., 19331, p. I15. 21 and our actions the “reasonable” support they need. James Harvey Robinson emphasizes this in his book, gpa.§ipg‘yp pap Makin , as he mentions that literally thousands of ' argumentative volumes have been written in order to vent a grudge, and regardless of how majestic their reasoning, they are largely rationalizations.17 Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian sociologist, goes so far as to conclude that ration- alized beliefs and customs are the basis for all the social sciences.18 According to Ewbank and Auer there is a human desire to “be rational.“ As has been said elsewhere we are apt to be more emotional than rational but we like to believe that we are, and seem to be, purely rational. Indeed, we may become quite emotional when told the contrary! Hence, in pursuing any given course of action, if we are to keep our self-esteem we may be led sub- consciously to rationalize.1 Pe0ple like to think of themselves as reasonable. They desire that others would think of them as reasonable human beings, too. As J. K. Horner describes it: This accounts for the fact that most people do not reason things out and then act accordingly, but they act according to desire and intrust to a fertile imagination the job of finding an appropri- ate reason to fit the circumstances. In other 17James Harvey Robinson, The Mind in the Hak (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1921), p. 55. 18Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Societ , ed. Arthur Livingston, trans. Borgiomo and Livingston (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1935), I, p. 178. 19Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion afidnebate (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951), Tsar—— 22 words, they do not make their acts fit theig reasons, but they make their reasons fit their acts. 0 Rationalization, then, is a form of reasoning from false premises or by illogical means. This should not imply that all false reasoning is rationalization. Rather, it means that all rationalization is fallscious reasoning. It is faulty thinking. Concerning this fact, Symonds writes: Rationalization is fundamentally fallscious think- ing. In terms of the syllogism, rationalization is a selection of facts that can be used as minor premises in order to justify certain conclusions already reached. One notes three things in this analysis of the process of rationalization: first, that the con- clusion is given. Usually this is an act performed, since rationalizations are very frequently expla- nations justifying behavior which has already taken place. Second, in a rationalization the major premise is also given, and with this no particular fault is found, except that it may not always be a sound generalization. The essential feature of rationalization is the search for a particular cir- cumstance to be used for the minor premise which, taken with the major premise, will lead decisively to the conclusion. Rationalization, therefore, represents a selection of possible circumstances or reasons which will justify the course of action already pursued. For example, Max comes late to school and on being sent to the office of the principal finds it necessary to have a reason for his lateness. Lateness is the action which must be justified. Among the real reasons are the boy's dislike of school, the pressure that he is under at home to make a good record, and the convenient way of show- ing his hostility toward his parents provided by the demerits he receives. Max, however, is only vaguely aware of the former reason and is en- tirely unaware of the latter. When faced with the necessity of finding an excuse to satisfy the principal, he begins to search for a reputable one. First, it is necessary to persuade himself that it was not possible for him to get to school any earlier: “Yes, as I was coming down the walk ZOJ. K. Horner, Elements of Public S eech (Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 19291, p. 98. 23 I noticed a trolley car just leaving, and it was five minutes before the next one came. I am sure that there must have been a delay in the street-car ser- vice.“ This seems reasonably convincing to him, and so he plans to use it as his excuse. The syllo- gism in this instance would run something like this: Major premise--if there is a delay in the street-car service, I shall be late to school. Minor premise-- there was a delay. Conclusion--therefore, I was late to school. The distinction between a rationalization and correct thinking is the distinction commonly made between the good and the real reason. The real reason is the state of affairs essentially and necessarily connected with the conclusion which is to be justified. A good reason is a circumstance selected out of many that could have been chosen which contains a superficial or concomitant explanation. In this analysis, the implication is that certain facts are overlooked, and necessarily so, since they are repressed and therefore are facts of which the individual is unaware. In rationalization there is a disproportion of emphasis. Uncomfortable facts are disregarded in favor of ones which will not serve as deep-seated threats to the essential integrity of the person concerned.21 The emphasis upon highly-motivated and conflict- 1aden courses of thought and action rather than upon calm, tibjective, judicious, conceptual thinking should make it «evident why so much of human thinking deserves to be called :rationalization instead of sound logical reasoning. Lawrence Cole observes: ”All the fallacies of classical logic are committed in the name of rationalization.”22 It is little wonder that the old judge advised his young successor, “Give your decisions. Never give your g 21Symonds, op. cit., pp. b5h-55. 22 Lawrence E. Cole, Human Behavior: Ps cholo As A Bio-Social Science (Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: WorId Book Co., 19531, p. 63“. 24 reasons. The decisions will be just, the reasons incor- rect."23 Attributea of Rationalization In considering the attributes of rationalization, some writers point out that there are certain characteristics which help to identify the process. Webster's Dictionary (defines the word ”attribute" as "that which is attributed, as a quality or character ascribed to, or inherent in, a person or thing; as mercy is an attribute of God."2’4 This (dictionary uses the words ”quality," ”characteristic,“ and “attribute" as if they were practically synonymous terms. Only slight distinctions are made. Quality applies to that which is predicable of anything as one of its charac- teristics; a characteristic is a mark or quality which distinguishes; whereas, an attribute is defined as an essential or inherent quality. These terms are used inter- changeably by writers whose aim is to identify rational- ization, and to recognize it when it occures--either in