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.
4. Critiques <strong>and</strong> Debates<br />
189<br />
to different levels of the functioning ‘to transport oneself safely’, due to<br />
characteristics of the society in which one lives (its public infrastructure,<br />
crime levels etc).<br />
<strong>The</strong> second way in which the capability approach accounts for<br />
societal structures <strong>and</strong> constraints is by theoretically distinguishing<br />
functionings from capabilities. More precisely, moving from capabilities<br />
to achieved functionings requires an act of choice. Now, it is perfectly<br />
possible to take into account the influence of societal structures <strong>and</strong><br />
constraints on those choices, by choosing a nuanced <strong>and</strong> rich account<br />
of agency (module B4 — account of agency) <strong>and</strong> of societal structures<br />
(module B5 — account of structural constraints). For example, suppose<br />
Sarah <strong>and</strong> Sigal both have the same intellectual capacities <strong>and</strong> human<br />
capital at the age of six, <strong>and</strong> live in a country where education is free<br />
<strong>and</strong> children from poorer families receive scholarships. Sarah was born<br />
in a class in which little attention was paid to intellectual achievement<br />
<strong>and</strong> studying, whereas Sigal’s parents are both graduates pursuing<br />
intellectual careers. <strong>The</strong> social environment in which Sarah <strong>and</strong> Sigal<br />
live will greatly influence <strong>and</strong> shape their preferences for studying. In<br />
other words, while initially Sarah <strong>and</strong> Sigal have the same capability<br />
set, the social structures <strong>and</strong> constraints that influence <strong>and</strong> shape<br />
their preferences will influence the choice they will make to pick one<br />
bundle of functionings. <strong>The</strong> capability approach allows us to take those<br />
structures <strong>and</strong> constraints on choices into account, but whether a<br />
particular capability theory will take that into account depends on the<br />
choices made in the various modules, especially modules B4 <strong>and</strong> B5. Yet<br />
it is clear that the choices made in modules B <strong>and</strong> C will have ultimately<br />
far reaching consequences for our capabilitarian evaluations.<br />
Summing up, one could, plausibly, complain that a certain capability<br />
theory doesn’t pay sufficient attention to social structures or collective<br />
features of human life. This may well be a very valid critique of a<br />
particular capability theory in which the additional theories of human<br />
diversity, social structures, <strong>and</strong> other social theories more generally, are<br />
very minimal (that is, the explanatory <strong>and</strong> ontological theories added<br />
in C1 do not properly account for many collective features of life). But I<br />
have argued that it is not a valid critique against the capability approach<br />
in general.