The Importance of Being Reasonable

You would think that being reasonable is an essential requirement in any discussion that aims to resolve disputes about any issue. If either side can forget about being reasonable – ignoring evidence, flouting logic, making groundless assumptions – then no informed agreement can be reached.

Yet we hear more and more people insisting that reason is overrated.  What is key apparently is what people happen to attach the greatest importance to. This could turn out to be all kinds of thing, and whatever it is, we are supposed to accept that it is something special and not subject to reason.

One familiar example would be individuals with some religious affiliation declaring that what they say must be accepted, and any attempt to question them by secularists (or people of other faiths) has to be automatically dismissed.  What they proclaim could be about how they want to (mis)treat their children, interfere with other people’s lives, or (mis)lead others into giving them money. In all cases, they shield their position by invoking their religious righteousness as beyond anything such as reason.

Another type of example can be found with those who denigrate reason as a western middle-class obsession.   For them, the practices of indigenous tribes should not be criticised for being unreasonable in making flawed assumptions.  And they also want to defend marginalised people who want to talk about their feelings and experiences without considering the reasons (or lack of) for some of their beliefs.  Unconsciously patronising, they want to canonise the disengagement from reasonable discourse, rather than support opportunities for all people to take part in reasoned dialogues.

Lastly, we have the unadulterated egoists who do not bother with invoking religion, culture, class, or anything else when they just come right out and say, “I believe this; I know I’m right; nothing anyone else says will make the slightest difference; and that’s the end of that.” Obviously, there would be no reasoning with them about anything.  And a simple reminder of what it would be like if such a stance is permitted in a court of law, is sufficient to show without reason, disorder will ensue.

Of course, there are occasions when people express poetic sentiments, practise rituals, share stories, or manifest suppressed emotions, without making any declarative claims on what others must accept as true.  In such cases, so long as their behaviour is not injurious to others, it would not be necessary to raise questions of reasonableness.  But just because there are times when reason would not be a central issue, it should not be forgotten that in settling any disagreement over conflicting beliefs, reason has a vital role to play.

Reason calls for external validation, objective evidential examination, coherent inference, consistent probability assessment, weighing of the strengths of arguments, etc.  It is rooted in the critical faculty of society where the effectiveness of everything from engineering design, scientific exploration, conflict resolution, to medical treatment, criminal investigation, and historical authentication, depends on the extent to which careful reasoning has been carried out.

People who want to privilege the claims they make as beyond the scrutiny of reason (on the grounds of their ‘religion’, ‘culture’, ‘tribe’, or personal status) are basically trying to get others to accept what they say without any reasonable consideration of the issue.  They will play the ‘You’re not respecting my [religion/culture/tribe/me]’ card, but if they fundamentally want to keep reason out of a discussion of what they want everyone else to accept, then there is actually nothing further to discuss.

Who Should Play What Role?

Which actor is cast for which role has become a hotly contested issue.  Ethnic minority actors, already finding most roles defined by conventional ‘white male’ characteristics which are then cited as reasons for not auditioning non-white actors, are rightly aggrieved when the odd role of an ethnic minority character comes up, it is a white actor who ends up being cast to play it as well.

Similar feelings are experienced by actors who have to rely on using sign language or a wheelchair, finding out that roles associated with those disabilities are given to actors who can speak or walk without aid in their everyday life.

It is clearly unfair that people are not only told they cannot play the part of X because they lack key characteristics associated with X, but also that despite having the characteristics associated with the part of Y, that part too is denied them and handed to people with X rather than Y characteristics. 

There are at least two ways to respond to this. One may be termed ‘identitarian’, and the other can be called ‘cosmopolitan’.

The identitarian response is to demand that roles with certain defining characteristics must be played by actors who actually possess those characteristics.  This has led to calls for characters with disabilities only to be played by actors with those disabilities, Jewish characters to be played by Jewish actors, gay characters to be played by gay actors, and so on.  The argument often used is that only actors who share key characteristics with the roles in question can bring out what those roles require.  

Identitarian thinking is problematic when it appears to hold that acting is above all about relating one’s own experiences as a person with certain characteristics to performing a dramatic role with those characteristics.  Does that mean only someone who has lost a child should play a character who has lost a child? Should only people who are pathologically sadistic play a dedicated torturer?  Should roles about geniuses be limited to actual geniuses?  Should roles about, say, Texan, heterosexual, or Catholic characters be as a matter of principle be denied, respectively, to Cherokee, gay, and Muslim actors?  Not only is identitarian thinking contrary to the power of imaginative expression that lies at the heart of acting, it could end up providing inadvertent cover for prejudiced practices that deny even more opportunities for actors who are already marginalised.

The cosmopolitan response, by contrast, holds that the essence of dramatic arts is to celebrate our imaginative powers to transcend all mundane barriers.  With CGI, make-up, and alternative reading of text, any actor should have the chance to play any role.  Female actors have played Hamlet; black actors have played white historical figures; gay actors have played womanisers; and CGI has done away with any limitations on how any actor may appear or what physical ability they can exhibit on screen.

Ultimately, identitiarian thinking is self-defeating. It limits the horizons of those for whom it tries to promote wider opportunities; whereas the cosmopolitan outlook embraces diversity and opens the door to all talents to express themselves in any role.  This is, of course, pertinent to the world beyond acting.  Identitarian politics boxes people into sealed off categories. Cosmopolitan democracy paves the way for power sharing amongst people with multiple and overlapping backgrounds.