http://www.frontlineonnet.com/images/20090102252607401.jpg
Capabilities and social Justice: The Political Philosohy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussabaum by John M. Alexander, Ashgate,Burlington, US, 2008. pages 187
..............
One of Amartya Sen’s greatest achievements has been to shift the focus of development from things to people, demonstrating the philosophical underpinnings of that shift. Sen did this by situating the development problematic in the discourse on the hoary theme of justice, going back to Socrates and Aristotle in the distant past and the utilitarians in the 19th century (Hume, Smith, Bentham, Mill), but revived in the second half of the past century primarily by John Rawls in his 1971 publication, A Theory of Justice.
What John Alexander attempts in this volume is to make a critical inquiry about the link between Sen’s approach to development and a theory of social justice. Being a student of philosophy and ethics, he approaches the theme from the perspective of justice. “A theory of justice,” he says at the outset, “cannot be tantamount to a theory of well-being. Judgments regarding claims of justice invariably acquire not only identifying and delineating certain aspects of well-being [i.e., development even in its broadest materialistic sense] but also finding the appropriate normative principles by which to treat people as equals in society.” What he finds significant in Sen is a “plural and public conception of justice intimately tied to democracy and public reasoning”.
................
In a series of writings, particularly Poverty and Famines (1981), Choice, Welfare and Measurement (1982), Commodities and Capabilities (1987), On Economic Inequalities (1997) and Development as Freedom (1999), Sen put forward his concept of human capabilities. He was ably supported by Martha Nussbaum, who also authored many studies on capabilities with a pronounced feminine perspective. Since the theme of John Alexander’s work is a critical evaluation of the contribution of the capabilities approach to social justice, a further scrutiny of the concept of capability as propounded by Sen and Nussbaum is necessary.
In relation to development, a distinctive departure emerged when the emphasis shifted from reaching essentially materialistic targets (the basic necessities of life, for instance) to what Sen has termed capabilities. John Alexander sums up Sen’s notion of capabilities as consisting of two interrelated elements: “First of all, it refers to capacities or powers of people as human beings: these can range from the most basic ones required to fulfil nutritional and health needs to more complex ones such as the exercise of practical reason and living with self-respect in a community. Secondly, it refers to the opportunities that people have to nurture and exercise their capacities; indeed, people’s capacities can be enhanced or hampered depending on the opportunities they face in their familial, social and political circumstances.”
The capabilities approach, thus, shifts the concept of development to a larger and even higher realm. It may appear that in that process the whole development concept has been made rather fussy, but the now widely used Human Development Index (HDI) shows that it need not be so. But that is going out of the main theme of John Alexander’s book. However, one of his keen observations is relevant here. He says: “Sen was indeed perceptive to point that poverty is relative in terms of resources and absolute in terms of capabilities.”
.................
While, in a sense, Rawls’ theory of justice and the capability approach have much in common (when the two are set against utilitarianism, for instance) and may be thought of as “first cousins” as John Alexander says, the major criticism that Sen and Nussbaum have against Rawls is that he only lists (some) conditions necessary for a just society, but does not indicate how such a society is to be achieved and the crucial role of people in specifying it and working towards it.
One aspect that the capability approach stresses is the importance of the “agency” of persons in deciding on the nature of the social order they deem desirable. It, therefore, advocates a reciprocal view of responsibility and emphasises the interdependence between the individual and the social order. It is for this reason that Sen considers public discussion and a democratic polity as crucial aspects of a just society. They not only help to identify people’s elementary needs, but are also influential in the construction of social values such as justice, respect and solidarity.
There is much more in John Alexander’s stimulating book. It is readily conceded that the theme he deals with is not everybody’s cup of tea. But for those who wish to become acquainted with the pioneering work of some of the leading intellectuals of our time on themes of everyday life on the one hand, but of deeply philosophical nature on the other, I strongly recommend this book. John Alexander sets out to summarise difficult arguments, to make comparisons of different perspectives and to synthesise divergent approaches. And he has greatly succeeded in his effort.
read it all
