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.
192 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
division of labour can only be done if we scrutinise the constraints on<br />
choice, <strong>and</strong> these may turn out to be very different for men <strong>and</strong> women. 10<br />
What is crucial for the discussion here is that both positive theories<br />
of the gender division of labour (which are choices made in modules<br />
B3, B4, <strong>and</strong> B5) bear different normative implications. If a housewife<br />
is held fully responsible for the fact that she works at home then the<br />
logical consequence would be that she had the capability to work in the<br />
labour market. However, if we embrace a theory of choice that focuses<br />
on gender specific constraints, then we will not hold the housewife<br />
fully responsible for her choice but acknowledge that her capability set<br />
was smaller <strong>and</strong> did not contain the possibility for a genuine choice to<br />
work in the labour market. It seems, thus, that it is perfectly possible to<br />
apply the capability approach in combination with different accounts of<br />
gender-specific constraints on choices.<br />
By giving choice such a central position <strong>and</strong> making its place in<br />
wellbeing <strong>and</strong> social justice evaluations more explicit, the capability<br />
approach opens up a space for discussions of how certain choices are<br />
constrained by gender-related societal mechanisms <strong>and</strong> expectations.<br />
But again, the capability approach provides no guarantee for this:<br />
it depends on the choices made in modules B <strong>and</strong> C. For example,<br />
conservatives will want to integrate a conservative theory of gender<br />
relations within the capability approach, whereas for critical scholars it<br />
will be crucial to integrate a feminist account of gender relations, which<br />
includes an account of power. No doubt the two exercises will reach<br />
very different normative conclusions. In short, for scholars who defend<br />
a theory of human agency <strong>and</strong> social reality that challenges the status<br />
quo, one of the important tasks will be to negotiate which additional<br />
theories will be integrated in further specifications of the capability<br />
approach, especially the choices made in module C1.<br />
<strong>The</strong> conclusion is that the core characteristics of the capability<br />
approach (as listed in module A) do not necessarily have significant<br />
implications for the role of power in capability theories <strong>and</strong> applications,<br />
which can include widely divergent views on social realities <strong>and</strong><br />
interpersonal relations. Indeed, the fact that the capability approach<br />
10 <strong>The</strong> seminal work in this area is Susan Okin’s book <strong>Justice</strong>, Gender <strong>and</strong> the Family<br />
(Okin 1989). On the gendered nature of the constraints on choice, see also Nancy<br />
Folbre (1994).