(Presented at the Canadian Law and Society Association Meetings, Brock University, June 3, 1996)

Zweckrationalität versus Wertrationalität: an Examination

of Rationalities in the Gun Control Debate.

H. Taylor Buckner, Ph.D.  E-Mail: taylor@buckner.cc

Abstract

Conflicts over many social problems may be characterized as a confrontation between instrumental and value rationality, as defined by Max Weber. Using two public opinion surveys, one a representative sample of Canadian adults (n=1,505), the other a representative sample of Concordia University students (n=780), the respondents' answers on whether Canadians should have a right to own firearms, and whether they favoured or opposed hunting were made into a typology of values. Those who opposed both the right to own firearms and hunting are termed, "No Right No Hunt." Those who thought Canadians should have the right to own firearms and who favoured hunting are termed, "Right and Hunt." All other combinations of answers are termed "Mixed." The respondents' beliefs about the effectiveness of gun control were then cross-tabulated with their support for three different gun control measures (Universal Firearms Registration, Handgun Confiscation, and Handgun Prohibition) within categories of the basic value typology. In all three "Tests" those who had a "No Right No Hunt" value orientation supported specific gun control measures whether or not they believed gun control to be effective, thus demonstrating a "wertrational," or value orientation, to social action. In all three "Tests" those who had "Right and Hunt" or "Mixed" values supported the specific gun control measures if they believed that gun control was effective, but did not support the measures if they thought gun control was not effective, thus demonstrating a "zweckrational," or instrumental, orientation. People with a value orientation see their opponents as "evil" and attack them on a personal basis. People with an instrumental orientation see their opponents as "irrational" and attack their ideas on the basis of their impracticality. Examples of value rationality in medical journals, and the negative effects of value rationality on public policy are briefly discussed.

Introduction

Disputes over social problems such as creationism, nationalism, abortion, prohibition, drugs and gun control, are seldom resolved because the participants on opposing sides are operating with differing types of rationality. This conflict of rationalities may be seen in studies of public opinion on gun control.

Max Weber defined four orientations to social action (Weber, Max: ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, pp. 24-25):

"(1) instrumentally rational (zweckrational), that is, determined by expectations as to the behavior of objects in the environment and of other human beings; these expectations are used as "conditions" or "means" for the attainment of the actor's own rationally pursued and calculated ends;

(2) value-rational (wertrational), that is, determined by a conscious belief in the value for its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other form of behavior, independently of its prospects of success;

(3) affectual (especially emotional), that is, determined by the actor's specific affects and feeling states;

(4) traditional, that is, determined by ingrained habituation."

"The orientation of value-rational action is distinguished from the affectual type by its clearly self-conscious formulation of the ultimate values governing the action and the consistently planned orientation of its detailed course to these values. At the same time the two types have a common element, namely that the meaning of the action does not lie in the achievement of a result ulterior to it, but in carrying out the specific type of action for its own sake. (p. 25)

"Action is instrumentally rational (zweckrational) when the end, the means, and the secondary results are all rationally taken into account and weighed. This involves rational consideration of alternative means to the end, of the relations of the end to the secondary consequences, and finally of the relative importance of different possible ends. ... Value rational action may thus have various different relations to the instrumentally rational action. From the latter point of view, however, value-rationality is always irrational. Indeed, the more the value to which the action is oriented is elevated to the status of an absolute value, the more "irrational" in this sense the corresponding action is. (p.26)

For the purposes of this paper I will only discuss zweckrational (instrumental) and wertrational (value) orientations.

Those who guide their behaviour by instrumental-rationality think their opponents guided by value-rationality are "irrational," while those guided by value-rationality think their instrumentally guided opponents are "evil."

A public opinion survey carried out by Professor Gary Mauser, with my assistance, and a survey I conducted at Concordia University provide empirical data to test Weber's ideas in the context of the debate over gun control.

I take as a given that almost all Canadians value a reduction in homicides, accidents and suicides. Certainly no one, on either side of the gun control debate, has argued that the rates of these fatalities should increase.

A person operating with instrumental rationality will support a new law which is congruent with their values if they think it will work, but not support it if they think it will not work. A person operating with value rationality will support a new law that is congruent with their values whether or not they think it will work, because the value is what matters. As Gusfield (p. 4) noted in regard to prohibition, "Even if the law is not enforced or enforceable, the symbolic import of its passage is important to the reformer."

To determine empirically the type of rationality involved in pro and anti gun control positions it is necessary to see whether or not individuals support a law they do not believe will work. If they support a law they believe will be ineffective we can infer that they are operating on a wertrational or value rationality basis. If their support is conditional on whether or not they believe the law will actually produce the desired results, we can infer that they are operating on a zweckrational, or instrumental basis.

Values

We asked two questions that go to basic values. First, "Do you agree or disagree that Canadian Citizens should have the right to own a firearm?" Second, "Do you generally favour or oppose hunting?" Undoubtedly there are many other basic values which come into the gun control debate that we did not have the time or funds to ask about: respect for life; security; self-preservation; self reliance; independence. The two questions, "right" and "hunt," do, however, provide a powerful index of the underlying assumptions our respondents had when they were responding to our questions.

Table 1

A multiple regression analysis was run entering background variables to see what was really important in the formation of "Right and Hunt" and "No Right No Hunt" values. It explained 22% of the variance. Those from the Prairie provinces, males, rural residents, and gun owners tended to have "Right and Hunt" values. Those from Quebec, large city residents, females, and non-gun owners tended to have "No Right No Hunt" values. Age, education and income were not significantly related to holding either set of values.

The Concordia Student Survey with slightly different questions produced a somewhat different distribution, reflecting the age and urban residence of the students.

Table 2

A multiple regression indicated that the two background variables which were most strongly associated with having "No Right No Hunt" values were being female, and not owning a gun. Growing up in a rural or urban background, or knowing anything factual about guns, was not related to these basic values.

The "Effectiveness Myth"

  There is no convincing evidence that any form of gun control actually reduces the total rate of homicides, suicides or accidents (Kleck, 1991). This is irrelevant to public opinion because few people actually know or believe this. I will examine what people believe to be true, because this is what is important for their opinions. Facts, if they are not known, do not influence opinions. Of course strongly held values may well influence what people believe to be true. If a person has a strongly held value they most frequently believe the facts must support their opinion, whether or not they know the facts.

We asked six questions to determine whether or not people thought more "gun control" would be effective: "If there were stricter regulations for authorized firearms owners, would you say that the violent crime rate would increase, decrease or stay the same?" "Do you agree or disagree that gun control laws affect only law-abiding citizens as criminals will always be able to get firearms?" "Do you agree or disagree that stricter gun control would greatly reduce the level of violence against women in Canada?" "How effective do you think stricter regulations would be in reducing suicides?" "How effective do you think stricter regulations would be in reducing homicides?" "How effective do you think stricter regulations would be in reducing accidents?" For all of these questions we accepted the responses, no matter how illogical or contradictory, as indicators of the individual's pattern of beliefs.

 Index of Perceived Effectiveness of Gun Control

Rather than trying to analyze the results of six different questions, they were combined into a single index of the perceived effectiveness of gun control, with the following distribution:

Table 3

The Concordia Student Survey, with its three questions and overall high level of perceived effectiveness produced the following distribution:

Table 4

The Importance of Basic Values for Perceptions of Effectiveness

Generally peoples' values and their beliefs about reality are congruent. Those who believe that there should be no right to have guns and no hunting also tend to believe that gun control laws will be effective (Mauser and Margolis).

Table 5

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

For those with "Right and Hunt" values, 45% perceived "gun control" as ineffective, while among those with "No Right No Hunt" values, only 10% perceived it to be ineffective.

As Table 5 shows, the effect of basic values on perceptions of effectiveness is very strong. This was confirmed in a multiple regression analysis which indicated that the basic values - right to own a firearm - attitude toward hunting - were the most important determinants of the respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of stricter gun control. Gun ownership, residence in Quebec, gender, being "very familiar" with the current law, and spontaneously mentioning "gun control" as a means of reducing violent crime, also had an influence, but the respondents' "basic values" were the most important influence.

The Graphic in Figure 1 shows this relationship clearly.

As we will see, the opinions people express about legislative proposals appear to be rational, in most cases, because they believe that they will be effective. What this analysis has demonstrated is that their assumptions of effectiveness are largely determined by the basic value assumptions they started with, rather than a result of a dispassionate analysis of evidence.

In the Concordia Student Survey a somewhat similar pattern was found, though the relationship between basic values and perceived effectiveness (as measured), was not statistically significant.

Table 6

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

A multiple regression found that among Concordia students, females, and those who lacked factual knowledge about guns, were the most likely to think gun control effective. The basic values, "Right and Hunt" did not relate significantly to perceptions of effectiveness.

The two indicators, basic values and perceived effectiveness, which have been developed for the two studies can now be used to test Weber's categorization of instrumental versus value rationality. If a person supports an action leading to a valued outcome, even when they think the action will not be effective (i.e., "independently of its prospects of success"), it is an example of wertrational or value rationality. If a person only supports an action leading to a valued outcome when they think the action will be effective (i.e., "determined by expectations as to the behavior of objects in the environment and of other human beings"), it is an example of zweckrational or instrumental rationality. Here are three different tests, taken from the two studies, to determine whether gun control advocates are operating on an instrumental or value rational basis.

Test 1: Universal Registration - 1995 Gun Control Survey

In the 1995 Gun Control Survey the respondents were asked to respond to six different questions on the universal registration of firearms.

Table 7

The pattern of responses to these six questions were then collapsed into three categories:

Table 8

The first category, "none," are those who did not agree to universal registration, or did not know, in response to Question 11.3. The second category, "soft," are those who agreed in the abstract, but disagreed in one or more of the "trade-off" scenarios. The third category, "hard," are those who support registration in every instance without regard to cost or public-safety trade-offs.

There is a very strong correlation between views of perceived effectiveness and support for registration. If the respondent thinks that stricter gun control is effective then he or she tends to support registration ("hard" 37%). On the other hand, if the respondent thinks that stricter gun control is ineffective, then he or she tends to oppose universal registration ("none" 35%). What Table 9 shows, however, is that this correlation is only significant for those with "Right and Hunt" or "Mixed" values. People with "No Right No Hunt" values tend to support registration, under all circumstances, even when they think that gun control is ineffective.

Table 9

* Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding.

** Total Number of Cases may not equal 1,505 because of weighting.

The Figure 2 graphic, "Values, Effectiveness and 'Hard' Support for Registration" gives another way of looking at this relationship. We can see that there is a strong relationship between thinking that gun control is effective, and wanting registration, for those with "Right and Hunt" values, and for those with "Mixed" values. For those who have "No Right No Hunt" values the relationship between effectiveness and "hard" support for registration is not nearly as strong and is not statistically significant. In other words respondents with "No Right No Hunt" values support registration at any cost whether or not they believe gun control will be effective. Perhaps they see registration as a first step towards eliminating all guns.

Overall, support and opposition to universal firearms registration is a reflection of individual values. Those who would like to see a future Canada without guns (wertrational) support registration regardless of whether they really believe it will be effective, and regardless of the cost. The majority, who are more instrumentally oriented (zweckrational), are more concerned with costs and trade-offs. Those who support the right to own firearms, or favour hunting, or are gun-owners are least likely to support registration, though many of them do, if they believe that gun control is effective.

Test 2: Handgun Confiscation - 1995 Gun Control Survey

In the 1995 Gun Control Survey we asked three questions on handgun confiscation. The introductory statement was: "Many Canadians have police permits to possess handguns for collecting, target shooting and self-defense purposes." Then we asked, "Do you think that collectors handguns should be confiscated?" "Do you think that target shooters handguns should be confiscated?" "Do you think that people who own handguns for self-defense should have their guns confiscated?"

The three questions on confiscation were combined into a single index to see just how much support for confiscation of all handguns actually exists. If a respondent said that none of the three types of users: collectors, target shooters, or self-defense owners, should have their handguns confiscated, they were categorized as "none." If the respondent said one or two types (usually "self-defense" was one of the types) should be confiscated they were categorized as "some." If the respondent said all three types of users should have their handguns confiscated, the equivalent of a total prohibition of handguns, they were categorized as "all."

Table 10

Overall, 45% of the respondents did not support confiscating any handguns, 41% supported confiscating handguns from one or two types of users, and 13% supported confiscating from all three types of users. This result stands in remarkable contradiction to the findings of the 1993 Coalition for Gun Control Survey which found that 71% of Canadians favoured entirely prohibiting handguns for civilians. When Canadians are asked to make a "public judgement," rather than expressing a "mass opinion," support for prohibiting all handguns drops from 71% to 13%.

The respondents' basic values are the most important influence on their views of confiscation. Among those with "Right and Hunt" values, 63% oppose all confiscation. Among those with "No Right No Hunt" values, 32% favour complete confiscation.

Among those who think that gun control is not effective, 66% oppose confiscation, while among those who think it is effective, only 29% oppose confiscation. Only five percent of those who think that gun control is not effective support complete confiscation, while 21% of those who think gun control is effective support complete confiscation.

As is the case with registration, those whose basic values are either "Right and Hunt" or "Mixed" oppose confiscation if they think that gun control is ineffective, support confiscation somewhat more if they think that gun control is effective (a zweckrational orientation). Among those with "No Right No Hunt" values there is no significant relationship between their views on the effectiveness of gun control and their attitude on confiscation. They tend to strongly (over 30%) support complete confiscation whether they think that gun control is effective or ineffective. Their basic values rule their judgements (a wertrational orientation), and the benefits, or lack of benefits, are irrelevant. Table 11 shows this relationship.

Table 11

* Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding.

** Total Number of Cases may not equal 1,505 because of weighting.

 

The graphic in Figure 3 shows this pattern clearly. Support for confiscating handguns from all types of owners is exceptionally high among those with "No Right No Hunt" values even when they think that gun control is ineffective.

Test 3: Prohibiting All Handguns - 1994 Concordia Student Survey

In the 1994 Concordia Student Survey we asked half the students one version of a question on the prohibition of handguns, the other half a second version, to determine whether the students understood what they were asking for by signing the petition circulated by the (now dismissed) Rector. They did not. The same portion of the students were in favour of the present law as were in favour of the petition they signed (Buckner 1994). As both versions of the question elicited exactly the same response they have been combined to indicate whether the student favoured prohibiting handguns for all Canadians (except the police and army) or not. The two versions of the question were: "Here is a question about pistols and revolvers. Do you favour or oppose a law which would forbid the possession of these types of guns (handguns) except by the police and army?" and

"Here is a question about pistols and revolvers. Do you favour or oppose a law which would forbid the possession of these types of guns (handguns) except by the police, army and other authorized persons?"

Using the slightly differently worded questions on the right to own a firearm and attitude toward hunting, and the three item index of effectiveness, Table 12 shows the same pattern found with the national 1995 Gun Control Survey.

Table 12

* Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding.

** Total n does not equal 780 because four respondents did not state an opinion on prohibition of handguns.

 

As in the previous two Tests, those who have "Right and Hunt" values, or "Mixed" values, support handgun prohibition if they think that gun control is effective. For those with "No Right No Hunt" values the effectiveness of gun control is irrelevant (or at least not statistically significant). They favour banning handguns even if they do not think it would produce results. The graph in Figure 4 shows this relationship.

Conclusions

In each of the three "tests," those who have basic values of "No Right No Hunt" support registration, confiscation or prohibition whether or not they personally believe that stricter gun control will produce desired results. Those who have "Right and Hunt" or "Mixed" values support registration, confiscation or prohibition when they believe that stricter gun control will produced desired results, but do not support these actions if they think that gun control is not effective. Table 13 summarizes these findings.

Table 13

These results indicate that many advocates of stricter gun control are operating on the basis of value rationality (wertrationalität). The other three-quarters of the population, with "Right and Hunt" or "Mixed" values, appear to be operating with instrumental rationality (zweckrationalität).

The graphic in Figure 5 illustrates the lines of causality found in these studies. For the majority of the population an action is supported if they believe it will work, not supported if they do not believe it will work. For those with value rationality the effectiveness of the action is irrelevant, it is the action which is important.

Discussion

It is puzzling and frustrating when research results are answered by personal attacks. In high school rhetoric classes they teach that when a debater resorts to an ad hominem argument everyone should know that he has nothing left to say on the subject, and has lost the debate. When reports of Statistics Canada Homicide data, or analyses of research studies on self defense are presented, gun control advocates suggest that people should pay no more attention to this research than to research on smoking reported by a tobacco lobbyist. The motives of the researcher are impugned - he is a "gun owner," "gun-collector," or even, a "military weapons collector." [if any one happens to have a half-dozen T-72 main battle tanks for sale let me know] Or, the researcher's findings are to be disregarded because he is a "member of the gun lobby," or even, "a supporter of the National Rifle Association." The research itself is never seriously examined. I suppose that a paleontologist discussing chipped stones is similarly taken aback when her views are dismissed as those of an atheist, by a creationist opponent.

After this analysis it is clear where the problem lies. An instrumentally rational person will find some pro gun control arguments "irrational" because they are based on untenable assumptions. While they cite studies that support their position, such as the works of Kellermann (1986, 1992, 1993) (Buckner's Critique of Kellermann), their position does not depend on this research. For those with a wertrational orientation supportive research findings are useful as selling points. If the research is questioned, the person who questions must be motivated by "evil" forces. Gun control (or elimination), in itself, regardless of practicalities, is the value. There is no reason to be puzzled or frustrated by ad hominem attacks; that is all they have.

A particularly troubling example of this conflict is found in some medical journals. Medicine is both an art and a science; sometimes the distinction is lost. In a number of articles on firearms published in medical journals a wertrational orientation seems to replace the scientific or zweckrational orientation (Suter). This is a clear abrogation of the value-free ethic of science. Though cloaked as scientific analysis, articles by Kellermann, Miller, and Killias all contain serious, value inspired, methodological lapses (Buckner 1995a, Mauser 1996). Repeated publication of such articles brings the instrumental rationality of medicine itself into question.

This analysis of rationalities does not bode well for public policy. It is very discouraging for those who think that public policy should be based on reason and fact. This "value rationality" introduces a fundamentally destructive element into the gun control debate. If it literally does not matter whether a policy makes sense or is effective to one side in a debate, if a policy is supported in spite of the fact that its proponents do not believe it will work, if reason is rejected, then discussion becomes a sham, and arbitrary values become the basis for public policy. Wertrational public policy is attractive to some lawmakers who wish to project an image of "morality," or who share the value. The fact that wertrational policies, such as prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of drugs, prohibition of abortion and prohibition of firearms have been spectacular and expensive failures, creating more problems than they have solved, does not necessarily make them politically unattractive. A momentarily popular position can win the next election; the consequences will have to be dealt with by someone else.

References

Buckner, H. Taylor.

1994. "Concordia's 'Gun Control' Petition: Ignorance of the Law is the Only Excuse." Presented in the Firearms and Society section of the Law and Society annual meeting, Calgary, 14 June 1994.

Buckner, H. Taylor.

1995a "Some Methodological Problems in 'Gun Ownership and Homicide in the Home' (Kellermann et. al., New England Journal of Medicine 7 Oct 93)." 7 July.

Buckner, H. Taylor.

1995b "Gun Control - Will It Work?" Address to The St. James Literary Society, 98th Session, 17 October.

Buckner, H. Taylor.

1995c "Research on Firearms Registration." Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Parliament of Canada. 8 May.

Coalition for Gun Control.

1993. Press Release. Results of Angus Reid Poll commissioned by the Coalition for Gun Control. 30 September.

Gusfield, Joesph R.

1963. Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kellermann, Arthur L., M.D., M.P.H. and Donald T. Reay, M.D.

1986. Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. 314:1557-60, June 12.

Kellermann, Arthur L., M.D., M.P.H., Frederick P. Rivara, M.D., M.P.H., Grant Somes, Ph.D., Donald T. Reay, M.D., Jerry Francisco, M.D., Joyce Gillentine Banton, M.S., Jancice Prodzinski, B.A., Corinne Fligner, M.D., and Bela B. Hackman, M.D.

1992. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." New England Journal of Medicine. 327:467-72, August 13.

Kellermann, Arthur L., M.D., M.P.H., Frederick P. Rivara, M.D., M.P.H., Norman B. Rushforth, Ph.D., Joyce G. Banton, M.S., Donald T. Reay, M.D., Jerry T. Francisco, M.D., Ana B. Locci, Ph.D., Jancice Prodzinzki, B.A., Bela B. Hackman, M.D., and Grant Somes, Ph.D.

1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. 329:15 1084-1091. 7 Oct.

Killias, Martin.

1993. "International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide." Canadian Medical Association Journal. 148(10): 1721-1725.

Kleck, Gary.

1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Mauser, Gary A. and M. Margolis.

1992. "The Politics of Gun Control: Comparing Canadian and American Patterns," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10:189-209.

Mauser, Gary A.

1996. "Are Firearms a Threat to Public Health?: The Misuse of Science in Medical Research." Presented to the Firearms and Society session of the Canadian Law and Society Association meetings, Brock University, 3 June 1995.

Miller, Ted R.

1995. "Costs associated with gunshot wounds in Canada in 1991." Canadian Medical Association Journal. Nov 1, 1995; 153(9); 1261 - 1268.

Parsons, Talcott.

1949. The Structure of Social Action. The Free Press, New York.

Suter, Edgar A., MD

1994. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. V. 83:March:133-148.

Weber, Max (ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich)

1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Weber, Max (ed. Gordon Bailey and Noga Gayle)

1993. Sociology: An introduction from the classics to contemporary feminists. Oxford University Press, Toronto.

Back to Top of Article