“The Unbearable Automaticity of Being,” is quite reminiscent of Malcolm Gladwell’s text Blink. This becomes especially evident when considering the fact that both texts reference many of the same sources (specifically, Rosenthal’s work).
Bargh and Chartrand initiate this text by explaining the limitations inherent to consciousness. Drawing on these very limitations, they argue that the unconscious or automatic is actually responsible for a much larger percentage of brain activity than most are willing to concede. Here, the authors reference a general unwillingness, amongst many people, to accept the unconscious as a significant arbiter of thought. As is suggested by the Nietzsche quote that immediately precedes the text, human vanity supposes everything to be conscious. Perhaps, this unwillingness is, in a similar vein, related to a refusal to disavow the predominance of the mind over the body. Instead of applauding consciousness, as has been the dominant approach in scientific/theoretical discourse, Bargh and Chartrand work, instead, to posit the unconscious automatic response to environmental stimuli, and its significance.
One important distinction that Bargh and Chartrand develop, quite beneficially, is that the unconscious and conscious should not be considered wholly separate or distinct. It is not that processes are either conscious or unconscious, but rather, that the conscious often becomes unconscious through evolution into the automatic (463). The unconscious serves the purpose of taking over all of the activities or tasks that don’t necessitate conscious attention: “They are all devised and intended to free us from tasks that don’t really require our vigilance and intervention, so that our time and energy can be directed towards those that do” (464). This is the very evolution that the student driver experiences while learning to drive, as Chartrand and Bargh suggest. Simply, automated or unconscious mental processes free the limited conscious capacities of a subject.
Moreover, Chartrand and Bargh explore the ramifications of the environment upon a subject. They suggest that perceiving an action, perhaps the action of an acquaintance, will increase the likelihood or probability that one will undertake the very same action (465). Perception, according to the authors, is the means by which the environment causes mental activity. As a result, perception and behavior are inextricably bound. Thus, stereotypes, or behavior resulting from stereotypical beliefs is triggered by, “skin color, gender characteristics, and other easily detected features of group members” (466). Interestingly, this theory implies that there is a certain fluidity of self. The body becomes the site of a constant unconscious interchange with the outside world. It seems quite evident that this distorts what might be considered bodily boundaries.
Furthermore, the text provides evidence that the very process of automation is actually automatic. Goals, as Chartrand and Bargh suggest, develop by a means that bypasses will (469). We may not even have an awareness of pursuing a goal. Such is the case with the restorative and retaliatory actions of those that experience a denigration of the self (470).
After establishing the very importance of the unconscious, Chartrand and Bargh examine the benefits of automatic logic. Here, the text bears striking similarities to Gladwell’s work. Chartrand and Bargh argue, as in Gladwell’s text, that the unconscious or automatic operates by means of thin slicing. Here, the unconscious is often much more effective than the conscious. Interestingly, the more conscious thought that one puts into analysis, the less accurate the judgments or assessments often are (475).
