Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
140 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
<strong>The</strong>re are at least two answers to be given to this question. <strong>The</strong><br />
first is that there are indeed good reasons to be very careful with the<br />
conclusions we draw when studying adaptive preferences, especially<br />
in a context with which one is not familiar. Serene Khader (2011,<br />
55–60) provides a nuanced <strong>and</strong> convincing discussion of the various<br />
mistakes that can be made when we try to identify whether a person<br />
or group of persons living under unjust conditions expresses adaptive<br />
preferences. <strong>The</strong>re are at least three ‘occupational hazards’ that those<br />
trying to identify adaptive preferences may make: we run the risk of<br />
psychologizing structural constraints, of misidentifying possible tradeoffs<br />
between various dimensions of wellbeing that a person makes, or<br />
we may be unable to recognise forms of flourishing in very different<br />
culture or class settings. All this shows that thinking about adaptive<br />
preferences needs to be done with great attention to contextual details<br />
<strong>and</strong> in a very careful manner; it is not an analysis that can easily be<br />
done by applying a rigid formula. Scholars should therefore be very<br />
cautious before concluding that someone or a group shows adaptive<br />
preferences, <strong>and</strong> carefully investigate alternative interpretations of<br />
what they observe, since otherwise they run the risk of seeing adaptive<br />
preferences where there are none.<br />
Having said this, it is clear from the literature that adaptive preferences<br />
are a genuine phenomenon. For example, Serene Khader (2011)<br />
discusses real cases of groups of women who had adaptive preferences.<br />
Tania Burchardt analysed the 1970 British Cohort Study <strong>and</strong> found that<br />
“among those able to formulate agency goals, the aspirations expressed<br />
are conditioned by their socio-economic background <strong>and</strong> experience”<br />
(Burchardt 2009, 13). She also found evidence that adaptation may play<br />
a role in the selection of functionings from one’s capability set, since<br />
among the sixteen-year-olds who have the capability to continue fulltime<br />
education, the choice whether or not to do so is highly influenced<br />
by past deprivation <strong>and</strong> experiences of inequality. Burchardt rightly<br />
concludes that if the influence on people’s choices is so systematically<br />
related to previous experiences of disadvantage, that this is a case of<br />
injustice. Hence the need, for capability theorists <strong>and</strong> not just for those<br />
endorsing the happiness approach or the desire-fulfilment theory<br />
of wellbeing, to take processes of adapted preferences <strong>and</strong> adapted<br />
aspirations seriously. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, as David Clark (2009, 32)<br />
argued in the context of development studies, adaptive preferences may