Over the last year now about to end we have seen nine contributions published in the EJSD. On starting this project, we, the editors were warned that the initiation of a new academic journal would be a time-consuming process. This has indeed proved to be the case. As a matter of fact, there has been a fairly regular inflow of contributions, but the job processing them has turned out to be more involving than was initially expected. The referees have done a great job, attempting throughout to maintain scientific standards while respecting all of the formal and substantive requirements that go with the publication of an undertaking such as this. In so doing however they have often seen fit to seek significant amendments to many of the proffered submissions. The referee-system is thus not a very speedy one, but we hope in the year ahead to improve upon our track record in this respect and to strike a better balance between the inflow of contributions and the issuing of interesting and innovative academic articles.In line with the multidisciplinary ambitions of the journal the articles already issued have succeeded in covering a wide range of topics and disciplines. A mere glance at the list of published articles indicates that they match the original objectives of the journal, namely, to provide a forum for scrutinising policy-relevant concepts in the context of established academic disciplines, and for theoretical reflections and empirical testing. Most of the contributions deal with the rational organisation of society in terms of the efficient use of resources, performance and competitiveness as well as the spatial aspects of development. In short, the main focus is on two matters: purposeful action and efficiency. These are matters that everyone can accept within the context of rational behaviour. Indeed, what about the question of rationality in this context? How do we address a standard situation where the rational actions of actors involved, i.e. the maximisation of individual interests, causes irrational effects on the meta-level? Only one contribution thus far has taken a point of departure where rationality in itself is the main focus.
*
In Medieval Europe, two categories of maps were produced, the first termed mappa mundi and the second, portolano. The latter kind was developed in the late 13th century and was used for navigation at sea. They were technical in nature and were essentially practical devices for reaching a chosen destination safely. The first kind of map, the mappae mundi, were a combination of detailed information, mostly of Europe, and an encyclopaedic chart where history and religion were projected onto an image of the physical world. One of the most famous, the Hereford mappa mundi, is a circular T-O map, where the world is divided into three parts. The T within the O is formed by the rivers Don and Nile flowing into the Mediterranean. These waters form the boundaries of the three known continents: Asia, Europe and Africa. East is at the top of the map where the Garden of Eden is located as part of the physical world. On the top of that presides Christ at the Last Judgement. In the centre is the Holy Jerusalem. The great cosmic events of past and future are located in the inhabited world alongside famous cities. At the borders of the known world (such as the Nordic countries) are pictured the savage and demonic forces in the created order. Around the borders of the map are written the letters M O R S, which recall death as the necessary condition for life. Interwoven here are the limited context of the physical world and the eternal, unlimited spiritual world.
The mappae mundi of the medieval world represent in a way a more advanced understanding of human conditions than any modern rendering. They may seem irrational for a modern viewer due to the theological and mythical speculation they entail, but they do have one major advantage - from a rational point of view in particular. The implied worldview sets a limit on the rational actions of this physical world. By delimiting the rational, the map at the same time establishes another superior rationality. By setting limits to the possible actions of the physical world, the religious frame provides the physical world with the possibility to apply an overall standard for human endeavours. It thus provides a standard for purposeful action and efficiency not only in any single case but also for the whole. It unites the various levels of existence and the episteme, from single individuals to countries and continents, from the beginning to the end of the world, from bad to good, from perdition to salvation.
Currently we find ourselves in a situation that is the polar opposite of this. At any given level, we can agree on rationality as being manifested in human action that fulfils two criteria: purposefulness and efficiency. We can assess the purposefulness of action by relating inputs to defined goals, and we can judge efficiency in the context of the (alternative) allocation of resources. We can attempt to do this on various hierarchical levels. The scheme applies on the level of the individual, the organisation, the local community, perhaps even on the level of the region, the nation and the world. Our difficulties start when we have to find arguments connecting the alleged rationality of the various levels together. Why is my personal interest in conformity with the interest of the whole organisation as well? Why is the interest of our local community in the interest of the nation or of the whole world? As such, any child understands that a father, who buys some time for himself by referring to the wellbeing of the child, is merely pretending. But in philosophy, a utilitarian would argue in favour of self-interest as an ethical solution for connecting the individual to his or her community. Liberalism is an ideology (and a discipline) that argues in favour of a causal relation between economic self-interest and the economic interest of the community. Are these connections empirically tested facts? Perhaps in some particular cases they are. Yet utilitarianism and liberalism are not only models of explanation, their main function most often is that of justification. They are above all rhetorical endeavours where the best arguments are deployed, that is, in the realm of necessity. After all, who would be stupid enough not to succumb to necessity?
Purposeful action requires one or more purposes. In an unlimited world of constant economic accumulation, any purpose when fulfilled becomes a means of reaching the next purpose. Many phenomena are however not instrumental in character. Friedrich Nietzsche said that a melody's end is not its goal. Being subjected to music of a younger generation, many would argue that Nietzsche was wrong, but maybe he had a point. Perhaps there are a lot of matters within the context of what we call 'social agency' that are neither a part of enforced accumulation nor of any other rational action. Besides, perhaps there is no rational action at all, because rational action does not seem very rational judged according to the criteria of rational action. If we lack the overall spiritual purposes of the medieval world, we cannot assess efficiency either. Consequently, in a totally rational world we lack final goals as well as knowledge on how to act efficiently in any singular case reaching beyond our immediate goal-horizon. This does not sound very rational, does it?
*
Thus far, nine contributions to the journal have been issued, the majority of which deal, in one way or another, with the rational organisation of the world while one deals with the nature of rational action as such. We think this is a good balance, and we want to keep it that way. We are however also eager to seek out more philosophical and theoretical contributions, dealing with the very premises of rational agency. Is the world of the uniform medieval culture just a dream, are the limits that used to make unlimited opportunities meaningful lost forever? Is there something to be called public interest in addition to the sum of private interests? In fact, is rationality rational?
Christer Bengs
Editor-in-chief