Travis has asked Glassman!!!! to Blog!!!! so you have something to go off of. Okay. I have posted the beginnings of two papers from the blog on the wiki pages (although the Intro paper is hard to find for some reason. You have to actually click on from mglassman1 or whatever). But let's blog baby! And I am thinking this will be transferred to the wiki Intro paper in some form by somebody commenting on it.

Let's talk about Nussbaum a little bit because I believe she gives us an entry point into the second section of the paper, one it is suggested should be basically a very easy to understand outline of the major points of CA and how it relates to human development.

Amartya Sen developed the Capability Approach (CA) as a counter point to neo-classical economic models which determine success through aggregate measurements of material wealth (such as Gross Domestic Product) ( ). The emphasis in these neo-classical models is almost completely on progress through competition (using aggregate measurements for within and especially between society comparisons – so special attention must be paid to positivist measurements of the society as a whole). Neo-classical/comparison models often have little space for individual human dignity, and philosophically may actually see an emphasis on the individual as an impediment to social progress (the few must be sacrificed for the greater good). Sen offers a number of insights countering the neo-classical perspective in general, and the use of aggregate measurements to determine well being in particular, but perhaps the most important in terms of an education model are, 1) understanding of the health of a society through individual accounts of well being rather than society wide accounts; 2) most human tragedy is the result of poor information and lack of ability to use it good information even when you have it – if people are offered good information in positive circumstances they will make good decisions for their individual lives and their communities (nobody should be forced to rely on decision making of others in the service of the greater good; 3) it is the larger society’s responsibility to provide the basic building blocks allowing individuals to be capable of 1 and 2.
Sen challenges societies to create a level playing field. No subgroup should be able to claim privileges in either resources of decision making. The health of any society must be judged by its weakest link. If there are members of society with depressed levels of well being it doesn’t matter how well the society is doing as a whole, this is an unhealthy (and immoral) condition. The key to well being for any population is access to information and the capability to use it to meet their needs and desires (individuals must not only have the skills to obtain good information but also the social, emotional, and physical wherewithal to follow through on any actions this information engenders). Sen came to this realization studying famines and realizing that no famine ever occurred because of a lack of food – it was always the result of a lack of information about who had food and where and how it is distributed. This allows the more powerful to horde available food to increase their wealth while the less powerful starve ( ). Friere makes the argument that the more powerful in society use control of information, through both active (e.g. control of media) and passive (e.g. poor education) restriction to limit and control human actions, behavior and belief system – an echo of George Mead’s thesis on social control ( ).

Sen’s thesis on capability argues that it is society’s responsibility to make sure all its members have clean water, housing, decent levels of education (allowing access to information), and opportunities to maintain their health (1999). He makes no determinations about where life trajectories should lead – only that they should have the capabilities through on their own decisions, free and unfettered. Each person makes their own choices based on their own needs and desires. Sen also does not specifically define what functionings are necessary for well being, suggesting a dynamic interplay between functionings and capabilities is different societies.

Martha Nussbaum’s perspective on a Capability Approach developed out of the work of Sen and others at the United Nations ( ). Nussbaum’s work while similar to Sen’s differs on a couple of points that make her ideas a more direct and natural fit with education theorists such as Dewey and Friere. First, while Sen believes society’s must take an inductive approach to understanding well being he still, for the most part, has an economist’s generalized idea of how actions impact society as a whole. Nussbaum is more concerned with the individual per se and focuses more on issues such as human dignity and what it means to be a fully functioning human being. This leads to a second difference with Sen - Nussbaum’s theory is explicitly developmental (Nussbaum discusses the development of capabilities rather than the development of the individual per se. Still it is representative of development and/or progress that has important and many times obvious bridges with teaching and learning). Third, while the underpinnings of Sen’s ideas are taken primarily in economics theory and history, Nussbaum (per her humanities background) tries to establish a strong basis for her ideas in philosophy. Historically educational theory (though often not practice) has had close ties with philosophy, especially philosophy of mind (Menand 2001), and indeed Dewey did not distinguish between the two. Fourth, while the ideas behind both Sen and Nussbaum’s work are motivated by issues face by oppressed and deprived populations, Nussbaum incorporates a feminist perspective, recognizing females in society as a relevant, oppressed subgroup. I believe the addition of an overtly feminist perspective opens CA up to understanding and affecting a number of different subgroups that are too often left out of discussions of oppression and marginalization. Nussbaum’s feminist perspective is more forthright about the need for universal toolkit of functionings that lead to true human capabilities with dignity. Nussbaum is not willing to say each society make can its own decisions about functionings based on its own traditions and needs because too often women and other marginalized subgroups (e.g. lower castes, indigenous populations) get left out of the dignity equation – not only do women and other marginalized subgroups not realize their capabilities, but they internalize their society’s claims that they are not worthy of the same functionings – and therefore the same dignity - as the men/privileged of their society.