I want to expand on the potential issues I see in Sen's theory of development as freedom. Sen claims that "a proper understanding of what economic needs are--their content and their force--requires discussion and exchange" (153). Furthermore, he claims that certain cultural norms and traditions should be addressed through some sort of cost-benefit analysis, where it is important that this "rational assessment of such choices is the ability of the people to participate in public discussions on the subject" (242). Over again, Sen emphasizes the importance of the freedom of the citizens, including the disadvantaged (economically, politically, socially..etc.), to speak out and contest their current ways of life.
Two points of issue:
1) Sen seems to overlook the systems and institutions in place that are intentionally perpetuated to silence the voices of the disadvantaged, the "unfree". Can the disadvantaged (i.e. women, the poor, children, the disabled, the religious minorities, the political minorities) feasibly have their voices "heard" even if political freedoms were granted to all? The freedoms required to have the disadvantaged voices' heard seem to hinge on political freedom. Yet, to have political freedom granted to the disadvantaged means that they are considered as intrinsically valuable in a society. In this sense, the lifting of certain social stigmas (erasing certain unfreedom as perpetuated through adverse social norms) is a precondition to political freedom, and, on the flip side, political freedom is needed to eliminate certain social constraints. I see this as a circular argument. Granted, Sen's response to my counterargument might be that both political freedom and freedom from social constraints are needed to "develop". Yet the interrelated and dependent connections between these freedoms seem troubling to me from a practical standpoint--how do you push for social freedom without the necessary political freedom and push for political freedom without necessary social freedom? Does one necessarily come before the other?
2) Moreover, Sen overlooks the system of all systems used to perpetuate inequality--that of colonialism and its permeating effects. Sen's approach places development in the hands of the citizens in a developing country--it is up to them to have the conversations necessary to eliminate certain unfreedoms and realize other freedoms (perhaps the developed countries can assist in these conversations). This sentiment strikes me as placing the burden of development on the citizens of a developing country, in particular the disadvantaged citizens of the developing country. He disregards the role of the West (the developed) in creating these unfreedoms (either directly or indirectly by setting up systems of oppression and corruption and political, economic, and social instability). If it is ultimately up to the developing to pursue development, despite the West being at fault for the predicaments of the developing. According to Sen, what is the proper role of the West to play in development? Perhaps Sen sees the West as playing a minor role in this process as he proposes discussion and exchange as means to realizing freedoms and erasing unfreedoms. Yet, if the West had something to do with the predicament of the developing, specifically the disadvantaged in these countries, one could argue that the developed should be held accountable for these actions and take steps towards remedying the adverse situations in developing countries.
Hey Isabel!
ReplyDeleteI want to comment on your first point!
1.) I think Sen would absolutely agree with your concern about "the systems and institutions in place that are intentionally perpetuated to silence the voices of the disadvantaged." In fact, I think this point hits at the central argument Sen is attempting to make. Certainly, you would agree, it would be ludicrous to think that to solve the position of "women, the poor, children, the disabled, the religious minorities, the political minorities," etc. it would be as easy as helicoptering in buckets of money to boost income. Sen, however, would argue that -- yes -- tackling "certain social stigmas" and ensuring "political freedom" are essential to eliminating the unfreedoms in the status quo towards real development. This is not circular logic nor a chicken and the egg problem, rather, this truly is a question of how do you achieve both? Yes, political freedoms boost social status and social status can bring political freedoms, but time is dynamic - this is not a logic puzzle where we are restricted by the fallacy of a single choice. I think, Sen would agree, that it would be silly to focus on just political freedoms or social status. In the same way, focusing on just income is silly as well. Campaigns, education, literacy, employment, etc. are all possible ways of boosting social status and simultaneously paving way for political rights. Recognizing this fact -- the interconnectedness of causes and effects -- is essential. Sen is not asking for social norms to evaporate, rather, he is asking us to understand confounding variables and wield them to create real and lasting change.
Isabella,
ReplyDeleteJacksón commented on your first point, and I’ll comment on your second point. To me, it seems like you are criticizing Sen because “his approach places development in the hands of the citizens in a developing country”, and you believe that the burden of development should not be placed on those who are already disadvantaged.
I do not think that Sen’s approach overburdens the people in developing countries, and I’ll try and explain why. Sen insists that “different sections of the society (and not just the socially privileged) should be able to be active in the decisions” that have to do with cultural development (242).
Going off of this quotation and the surrounding context in Development as Freedom, I think that Sen would say that rather than assisting the people in developing countries in actually having political/cultural development conversations, developed countries should assist in securing freedoms for people in developing countries so that the people can acquire the ability to engage in these conversations themselves. So, Sen would say that developed countries can and should assist the people of developing countries in realizing some freedoms and developing others. However, developed countries should only help secure those first-order freedoms such as literacy, basic education, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech that give people in developing countries the tools to have sophisticated political conversations, themselves. It’s worth noting that this situation perfectly exemplifies Sen’s point that freedom is both the means and the end of development.
Sen would only insist that the burden of development is on people in developing countries when those people are educated, knowledgeable, and capable of using their political freedoms to effect real change. In any case where these conditions do not obtain, I think that Sen would insist that the burden is on either the governments of developing countries or some external third party (such as a developed country) to provide those basic freedoms to the people.