In 2017, Richard Thaler, a leading behavioural economist, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. One of the pillars of his research has been to critique the concept of Homo economicus (*): that idea of the human being as a purely rational individual, who makes economic decisions according to the models of classical economic theory. Thaler showed that, in reality, human decisions are deeply influenced by emotions, affect and even patterns of irrationality. These influences impact our choices on everything from how we manage our savings to what plans we make for the future to what decisions we make on any given issue.
Thaler does not suggest that all our decisions are irrational, but he does point out that we tend to be optimistic, overconfident, to project that other people think as we think, and to fall into what he calls ‘the curse of knowledge’: once we know something, we find it almost impossible to imagine what it would be like not to know it.
Now, might we be unconsciously applying a similar concept to Homo economicus in our understanding of human rights defenders, or of displaced people or refugees? Something like a Homo defensoris, an idealised figure of someone who makes rational and informed decisions about their work, who is fully aware of the risks they face, who follows security measures to the letter and acts in an orderly and linear fashion, all the while being guided by UN declarations and maintaining an unquestioning commitment to a central cause. Or perhaps, to continue the play on words, a Mulier desplazatus, who one day decides, after an analysis of pros and cons, to leave her home in search of security…
Thaler proposes a transition from Homo economicus to Homo sapiens, recognising human complexities and limitations in decision-making. Perhaps it is time to do something similar in our view of those who defend human rights in hostile contexts, or those in situations of forced displacement or refuge. We need to recognise the affects, emotions, lack of information and precariousness that often surround the decisions these people make. These decisions do not occur in a rational vacuum; they are shaped by diverse identities and networks, and uncertain and changing contexts.
We should focus more on these people as individuals making decisions within their own realities, influenced by their resources, knowledge, hopes, subjectivities, constraints and fears. This would also invite us to reflect on our own subjectivities and the power we exercise in looking at the ‘other’ as an ‘object of protection’, especially from organisations in the global North, when we pontificate on risk analysis or recommend security measures. Acknowledging all this is only the first step; there are many more to go.
(*) Thaler, Richard H. (2000): ‘From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens’. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (1): 133–141.
