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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
188 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
capability scholars do precisely this kind of work, <strong>and</strong> to the extent<br />
that they do not do so, one important reason is that they are engaging<br />
in documenting <strong>and</strong> measuring inequalities, rather than in explaining<br />
them. <strong>The</strong> complaint should then be that capability analysis should<br />
be less concerned with documenting <strong>and</strong> measuring inequalities, <strong>and</strong><br />
should spend more time on underst<strong>and</strong>ing how inequalities emerge,<br />
are sustained, <strong>and</strong> can be decreased — but that is another complaint.<br />
Still, I do think that a consideration of the role of groups in the capability<br />
approach gives us a warning. To fully underst<strong>and</strong> the importance of<br />
groups, capability theories should engage more intensively in a dialogue<br />
with disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, history, <strong>and</strong> gender<br />
<strong>and</strong> cultural studies. This will make the choices of the account of human<br />
diversity (module B3), the account of structural constraints (module B5),<br />
<strong>and</strong> of ontological <strong>and</strong> explanatory theories (module C1) more accurate.<br />
Disciplinary boundaries <strong>and</strong> structures make these kinds of dialogues<br />
difficult, but there is no inherent reason why this could not be done.<br />
<br />
in the capability approach<br />
<strong>The</strong> critique that the capability approach is too individualistic is<br />
sometimes also put in another way, namely that the capability approach<br />
should pay more attention to collective features, such as social structures,<br />
social norms, <strong>and</strong> institutions. How can the capability approach account<br />
for such collective aspects of human living?<br />
At the theoretical level, the capability approach does account<br />
for social relations <strong>and</strong> the constraints <strong>and</strong> opportunities of societal<br />
structures <strong>and</strong> institutions on individuals in two ways. First, by<br />
recognising the social <strong>and</strong> environmental factors which influence the<br />
conversions of commodities into functionings. For example, suppose<br />
that Jaap <strong>and</strong> Joseph both have the same individual conversion factors<br />
<strong>and</strong> possess the same commodities. But Jaap is living in a town with<br />
cycle lanes <strong>and</strong> low criminality rates, whereas Joseph is living in a city<br />
with poor infrastructure for cyclists, <strong>and</strong> with high levels of criminality<br />
<strong>and</strong> theft. Whereas Jaap can use his bike to cycle anywhere he wants, at<br />
any moment of the day, Joseph will be faced with a much higher chance<br />
that his bike will be stolen. Hence, the same commodity (a bike) leads