I use it in the same sense as Weber's formal rationality (economic rationality).
Ricardo writes:
>Every human in
>every culture is rational in this practical sense, and some cultures
>did indeed develop formally rational institutions, as exemplified by
>the Chinese bureaucratic state and its system of examinations. W[eber]
>would insist however that, in the West, formal rationality came to
>penetrate every sphere of live, including the economy as
>symbolized by double-bookkeeping.
If understood as an effect of the development of capitalism, there is nothing wrong with taking note of the penetration of formal rationality into "every sphere of life." However, an effect cannot be turned into the cause of the birth of capitalism through the sleight of hand.
Further, since the rise of capitalism, formal rationality has penetrated _every part of the world_.
And (modern) science belongs to everyone. Otherwise, why should Meera Nanda (an Indian woman) defend science from French, American, & other post-modernists?
Lastly, under capitalism & imperialism, the domination of formal rationality dialectically tends to transform itself into its opposite: the Holocaust, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), etc.
Worse yet, Kant is a dialectical twin of Sade, as Adorno & Horkheimer suggest in _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_.
Yoshie