The Evolution of Rationality and Modernity Crisis


As the necessary result of the modernity movement, the technological problems not only reflect the conflict between technology and nature, but also reveal the inherent contradiction of the modernity culture. This study aims at providing a new explanation of modernity crisis partly caused by technology from the perspective of the evolution of rationality. As one of the core cultural ideas of modernity, rationality is both the source and the driving force of modernity. There does not exist absolutely pure rationality, and what really exists can only be a social and historical rationality situated in certain context. This paper identified three types of rationality in the movement of modernity: enlightenment rationality, science rationality, and technological rationality. The author considers that the transformation from Enlightenment rationality to technological rationality and the domination of technological rationality in modern society will answer for the emergence of technological problems partially.

Share and Cite:

Zhang, C. (2013). The Evolution of Rationality and Modernity Crisis. Sociology Mind, 3, 179-184. doi: 10.4236/sm.2013.32024.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment (2nd ed.). London, New York: Verso Books.
[2] Alario, M., & Freudenburg, W. (2003). The paradoxes of modernity: Scientific advances, environmental problems, and risks to the social fabric? Sociological Forum, 18, 193-214.
[3] Avgerou, C., & McGrath, K. (2007). Power, rationality, and the art of living through socio-technical change. MIS quarterly, 31, 293-315.
[4] Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics (Vol. 195). Oxford: Blackwell Oxford.
[5] Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[6] Buxton, R. G. A. (1999). From myth to reason? Studies in the development of Greek thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[7] Calinescu, M. (1987). Five faces of modernity: Modernism, avantgarde, decadence, kitsch, postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
[8] Dumont, L. (1986) Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective (p. 262). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[9] Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society (J. Wilkinson, Trans., pp. 133-143). New York: Random House.
[10] Friedman, M. (2002). Kant, Kuhn, and the rationality of science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 171-190. doi:10.1086/341048
[11] Feenberg, A. (2008). From the critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22, 5-28.
[12] Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
[13] Gigerenzer, G. (1996). 11 Rationality: Why social context matters. In P. B. Baltes, & U. M. Staudinger, Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (p. 319). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Goody, J. (1993). East and west: Rationality in review. Ethnos, 58, 6-36. doi:10.1080/00141844.1993.9981463
[15] Grant, E. (2001). God and reason in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511512155
[16] Hadden, R. W. (1994). On the shoulders of merchants: Exchange and the mathematical conception of nature in early modern Europe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
[17] Heidegger, M. (1977). “The Age of the World Picture” in the question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper and Row.
[18] Hennen, L. (1999). Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity? Science and Public Policy, 26, 303-312. doi:10.3152/147154399781782310
[19] Hindess, B. (1987). Rationality and the characterization of modern society. In S. Lash, & S. Whimster (Eds.), Max Weber: Rationality and modernity (pp. 137-153). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
[20] Honneth, A. (1987). Enlightenment and rationality. The Journal of Philosophy, 84, 692-699.
[21] Bao, L. M., Stackhouse, M. (2000). A dialectical study on the value of modernity (p. 29). Shanghai: Xuelin Press.
[22] Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
[23] MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? (p. 421). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
[24] Merchant, C. (1999). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution (p. 189). Changchun: Jilin Publishing House.
[25] Misa, T. J., Brey, P., & Feenberg, A. (2004). Modernity and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[26] Noppen, P. F. (2012). Reflective rationality and the claim of dialectic of enlightenment. European Journal of Philosophy, Early Review. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2012.00538.x
[27] Pitt, J. C. (1988). Galileo, rationality and explanation. Philosophy of Science, 55, 87-103. doi:10.1086/289418
[28] Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
[29] Therborn, G. (1995). Routes to/through modernity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 124-139). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781446250563.n7
[30] Van Loon, J. (2003). Risk and technological culture: Towards a sociology of virulence (p. 56). London: Routledge.
[31] Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Scribners.
[32] Williams, B. (2005). Descartes: The project of pure enquiry. London: Routledge.
[33] Wittrock, B. (2000). Modernity: One, none, or many? European origins and modernity as a global condition. Daedalus, 129, 31-60.
[34] Zhang C. G. (2005) Technology, modernity and the future of human being. Beijing: Tsinghua Press.
[35] Zhang, F. Y. (1995) Technological rationality and the experimental style of modern people. Academic Journal of Nanjing University, 2, 101.
[36] Zimmerman, M. E. (1990). Heidegger’s confrontation with modernity: Technology, politics, and art (Vol. 558). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.