This entry concerns capability in higher education. One of the themes present in this blog is a sense of powerlessness in a group which should feel empowered. The dirty little secret of higher ed is that it is incredibly hierarchical and oppressive. The last few entries have led me to completely read Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed for the first time – I am almost finished with the first chapter. Graduate students must be careful where they tread considering the myriad of political minefields which exist in their departments. Once graduate students leave for faculty positions, do they become “sub-oppressors”? Of course not all, but a substantial number do indeed fall in to this existential reality which Freire so elegantly discusses. Using Gizem’s metaphor – does the squirrel become the oppressor?
Here is another issue which should concern all graduate students – jobs. Are you fully informed concerning this issue? Presumably you are in graduate school to acquire a job but have any of you asked for full information: where new graduates work, what is the position, who was their advisor and so forth. This type of inquiry would certainly increase your capability.
In one of the first blog entries, growing a garden was used as a metaphor. I am in the process of beginning one out of an area composed of grass and weeds. The land itself is extremely fertile but of course the vegetables will not grow unless the weeds and grass are removed. It is a process of trying to ensure the capability of the vegetables to grow, beginning with the selection of where to place the garden (needs to be well drained, lots of sunlight). Once my daughter and I have eliminated the weeds and grass, we must spread the mulch and then plant. This is rural Maine so I must think about how to keep out all of the critters (impossible), the short growing season and gardening organically. Gardening is quite Deweyian in that it involves problem solving which constantly changes. For example, I know that my garden here will involve different issues than my garden in Southern California although I am planting some of the same vegetables. But the process of solving the problems remains similar. This brings me to CA – increasing capability needs to be viewed as a process which is not stagnant. In the current macrosystem I do not believe CA is achievable on a societal level, but that does not imply it cannot be successful within small theaters of activity.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thesis – Antithesis
Human mind has an amazing capability to encode, store and retrieve information in memory. However, what I find more fascinating is the way we think and construct this knowledge through cognitive processes. Cognition is not necessarily cumulative, as most people assume. It is more than accumulation of ideas and generating new ones out of these ideas, it also involves very complex processes where one piece of information can survive by negating the other. If blogs in particular, and internet as a scale free network in general, represents how we think, this blog would include not only cumulative flow of ideas, but also marginal nodes, oppositions, or even negations. In that case, we cannot only talk about what capability approach IS, we will also need to discuss what capability approach is NOT.
“CA is all about open dialogue, education and political rights.”
First of all, Sen’s capability approach is not an overarching theory – as the names implies, it is a framework/approach to understand human development; it functions as a basic foundation for research, social policy, and legislation. Theories have basic premises that are applicable and generalizable to make predictions about certain phenomena. Although capability approach offers a new approach to understand (and measure) poverty and human development, it does not provide a systematic conceptualization about the mechanisms through which they occur or the ways they are maintained. This does not necessarily mean that our discussions are atheoretical – obviously, our arguments are Deweyian and almost all posts in this blog are somehow related to American pragmatism. Taken together, we are talking about capability approach from a pragmatist perspective in general. I think we need to acknowledge this first.
In that case, potential misconceptions may occur about what capability approach is. Reducing capability approach to provision, availability or accessibility of political and educational rights in society is dangerous. These so-called instrumental freedoms are necessary but not sufficient to achieve human development and capability. Freedoms depend on social and economic arrangements as well as political and civil rights while social institutions also contribute to enhance and guarantee the substantive freedoms of individuals, seen as active agents of change, rather than passive recipients of dispensed benefits. In that case, freedoms, as principal means of development, are expanded and maintained in a bottom-up (i.e. human beings are active agents of change) and top-down processes (i.e. social policy, and institutions are involved), simultaneously. Therefore, open dialogue or educational/political and civil rights are only pieces of the big picture, whereas the frame and the background are forgotten if one only focuses on instrumental freedoms.
One particular example comes from Gulen movement which offers a ‘moderate Islam’ model integrated with traditional Sufi values http://www.fethullahgulen.org/. The basic premises of the movement include a) pluralism and tolerance to multiculturalism, b) interfaith and interreligious open dialogue, c) priority of higher education especially for women and the economically disadvantaged groups, and d) freedom of speech. The movement applies these principles by organizing national and international conferences, workshops, and seminars, offering scholarships and fellowships for higher education, establishing schools all around the world (from Kenya to Russia, from Turkey, Germany to USA), and having mass media to disseminate the ideas of the movement through TV/radio channels, newspapers, websites, and blogs worldwide. At first sight, the movement with its principles, activities, and organizational structure seems to fit what capability approach offers as means of development. However, a closer look at the Gulen movement reveals close sectarian ties within the community, massive psychological control over the followers, economic and social dependence on leaders – all implying subtle authoritarianism hidden behind the mask of ‘dialogue.’ Going back to the arguments we made about women wearing ‘burka’ – the extent to which these women were ‘free’ in this movement to choose to be veiled is questionable. On one hand, the premises fall under capability approach, on other hand the followers may have the ‘pedogogy of the oppressed’ without being aware of it. You may think this is an argument that is out of the tangents of the class discussion and your daily life – unfortunately it is not! I am talking about a massive, cross-cultural, fundamental Islamist movement that has hundreds of schools worldwide. In Columbus only, they hold 3 schools, and in OSU, they have approximately 100 graduate students under their scholarship. The flyers you see on bulletin boards in OSU informing you about ‘seminars on veiled women’ or ‘Sufi poetry’ come either from ‘Students For Dialogue’ or from ‘Scioto Education Foundation’ – both are active organizations associated with the religious sect. I am talking about a huge political, religious and business organization that owns many international brands in the market, including Godiva. This movement gained its power particularly from its emphasis on freedom of speech and open dialogue. My key point is that utilizing democratic rights does not necessarily create democratic movements – as this example illustrates (i.e. sect has a hierarchical structure that reinforces authoritarianism). This is what capability approach is NOT. It also shows how it can go wrong in political arena once it is reduced to simply instrumental freedoms without participatory democracy…
“CA is almost a new ‘welfare state’ approach to achieve social equality.”
I have to admit that I read this misconception several times in a variety of articles in the literature. Although Sen offers a whole chapter in his book to argue about how capability approach is NOT utilitarian or it is NOT pure welfarism, this reductionist approach to CA is still prevalent. One particular reason could be that the instrumental freedoms Sen is talking about coincide with what welfare states are ‘supposed’ to provide to their citizens. For instance, the concept of ‘social wage’ suggests that employees ‘wage’ does not only refer to certain level of payment or economic income, but it also includes certain benefits or rights that do not necessarily have material value (such as status or prestige of the profession, legal protection by law etc.). Even though ‘social wage’ may parallel what CA offers for human development (such as civil and participatory rights for citizens), it still implies a ‘top-down’ approach where state and institutions allocate resources to the citizens, and ‘provide’ or ‘give’ social and political rights. In CA, the process is obviously more reciprocal; it includes both top-down and bottom-up processes. Institutions are expected to ensure basic democratic and social rights whereas individuals are active agents in society. In addition, CA is much broader than traditional welfarism and integrates multifaceted and multidimensional change in various ecosystems, rather than economy or politics itself.
“CA and Sen’s ideas are close to Neo-Marxism.”
I think this is one of the most common misunderstandings of CA by the academic audience. There are definitely Marxist academicians and followers of Sen who took some basic premises of CA and integrated them with their own ideas. However, in its origin, I argue that Sen’s CA has nothing to do with Marxism. I almost felt like he is very cautious about not being labeled as a Marxist. It is also interesting that Sen offers an approach that is very ambitious to transform the society and it definitely has political consequences, but is timid about addressing the mechanism behind it. One example is the language Sen uses throughout his book, Development as Freedom. He uses terms such as ‘developing countries’ , ‘social exclusion’ or ‘human development’, but he NEVER uses the terms ‘third world countries’, ‘cultural imperialism’ or ‘post-colonialism.’ Let me just pick ‘developing country’ as an example. This is a politically-constructed term, utilized by World Bank and IMF especially after ‘90s to refer to countries whose economies are moving towards ‘achieving’ an economic/political/social state as strong as industrialized countries. Keep in mind, these countries are not identified as ‘underdeveloped’ which is another WB category referring to poor countries. The discourse behind this term is ‘developmentalism.’ – a really hot topic in political sociology as a Post-Fordist ideology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmentalism)
This discourse stems from the idea that highly industrialized countries (i.e. US, Western European countries) have ‘achieved’ social, political, and economic development and are at peak of capitalism. The strategies they utilized to cherish this high industrialization serves as ‘model’ for other countries. It is almost like saying that ‘If they implement our strategies in their own countries, they will develop in the same way.’ To put it even more simply, developmentalism offers a one-size-fits-all model, almost a pattern, for these countries. The rules are implemented by World Bank and IMF who provide monetary founds to developing counties as long as they propose ‘developmental goals’ that fit this agenda. The problem with developmentalism was that it was an imposed model that fell short to address the needs of ‘third world countries.’ Think about the great economic crisis that hit Asian economy in late ‘90s. The developmentalist discourse before the crisis was suggesting that ‘Asia tigers’ (i.e. Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.) were ‘miracle economies’ who were the fastest growing economies in Asia, and they succeeded to become highly industrialized countries. However, the crisis struck and revealed that economic and social development of ‘Asian Tigers’ did not change the fact that they were dependent on imperialist countries to survive in the global economy – they were not self-reliant at all. This was a crisis showing that developmentalist model simply failed! It was 1998 when the model and its applicability were being questioned in World Bank. Such a coincidence – on the same year, Sen was awarded with Nobel Prize in economics with his CA!
It is not surprising that UN accepted CA as a foundation for Human Development Indices and also for Millennium Development Goals (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/). CA filled in the existing gap in developmentalism and made it more acceptable for ‘developing countries.’ In the past, World Bank would provide funding to nation states to make investments in industrial economy (i.e. develop agricultural machinery, open factories etc.) and development was considered only in economic realm, geared towards increasing production, promoting new consumption patterns, and participation in international trade. However, this model was shattered down in the global economy where economic development was not enough for ‘developing countries’ to survive (i.e. Latin American countries). The solution was found in Sen’s CA which addressed the issue of development as a broader phenomenon. Sen argued over and over that development is inevitably related to freedom and democracy, in addition to economic and social growth. Now, in that discourse, World Bank provides micro credits/loans to the poor people in developing countries to achieve their ‘potential.’ The developmentalist discourse in that model still persists, it even gets stronger with the use of CA. Sen’s approach empowers masses to work towards a ‘universal golden standard.’ Again, it is not a coincidence that he devoted a whole chapter on universalism of certain rights and to Adam Smith to defend Capitalistic system. Sen is obviously pro-capitalist, but he wants morality, social equality, and participatory democracy to survive in that system. His goal is not to change infrastructure of the existing system or achieve revolution, but to provide reforms to keep the system going. Therefore, social classes, stratification or class conflict are never mentioned in this approach. Have you seen one single word on caste system in India and arguments about how this related to allocation of information?
Another example, he argues over and over again that famines occur not due to shortage of food, but due to limited access to information about resources, and he draws attention to the totalitarian regimes. I find this argument very convincing, but unfortunately missing. Obviously, countries do not exist in a vacuum as if they are detached from the global economy. I think famines occurred because the imperial powers oppressing and exploiting the resources of these countries ‘needed’ famines to maximize their profit at that time. The imperial power would, of course, need an authoritarian regime to achieve these goals – in that case, unfreedom is the instrument of oppression, not the end of it. Therefore, the famines occur as an inevitable consequence of a more macro level problem, the imperialism itself. The poverty itself, then, can be attributed to the dynamics of ‘new imperialism’ – exploiting the resources of a country not through coercive marital affairs or invasion of the territory, but through political, economic, social, and cultural means.
Taken together, Sen does not care about changing the mechanisms that cause and maintain unfreedoms (i.e. never talks about cultural imperialism). Therefore, CA is not more than a new approach to developmentalism. It would be unfair to call Sen a Marxist. Ironically, Marx talked a lot about social reforms (vs. revolution) in his manuscripts and cautioned against them since they interfere with the process moving towards revolution (see Chapter 1 in the link) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Marx is obviously a modernist; he cherishes Bourgeoisie as a transformative, generative and productive social class who abolished the rule of aristocracy. He also cherishes accomplishments of capitalist system for its own sake (Interestingly enough, Sen mentions these points as well while he quotes Marx). BUT, for Marx, we need bourgeois and capitalist system as part of dialectic materialism to move towards revolution for proletariat. The instrument of change is class consciousness of the proletariat, the oppressed class in the capitalistic system. I think this implies one of the misconceptions about Sen’s CA. Obtaining information in a democratic society and education can bring consciousness about oppression and exploitation. However, in CA, this does not translate into being conscious of one’s own suffering associated with his/her social class. Marx would call Sen a bourgeois socialist, someone who tries to provide rights to the oppressed classes to maintain the integrity of the system, but inevitably block the ongoing process towards revolution. (See bourgeois socialism in Chapter 3) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
You may wonder why I went on and on arguing about this. It is because in class discussions I remember people talking about how much Freire and Sen overlap. I disagree strongly with this idea – Freire is very much into bringing foundational change to the system rather than reforming it! I would say he is close to Marx, rather than Sen. Arguing that his ideas parallel CA would be trying to fit him in a small box with SBH-like assumptions.
I am aware that this is an extremely long post – almost a paper. I was very hesitant to write it, thinking that there is something wrong with me that I think about negating ideas all the time. Possibly, I am brainwashed by these sociology electives I took in college and the effects of them still remain. This is what I believe: ‘Everything in life is political.’ The fact that it is only 5 of us in this class is political. We meet in outdoor locations for classes - this is political. Even the coffee you drink is political – have you ever thought why in Caribou, Starbucks or other cafes in US, you can never find Middle Eastern coffee even if this region is where coffee originated from before it was introduced to Greeks and was scattered around Europe? Have you ever thought why we drink so much coffee with sugar in academia? Anyways, as I said, I am brainwashed. I cannot read CA with an apolitical lens even if Sen tried really hard on this! Hopefully, Nussbaum will be different…
Human mind has an amazing capability to encode, store and retrieve information in memory. However, what I find more fascinating is the way we think and construct this knowledge through cognitive processes. Cognition is not necessarily cumulative, as most people assume. It is more than accumulation of ideas and generating new ones out of these ideas, it also involves very complex processes where one piece of information can survive by negating the other. If blogs in particular, and internet as a scale free network in general, represents how we think, this blog would include not only cumulative flow of ideas, but also marginal nodes, oppositions, or even negations. In that case, we cannot only talk about what capability approach IS, we will also need to discuss what capability approach is NOT.
“CA is all about open dialogue, education and political rights.”
First of all, Sen’s capability approach is not an overarching theory – as the names implies, it is a framework/approach to understand human development; it functions as a basic foundation for research, social policy, and legislation. Theories have basic premises that are applicable and generalizable to make predictions about certain phenomena. Although capability approach offers a new approach to understand (and measure) poverty and human development, it does not provide a systematic conceptualization about the mechanisms through which they occur or the ways they are maintained. This does not necessarily mean that our discussions are atheoretical – obviously, our arguments are Deweyian and almost all posts in this blog are somehow related to American pragmatism. Taken together, we are talking about capability approach from a pragmatist perspective in general. I think we need to acknowledge this first.
In that case, potential misconceptions may occur about what capability approach is. Reducing capability approach to provision, availability or accessibility of political and educational rights in society is dangerous. These so-called instrumental freedoms are necessary but not sufficient to achieve human development and capability. Freedoms depend on social and economic arrangements as well as political and civil rights while social institutions also contribute to enhance and guarantee the substantive freedoms of individuals, seen as active agents of change, rather than passive recipients of dispensed benefits. In that case, freedoms, as principal means of development, are expanded and maintained in a bottom-up (i.e. human beings are active agents of change) and top-down processes (i.e. social policy, and institutions are involved), simultaneously. Therefore, open dialogue or educational/political and civil rights are only pieces of the big picture, whereas the frame and the background are forgotten if one only focuses on instrumental freedoms.
One particular example comes from Gulen movement which offers a ‘moderate Islam’ model integrated with traditional Sufi values http://www.fethullahgulen.org/. The basic premises of the movement include a) pluralism and tolerance to multiculturalism, b) interfaith and interreligious open dialogue, c) priority of higher education especially for women and the economically disadvantaged groups, and d) freedom of speech. The movement applies these principles by organizing national and international conferences, workshops, and seminars, offering scholarships and fellowships for higher education, establishing schools all around the world (from Kenya to Russia, from Turkey, Germany to USA), and having mass media to disseminate the ideas of the movement through TV/radio channels, newspapers, websites, and blogs worldwide. At first sight, the movement with its principles, activities, and organizational structure seems to fit what capability approach offers as means of development. However, a closer look at the Gulen movement reveals close sectarian ties within the community, massive psychological control over the followers, economic and social dependence on leaders – all implying subtle authoritarianism hidden behind the mask of ‘dialogue.’ Going back to the arguments we made about women wearing ‘burka’ – the extent to which these women were ‘free’ in this movement to choose to be veiled is questionable. On one hand, the premises fall under capability approach, on other hand the followers may have the ‘pedogogy of the oppressed’ without being aware of it. You may think this is an argument that is out of the tangents of the class discussion and your daily life – unfortunately it is not! I am talking about a massive, cross-cultural, fundamental Islamist movement that has hundreds of schools worldwide. In Columbus only, they hold 3 schools, and in OSU, they have approximately 100 graduate students under their scholarship. The flyers you see on bulletin boards in OSU informing you about ‘seminars on veiled women’ or ‘Sufi poetry’ come either from ‘Students For Dialogue’ or from ‘Scioto Education Foundation’ – both are active organizations associated with the religious sect. I am talking about a huge political, religious and business organization that owns many international brands in the market, including Godiva. This movement gained its power particularly from its emphasis on freedom of speech and open dialogue. My key point is that utilizing democratic rights does not necessarily create democratic movements – as this example illustrates (i.e. sect has a hierarchical structure that reinforces authoritarianism). This is what capability approach is NOT. It also shows how it can go wrong in political arena once it is reduced to simply instrumental freedoms without participatory democracy…
“CA is almost a new ‘welfare state’ approach to achieve social equality.”
I have to admit that I read this misconception several times in a variety of articles in the literature. Although Sen offers a whole chapter in his book to argue about how capability approach is NOT utilitarian or it is NOT pure welfarism, this reductionist approach to CA is still prevalent. One particular reason could be that the instrumental freedoms Sen is talking about coincide with what welfare states are ‘supposed’ to provide to their citizens. For instance, the concept of ‘social wage’ suggests that employees ‘wage’ does not only refer to certain level of payment or economic income, but it also includes certain benefits or rights that do not necessarily have material value (such as status or prestige of the profession, legal protection by law etc.). Even though ‘social wage’ may parallel what CA offers for human development (such as civil and participatory rights for citizens), it still implies a ‘top-down’ approach where state and institutions allocate resources to the citizens, and ‘provide’ or ‘give’ social and political rights. In CA, the process is obviously more reciprocal; it includes both top-down and bottom-up processes. Institutions are expected to ensure basic democratic and social rights whereas individuals are active agents in society. In addition, CA is much broader than traditional welfarism and integrates multifaceted and multidimensional change in various ecosystems, rather than economy or politics itself.
“CA and Sen’s ideas are close to Neo-Marxism.”
I think this is one of the most common misunderstandings of CA by the academic audience. There are definitely Marxist academicians and followers of Sen who took some basic premises of CA and integrated them with their own ideas. However, in its origin, I argue that Sen’s CA has nothing to do with Marxism. I almost felt like he is very cautious about not being labeled as a Marxist. It is also interesting that Sen offers an approach that is very ambitious to transform the society and it definitely has political consequences, but is timid about addressing the mechanism behind it. One example is the language Sen uses throughout his book, Development as Freedom. He uses terms such as ‘developing countries’ , ‘social exclusion’ or ‘human development’, but he NEVER uses the terms ‘third world countries’, ‘cultural imperialism’ or ‘post-colonialism.’ Let me just pick ‘developing country’ as an example. This is a politically-constructed term, utilized by World Bank and IMF especially after ‘90s to refer to countries whose economies are moving towards ‘achieving’ an economic/political/social state as strong as industrialized countries. Keep in mind, these countries are not identified as ‘underdeveloped’ which is another WB category referring to poor countries. The discourse behind this term is ‘developmentalism.’ – a really hot topic in political sociology as a Post-Fordist ideology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmentalism)
This discourse stems from the idea that highly industrialized countries (i.e. US, Western European countries) have ‘achieved’ social, political, and economic development and are at peak of capitalism. The strategies they utilized to cherish this high industrialization serves as ‘model’ for other countries. It is almost like saying that ‘If they implement our strategies in their own countries, they will develop in the same way.’ To put it even more simply, developmentalism offers a one-size-fits-all model, almost a pattern, for these countries. The rules are implemented by World Bank and IMF who provide monetary founds to developing counties as long as they propose ‘developmental goals’ that fit this agenda. The problem with developmentalism was that it was an imposed model that fell short to address the needs of ‘third world countries.’ Think about the great economic crisis that hit Asian economy in late ‘90s. The developmentalist discourse before the crisis was suggesting that ‘Asia tigers’ (i.e. Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.) were ‘miracle economies’ who were the fastest growing economies in Asia, and they succeeded to become highly industrialized countries. However, the crisis struck and revealed that economic and social development of ‘Asian Tigers’ did not change the fact that they were dependent on imperialist countries to survive in the global economy – they were not self-reliant at all. This was a crisis showing that developmentalist model simply failed! It was 1998 when the model and its applicability were being questioned in World Bank. Such a coincidence – on the same year, Sen was awarded with Nobel Prize in economics with his CA!
It is not surprising that UN accepted CA as a foundation for Human Development Indices and also for Millennium Development Goals (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/). CA filled in the existing gap in developmentalism and made it more acceptable for ‘developing countries.’ In the past, World Bank would provide funding to nation states to make investments in industrial economy (i.e. develop agricultural machinery, open factories etc.) and development was considered only in economic realm, geared towards increasing production, promoting new consumption patterns, and participation in international trade. However, this model was shattered down in the global economy where economic development was not enough for ‘developing countries’ to survive (i.e. Latin American countries). The solution was found in Sen’s CA which addressed the issue of development as a broader phenomenon. Sen argued over and over that development is inevitably related to freedom and democracy, in addition to economic and social growth. Now, in that discourse, World Bank provides micro credits/loans to the poor people in developing countries to achieve their ‘potential.’ The developmentalist discourse in that model still persists, it even gets stronger with the use of CA. Sen’s approach empowers masses to work towards a ‘universal golden standard.’ Again, it is not a coincidence that he devoted a whole chapter on universalism of certain rights and to Adam Smith to defend Capitalistic system. Sen is obviously pro-capitalist, but he wants morality, social equality, and participatory democracy to survive in that system. His goal is not to change infrastructure of the existing system or achieve revolution, but to provide reforms to keep the system going. Therefore, social classes, stratification or class conflict are never mentioned in this approach. Have you seen one single word on caste system in India and arguments about how this related to allocation of information?
Another example, he argues over and over again that famines occur not due to shortage of food, but due to limited access to information about resources, and he draws attention to the totalitarian regimes. I find this argument very convincing, but unfortunately missing. Obviously, countries do not exist in a vacuum as if they are detached from the global economy. I think famines occurred because the imperial powers oppressing and exploiting the resources of these countries ‘needed’ famines to maximize their profit at that time. The imperial power would, of course, need an authoritarian regime to achieve these goals – in that case, unfreedom is the instrument of oppression, not the end of it. Therefore, the famines occur as an inevitable consequence of a more macro level problem, the imperialism itself. The poverty itself, then, can be attributed to the dynamics of ‘new imperialism’ – exploiting the resources of a country not through coercive marital affairs or invasion of the territory, but through political, economic, social, and cultural means.
Taken together, Sen does not care about changing the mechanisms that cause and maintain unfreedoms (i.e. never talks about cultural imperialism). Therefore, CA is not more than a new approach to developmentalism. It would be unfair to call Sen a Marxist. Ironically, Marx talked a lot about social reforms (vs. revolution) in his manuscripts and cautioned against them since they interfere with the process moving towards revolution (see Chapter 1 in the link) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Marx is obviously a modernist; he cherishes Bourgeoisie as a transformative, generative and productive social class who abolished the rule of aristocracy. He also cherishes accomplishments of capitalist system for its own sake (Interestingly enough, Sen mentions these points as well while he quotes Marx). BUT, for Marx, we need bourgeois and capitalist system as part of dialectic materialism to move towards revolution for proletariat. The instrument of change is class consciousness of the proletariat, the oppressed class in the capitalistic system. I think this implies one of the misconceptions about Sen’s CA. Obtaining information in a democratic society and education can bring consciousness about oppression and exploitation. However, in CA, this does not translate into being conscious of one’s own suffering associated with his/her social class. Marx would call Sen a bourgeois socialist, someone who tries to provide rights to the oppressed classes to maintain the integrity of the system, but inevitably block the ongoing process towards revolution. (See bourgeois socialism in Chapter 3) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm
You may wonder why I went on and on arguing about this. It is because in class discussions I remember people talking about how much Freire and Sen overlap. I disagree strongly with this idea – Freire is very much into bringing foundational change to the system rather than reforming it! I would say he is close to Marx, rather than Sen. Arguing that his ideas parallel CA would be trying to fit him in a small box with SBH-like assumptions.
I am aware that this is an extremely long post – almost a paper. I was very hesitant to write it, thinking that there is something wrong with me that I think about negating ideas all the time. Possibly, I am brainwashed by these sociology electives I took in college and the effects of them still remain. This is what I believe: ‘Everything in life is political.’ The fact that it is only 5 of us in this class is political. We meet in outdoor locations for classes - this is political. Even the coffee you drink is political – have you ever thought why in Caribou, Starbucks or other cafes in US, you can never find Middle Eastern coffee even if this region is where coffee originated from before it was introduced to Greeks and was scattered around Europe? Have you ever thought why we drink so much coffee with sugar in academia? Anyways, as I said, I am brainwashed. I cannot read CA with an apolitical lens even if Sen tried really hard on this! Hopefully, Nussbaum will be different…
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Freedom and unfreedom,
Maybe we should be writing a paper about freedom in acaemia,
From Gizem,
Confusionism: constant fusion of ideas
A squirrel of enthusiasm jumps from one idea stone to another and suddenly stops in front of a huge oak tree with attractive leaves of curiosity. She looks around, really quick, to see if the area is safe from potential ‘invaders’ – the troublesome creatures of desire, the sirens of ambition and obedience, the animals of brutal coercion, the devoted guardians of dogmatism, and the fearful human beings whose throats are threatened with new ideas. They all want conformity, she thinks, therefore I need to hide to survive. She runs in with hope, and also with despair. She runs in with hunger, finding the deliciousness of fresh nuts of knowledge. No, it is unfair to say she is greedy, this is just pure self-indulgence after years of deprivation from freedom. She feeds herself with it, overly ambitions, overly fast – not even leaving a second to digest any of it. She wants the impossible, she would absorb the sunshine hidden in the nutshell if she were allowed to. She would know the value of it, and would never – ever – lose it to the blind invaders.
At that present moment of relief, her mind opens up to sense how her existence has gained a new meaning, rather than a dull survival in midst of dark authoritarianism.
***
Acadreamia is an iron cage sometimes. It is almost a sin to write creatively and use allegories, or metaphors. Instead, we have to worship the ground rules of objectivity with subtle judgments hidden inside. Papers we write need to be as ‘structured’ as possible with no active voice or subjectivity. We are allowed to be ‘innovative’ as long as we are not controversial. The journal articles flow with nicely organized intro-methods-results-discussion structures, but life out there we refer does not have that order. We call it ‘error’ or ‘nuisance’ when it diverges from our so-called reality, nature calls it an irresistible and a constant change. We lie scientifically, fearing the chaos in our brains. We want to have control over everything, first on experimental designs and methodology, but then on our lives and on each other. Surprise is not welcome, uncertainty is never tolerable. Our creative minds, however, are full of new ideas. How come could we think through aggregated numbers or percentages, or ‘research-suggests-that’ patterns? Once artificiality is internalized, we find ourselves trapped in the iron cage of convention. If you have ever authored a paper, you know what I am talking about. If not, you will know, soon!
It is another scene of cynicism that I was hesitant to blog, feeling hopeless that any change can happen. However, I realized that this blog is a Deweyian/Michaelian experiment in which I have the freedom to be authentic. So, I would like to try something different – I will post my stories, sometimes fairy tales, and ideas in a combined manner. After four years in grad school, I am tired of pretending to be ‘philosophical’. I do believe that science is a creative enterprise as in art, and it is an agent of social change, rather than static numbers to outline facts of an artificially constructed world…
***
Maybe we should be writing a paper about freedom in acaemia,
From Gizem,
Confusionism: constant fusion of ideas
A squirrel of enthusiasm jumps from one idea stone to another and suddenly stops in front of a huge oak tree with attractive leaves of curiosity. She looks around, really quick, to see if the area is safe from potential ‘invaders’ – the troublesome creatures of desire, the sirens of ambition and obedience, the animals of brutal coercion, the devoted guardians of dogmatism, and the fearful human beings whose throats are threatened with new ideas. They all want conformity, she thinks, therefore I need to hide to survive. She runs in with hope, and also with despair. She runs in with hunger, finding the deliciousness of fresh nuts of knowledge. No, it is unfair to say she is greedy, this is just pure self-indulgence after years of deprivation from freedom. She feeds herself with it, overly ambitions, overly fast – not even leaving a second to digest any of it. She wants the impossible, she would absorb the sunshine hidden in the nutshell if she were allowed to. She would know the value of it, and would never – ever – lose it to the blind invaders.
At that present moment of relief, her mind opens up to sense how her existence has gained a new meaning, rather than a dull survival in midst of dark authoritarianism.
***
Acadreamia is an iron cage sometimes. It is almost a sin to write creatively and use allegories, or metaphors. Instead, we have to worship the ground rules of objectivity with subtle judgments hidden inside. Papers we write need to be as ‘structured’ as possible with no active voice or subjectivity. We are allowed to be ‘innovative’ as long as we are not controversial. The journal articles flow with nicely organized intro-methods-results-discussion structures, but life out there we refer does not have that order. We call it ‘error’ or ‘nuisance’ when it diverges from our so-called reality, nature calls it an irresistible and a constant change. We lie scientifically, fearing the chaos in our brains. We want to have control over everything, first on experimental designs and methodology, but then on our lives and on each other. Surprise is not welcome, uncertainty is never tolerable. Our creative minds, however, are full of new ideas. How come could we think through aggregated numbers or percentages, or ‘research-suggests-that’ patterns? Once artificiality is internalized, we find ourselves trapped in the iron cage of convention. If you have ever authored a paper, you know what I am talking about. If not, you will know, soon!
It is another scene of cynicism that I was hesitant to blog, feeling hopeless that any change can happen. However, I realized that this blog is a Deweyian/Michaelian experiment in which I have the freedom to be authentic. So, I would like to try something different – I will post my stories, sometimes fairy tales, and ideas in a combined manner. After four years in grad school, I am tired of pretending to be ‘philosophical’. I do believe that science is a creative enterprise as in art, and it is an agent of social change, rather than static numbers to outline facts of an artificially constructed world…
***
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
From Travis
Title: Democracy and Freedom of Information
Most of the following thoughts came from: Walton 2007… not sure where I stumbled across it.
“Democracy represents the ideal of a government legitimated by the will of the people.” (Walton, 2007)
Central to Sen’s understanding of freedom is the participation in a democratic environment. This democracy is to include more or less the rational discourse of citizens, groups of citizens, and the government that is representing them. In this article Walton discusses discourse in democracy and I think that the article touches on many things that Sen would agree with.
Walton pulls on Dahl (no idea who that is) regarding public spheres when describing how public opinion is formed – “The public sphere gathers information and processes it through various institutional, cognitive, and technically mediated filters to produce a set of preferences for a certain type of society.” He goes on to say that this public sphere is not a physical location, but rather made up of any and all locations, physical or virtual, where ideas and feelings can be exchanged openly. The diversity of individuals involved in discourse enables a public conception of the common good as amorphous (shapeless – ya, I looked it up) and changing. Walton even goes on to say that the internet has enabled more people to have a voice in public affairs through blogging, which has shaped discourse in new and innovative ways. He concludes blogging thoughts with: a pitfall of blogging is the participation of so many voices which creates a cacophony where it is difficult to sort ‘truth’ (let us say evidence) from opinion. In addition, to participate in the public sphere responsibly individuals are required to stay, at least to some degree, aware of the current affairs, social issues, and government policies that are being discussed.
This led me to consider how the disenfranchised could participate in such a process. Now, mind you, I am still not able to see how CA allows me to see individuals and groups of people without a voice (who NEED? A voice) without seeing that situation from a deficit model [i.e., they do not have a voice and are in need of a voice]. But lets play along that I have a CA understanding of bringing a ‘voice’ to people.
First, those who are without a voice are possibly not even aware that they are able to have one. How is that bridge crossed in a nonhierarchical manner? That appfrica article we read ended by saying that many farmers in Africa DID NOT make use of the application that had been offered them in order to determine a fair price for their wares – why did they not act on this information? Did they reject the very notion that they may have been receiving unfair prices unbeknownst to them? How can they be persuaded of its importance? Regarding voting, or even gathering to share ideas, how can individuals who have never done this been persuaded of its importance? Mitch was a lone voice (well, plus one, Daria) during our “share what you think needs changed in the department meeting” we had with Julie. Graduate students were given a choice to dialogue with one another about changes they might want – and we didn’t. Only one person even bothered to speak up lone-wolf style, only to be shot down. In our case we were made aware that we had a voice, and we chose not to exercise it. That was a group of individuals who are USED to having a voice. Why would be expect a different response from groups/individuals who may never have felt like they had a voice in the first place?
Second, …ok so I am tired. I also don’t know where this post Is supposed to be heading, but hey, I’m participating. … I was thinking along the lines of giving freedom to those will find it to be a new experience – a process needs to be designed where those without a voice are 1)given a voice, and 2) taught how to express that voice in a constructive manner. Seeing dialogue as a means of education and social action could significantly impact the way such a process is constructed. Thoughts?
Title: Democracy and Freedom of Information
Most of the following thoughts came from: Walton 2007… not sure where I stumbled across it.
“Democracy represents the ideal of a government legitimated by the will of the people.” (Walton, 2007)
Central to Sen’s understanding of freedom is the participation in a democratic environment. This democracy is to include more or less the rational discourse of citizens, groups of citizens, and the government that is representing them. In this article Walton discusses discourse in democracy and I think that the article touches on many things that Sen would agree with.
Walton pulls on Dahl (no idea who that is) regarding public spheres when describing how public opinion is formed – “The public sphere gathers information and processes it through various institutional, cognitive, and technically mediated filters to produce a set of preferences for a certain type of society.” He goes on to say that this public sphere is not a physical location, but rather made up of any and all locations, physical or virtual, where ideas and feelings can be exchanged openly. The diversity of individuals involved in discourse enables a public conception of the common good as amorphous (shapeless – ya, I looked it up) and changing. Walton even goes on to say that the internet has enabled more people to have a voice in public affairs through blogging, which has shaped discourse in new and innovative ways. He concludes blogging thoughts with: a pitfall of blogging is the participation of so many voices which creates a cacophony where it is difficult to sort ‘truth’ (let us say evidence) from opinion. In addition, to participate in the public sphere responsibly individuals are required to stay, at least to some degree, aware of the current affairs, social issues, and government policies that are being discussed.
This led me to consider how the disenfranchised could participate in such a process. Now, mind you, I am still not able to see how CA allows me to see individuals and groups of people without a voice (who NEED? A voice) without seeing that situation from a deficit model [i.e., they do not have a voice and are in need of a voice]. But lets play along that I have a CA understanding of bringing a ‘voice’ to people.
First, those who are without a voice are possibly not even aware that they are able to have one. How is that bridge crossed in a nonhierarchical manner? That appfrica article we read ended by saying that many farmers in Africa DID NOT make use of the application that had been offered them in order to determine a fair price for their wares – why did they not act on this information? Did they reject the very notion that they may have been receiving unfair prices unbeknownst to them? How can they be persuaded of its importance? Regarding voting, or even gathering to share ideas, how can individuals who have never done this been persuaded of its importance? Mitch was a lone voice (well, plus one, Daria) during our “share what you think needs changed in the department meeting” we had with Julie. Graduate students were given a choice to dialogue with one another about changes they might want – and we didn’t. Only one person even bothered to speak up lone-wolf style, only to be shot down. In our case we were made aware that we had a voice, and we chose not to exercise it. That was a group of individuals who are USED to having a voice. Why would be expect a different response from groups/individuals who may never have felt like they had a voice in the first place?
Second, …ok so I am tired. I also don’t know where this post Is supposed to be heading, but hey, I’m participating. … I was thinking along the lines of giving freedom to those will find it to be a new experience – a process needs to be designed where those without a voice are 1)given a voice, and 2) taught how to express that voice in a constructive manner. Seeing dialogue as a means of education and social action could significantly impact the way such a process is constructed. Thoughts?
Friday, April 30, 2010
From Margeret,
I am posting this comment from Margeret, it is to Daria's post, but it is too long for a comment so I am making it a separate post. I am doing this because I want to comment on it - all the way here from AERA in Denver
As I was reading Daria’s post for the ten capabilities proposed by Nussbaum I was presented with similar thoughts. I like the idea of focus groups and I am not all that familiar with how they are set up or for that matter how they are even carried out. Anyhow, I did some internet surfing to try and sort some things out. The first thing that comes to mind when reviewing Nussbaum’s capabilities, was a program that incorporates similarities of psychotherapy. So I did some investigating and here are my thoughts.
Nussbaum proposes ten additional capabilities that are perceived to him as being necessary and supported by all democracies. However, I have a couple of points to make regarding these. Deprivations can occur from a variety of means and in many cases individuals may not have the ability to recognize that they are lacking functional capabilities. Now my concerns with Nussbaum’s 10 additional capabilities is that they may be considered important by some, but not all individuals. I saw something on tv last night and so I was able to find a link as evidence of this so maybe my post was rejected for a reason. (http://www.vh1.com/shows/jessica_simpson_the_price_of_beauty/episode.jhtml?episodeID=166391) It’s the show where Jessica Simpson travels around learning beauty regimns across the world. Anyhow, They also meet with an exceptionally poor woman who lives in a favella, but has chosen plastic surgery over a better place to live for herself and her child. She comments this which made me think even more about this class – “The mother chooses this and she’s baffled but Jessica say “This doesn’t mean that the mother is a bad mother for choosing plastic surgery over providing food and shelter to her kids, it may just be that she doesn’t know any better.” And no I was flipping through the channels, I don’t watch this normally! Therefore, by establishing specific capabilities like he has done, he is not allowing the individual the “freedom” to acknowledge what basic and mental needs are necessary for he/she to maximize their abilities and determine the path of their own life rather than having it determined for them which is the paradigm that is currently in place with decisions being made by higher authority.
Now, after researching psychotherapy for quite a long time, I realized that a program approach with this outline perhaps within focus groups could allow for quite a few things. First let me explain what I learned about psychotherapy. There are 13 different approaches but the one that struck me the most was the medical non-medical model approach. The medical model works from a deficit approach where you view the individual as lacking something or having problems. Aside from this the non-medical approach allows individuals to become more aware of their capacity for self-direction and development. This increases the awareness of individuals to not only assess their current capabilities but better understand what factors and how they might be able to increase their capacity to function. The ten factors for Nussbaum are acknowledged indirectly as the individual gains awareness and eventually realizes their potential. The realization of one’s potential comes only when basic and mental needs are fulfilled.
What I believe Nussbaum is proposing is that these 10 capabilities make personal growth possible and that these basic capabilities are both necessary and critical for satisfying lower order necessities making self-actualization possible so that personal growth can occur. Maslow believes self-actualization is growth motivated rather than deficiency motivated. Therefore, the individual is not working from a deficit model.
So I agree that there is a set of basic capabilities that have to be available in order for this personal growth to take place. However, I think his proposed idea would lend more support if he were to give the individual the freedom for determining what resources are more important in allowing the individual to determine what lower deficiency needs are to be met in order for self-actualization to occur. Lower deficiency needs are part of the hierarchy triangle of needs as proposed by Maslow. Now in our first paper prior to meeting the first time, it states that Nussbaum does not believe there is a hierarchy to these needs, but Maslow’s approach does. A person must acknowledge what deficient needs exist and need to be met. It appears that his approach is similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He states that in order for higher level needs to be met the lower level needs must not only be met but maintained. Under this approach, in order for self-actualization to occur the individual must not only achieve the needs of previous levels but master them. Therefore, it defines a concrete set of levels that are dependent upon mastery of specific needs defined in previous levels.
My thing is that I believe that human needs are non-hierarchical. Human experience, whether it be influenced by norms and expectations of other individuals or societies and can be circumstantial and its effects varying by individual. Moreover, specific individuals and communities should be given the freedom to assess what needs and capabilities must be met in order for growth of the individual is not identifying deficient needs that are believed as making them incapable. Instead, humans have an inherent capacity to maximize potential and so the functional capabilities and freedoms come from increasing the individuals sense of their own well being. They merely are not granted capabilities you could give an individual as Nussbaum suggests. They arise from communication and dialogue, changes in behavior, which facilitate improvements allowing individuals to reach their full potential.
I am posting this comment from Margeret, it is to Daria's post, but it is too long for a comment so I am making it a separate post. I am doing this because I want to comment on it - all the way here from AERA in Denver
As I was reading Daria’s post for the ten capabilities proposed by Nussbaum I was presented with similar thoughts. I like the idea of focus groups and I am not all that familiar with how they are set up or for that matter how they are even carried out. Anyhow, I did some internet surfing to try and sort some things out. The first thing that comes to mind when reviewing Nussbaum’s capabilities, was a program that incorporates similarities of psychotherapy. So I did some investigating and here are my thoughts.
Nussbaum proposes ten additional capabilities that are perceived to him as being necessary and supported by all democracies. However, I have a couple of points to make regarding these. Deprivations can occur from a variety of means and in many cases individuals may not have the ability to recognize that they are lacking functional capabilities. Now my concerns with Nussbaum’s 10 additional capabilities is that they may be considered important by some, but not all individuals. I saw something on tv last night and so I was able to find a link as evidence of this so maybe my post was rejected for a reason. (http://www.vh1.com/shows/jessica_simpson_the_price_of_beauty/episode.jhtml?episodeID=166391) It’s the show where Jessica Simpson travels around learning beauty regimns across the world. Anyhow, They also meet with an exceptionally poor woman who lives in a favella, but has chosen plastic surgery over a better place to live for herself and her child. She comments this which made me think even more about this class – “The mother chooses this and she’s baffled but Jessica say “This doesn’t mean that the mother is a bad mother for choosing plastic surgery over providing food and shelter to her kids, it may just be that she doesn’t know any better.” And no I was flipping through the channels, I don’t watch this normally! Therefore, by establishing specific capabilities like he has done, he is not allowing the individual the “freedom” to acknowledge what basic and mental needs are necessary for he/she to maximize their abilities and determine the path of their own life rather than having it determined for them which is the paradigm that is currently in place with decisions being made by higher authority.
Now, after researching psychotherapy for quite a long time, I realized that a program approach with this outline perhaps within focus groups could allow for quite a few things. First let me explain what I learned about psychotherapy. There are 13 different approaches but the one that struck me the most was the medical non-medical model approach. The medical model works from a deficit approach where you view the individual as lacking something or having problems. Aside from this the non-medical approach allows individuals to become more aware of their capacity for self-direction and development. This increases the awareness of individuals to not only assess their current capabilities but better understand what factors and how they might be able to increase their capacity to function. The ten factors for Nussbaum are acknowledged indirectly as the individual gains awareness and eventually realizes their potential. The realization of one’s potential comes only when basic and mental needs are fulfilled.
What I believe Nussbaum is proposing is that these 10 capabilities make personal growth possible and that these basic capabilities are both necessary and critical for satisfying lower order necessities making self-actualization possible so that personal growth can occur. Maslow believes self-actualization is growth motivated rather than deficiency motivated. Therefore, the individual is not working from a deficit model.
So I agree that there is a set of basic capabilities that have to be available in order for this personal growth to take place. However, I think his proposed idea would lend more support if he were to give the individual the freedom for determining what resources are more important in allowing the individual to determine what lower deficiency needs are to be met in order for self-actualization to occur. Lower deficiency needs are part of the hierarchy triangle of needs as proposed by Maslow. Now in our first paper prior to meeting the first time, it states that Nussbaum does not believe there is a hierarchy to these needs, but Maslow’s approach does. A person must acknowledge what deficient needs exist and need to be met. It appears that his approach is similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He states that in order for higher level needs to be met the lower level needs must not only be met but maintained. Under this approach, in order for self-actualization to occur the individual must not only achieve the needs of previous levels but master them. Therefore, it defines a concrete set of levels that are dependent upon mastery of specific needs defined in previous levels.
My thing is that I believe that human needs are non-hierarchical. Human experience, whether it be influenced by norms and expectations of other individuals or societies and can be circumstantial and its effects varying by individual. Moreover, specific individuals and communities should be given the freedom to assess what needs and capabilities must be met in order for growth of the individual is not identifying deficient needs that are believed as making them incapable. Instead, humans have an inherent capacity to maximize potential and so the functional capabilities and freedoms come from increasing the individuals sense of their own well being. They merely are not granted capabilities you could give an individual as Nussbaum suggests. They arise from communication and dialogue, changes in behavior, which facilitate improvements allowing individuals to reach their full potential.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
I'm Breaking Out While Trying Not to Freak Out
I am going to expand my number-loving, quantitatively focused brain and try my hand at qualitative research methods. I am also going to try to look at this proposed research through the lens of someone who understands the Capability Approach. Michael asked us to think of how we would apply all of the things we have read to a research project-this is my first [hopefully not too weak] attempt. Bear with me, I have a feeling it's going to be long and cumbersome. I am trying to combine focus groups and the capability approach. Wish me luck...
The Capability Approach emphasizes 1) functional capabilities/substantive freedoms, 2) human beings have the capacity to function in important ways if they wish, and 3) human beings can be deprived in many ways-ignorance, lack of financial resources, etc (I really like 2 & 3). In addition, Nussbaum adds to this approach giving ten capabilities that should be supported by all democracies.
- Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
- Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
- Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
- Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason—and to do these things in a "truly human" way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain.
- Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having one's emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
- Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one's life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.)
- Affiliation.
- Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other humans, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.)
- Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin and species.
- Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
- Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
- Control over one's Environment.
- Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one's life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.
- Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.
Thanks, Wikipedia.What's this have to do with anything? I want to work with sick kids and their families. Help make their lives a little easier, keep their system from getting too far out of whack, enable them to maintain the 10 capabilities that are a given to all people in a democracy. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of research in this area of therapy, so I'm thinking of doing a focus group with the families of sick kids to find out what they feel they need to protect their capabilities. Focus groups generate information important to the advancement of programs, communities, and organizations. When you look at focus groups, they seem to match up pretty well with what we have talked about in class regarding the CA. For example:Focus groups (as compared to quantitive and popular survey methods] involve:1) Insight not Rules-it is the production of insight; you get not only the content but also emotions, ironies, contradictions and tensions. In other words, we get the meaning behind the facts.2) Social not Individual-we combine multiple individual perspectives to see how they fit together3) Flexibile not Standardized-using an interview guide [by a competent moderator] helps the group relax, open up, think deeply, and consider alternatives4) Words not Numbers-a frightening concept for a girl like me; themes/patterns/perspectives are utilized for analysis
I also love this from the Sen book:
"Unintended consequences dominate actual history-if the most important things that happen are not intended [and not brought about through purposive action], then reasoned attempts at what we are pursuing what we want may appear to be rather pointless."
While this immediately makes me think of love and the natural course it takes [though so many try to force it], I think it also applies to the benefit of focus groups. When the investigator takes a back seat and lets the participants guide the discussion, valuable pieces of information will inevitably come up to further guide the investigation.
So that was me thinking out loud on a blog for a few hours. Natasha has my brain headed in the dissertation direction. Feel free to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)