Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 1 - 24, 16.06.2022

M. Onur Arun

Öz

İyi hayatın unsurlarına kim karar vermeli? Uzun süredir gündemde olan bu soru çağdaş siyasal ve sosyal teorinin önde gelen iki ismi arasında gösterilen Amartya Sen ve Martha Nussbaum arasında henüz çözümlenememiş bir tartışmayı doğurmuştur. Bu tartışmada Nussbaum, uyarlanmış tercihler gibi adil olmayan sosyal koşulların birey seçimleri üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerine işaret ederek, normatif bir iyi hayat tanımına dayanan ve felsefi temelde oluşturulmuş bir değerli işlevler listesi önermektedir. Fakat bu çalışma, Nussbaum’un önerisinin ardında yatan gerekçenin birey tercihlerinin oluşumunun sosyolojik arka planını göz ardı etmesinden dolayı üç açıdan sorunlu olduğunu tartışmaktadır. Birincisi, adil olmayan sosyal koşullar, bireyleri sadece bir hayatı iyi yapan değerli işlevleri belirlemek konusunda değil ama aynı zamanda söz konusu işlevleri gerçekleştirmeyi tercih etmek konusunda da olumsuz etkileyebilir. Bu durum göz önüne alındığında, bir hayatı iyi yapan değerli işlevlerin belirlenmesinde birey tercihlerini yok sayarak, bu işlevlerin felsefi bir bakış açısıyla dışarıdan belirlenmesi adil olmayan sosyal koşulların birey tercihleri üzerindeki olumsuz etkisini ortadan kaldırmayacaktır. İkincisi, Nussbaum, oldukça sınırlı sayıdaki dezavantajlı kadın ile yaptığı görüşmelerin bulgularının bütün dezavantajlı bireyler için geçerli olabileceği şeklinde oldukça genelleyici bir tutum geliştirmektedir. Üçüncüsü, hem ilgili literatürde hâlihazırdaki görgül veriler hem de Türkiye’nin üç farklı sosyal bağlamında bu çalışma amacıyla toplanan veriler göstermektedir ki dezavantajlı bireyler, Nussbaum’un üstü kapalı olarak ima ettiği gibi, her zaman maddi koşullara ilişkin olarak çok yönlü düşünebilme/akıl yürütme yeteneğinden yoksun bireyler değiller; fakat verili yapısal eşitsizlikler dolayısıyla, tercihlerini içinde bulundukları koşullara uyarlama yeteneği geliştirmek zorunda olan bireyler olabilmekteler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yapabilirlikler yaklaşımı uyarlanmış tercihler yanlış bilinç yapısal eşitsizlikler dezavantaj

Kaynakça

  • Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Agarwal, B. (1997). ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-51.
  • Agarwal, B. (2008). Engaging with Sen on gender relations: Cooperative conflicts, false perceptions and relative capabilities. In Basu, K. & Kanbur, R. (Eds.), Arguments for a better world: Essays in honour of Amartya Sen (pp.157-178). Oxford University Press.
  • Arun, M. O. (2016a). A sociological application of Sen’s capability approach to (dis)advantages in Turkey (Unpublished doctoral thesis), The University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
  • Arun, M. O. (2016b). Yapabilirlikler yaklaşımı ve değerli yapabilirliklerin tanımlanması sorunsalı: Yanlış bilinç mi, yapısal eşitsizlikler mi?. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue (November, 2016), 9-24.
  • Arun, M. O. (2018). Beyond the conventional – A sociological criticism of Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 58, 229-245.
  • Arun, M. O. (2019). An unjustified leap of Nussbaum’s reasoning. In A. İşman & N. A. Çötok (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Contemporary Women’s Studies (pp.20-25). Istanbul/Turkey: Istanbul University Conference Centre.
  • Burchardt, T. (2009). Agency goals, adaptation and capability set. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 3-19.
  • Clark, D. A. (2009). Adaptation, poverty and well-being: Some issues and observation with special reference to the capability approach and development studies. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 21-42.
  • Comim, F. (2008). Measuring capabilities. In Comim, F., Qizilbash, M. & Alkire, S. (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures, and application (pp.157-200). Cambridge University Press.
  • Dreze, J. and Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Elster, J. (1982). Sour grapes: Utilitarianism and the genesis of wants. In Sen, A. & Williams, B. (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp.219-238). Cambridge University Press.
  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1988). Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution. In Annas, J. & Grimm, R. H. (Eds.), Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (pp.145-184). Clarendon Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1995). Human capabilities, female human beings. In Nussbaum, M. & Glover, J. (Eds.), Women, culture and development: A study of human capabilities (pp.66-104). Clarendon Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 33-59.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2007). Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA, London: Belknap Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2011a). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2011b). Capabilities, entitlements, rights: Supplementation and critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1), 23-37.
  • Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, common foes and shared values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 463-80.
  • Qizilbash, M. (2006). Well-Being, adaptation and human limitations. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 59, 83-109.
  • Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 61-92.
  • Robeyns, I. (2005a). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93-114.
  • Robeyns, I. (2005b). Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 74, 191-215.
  • Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351-376.
  • Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what?. Retrieved from the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative website: http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf, on 10.10.2020.
  • Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153-169.
  • Sen, A. (1985a). The standard of living. Retrieved from the University of Utah website: http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen86.pdf, on 14.10.2020.
  • Sen, A. (1985b). Well-Being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82 (4), 169-221.
  • Sen, A. (1985c). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
  • Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  • Sen, A. (1990a). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(2), 111-121.
  • Sen, A. (1990b). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Eds.), Persistent inequalities (pp.123-149). Oxford University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp.30-55). Clarendon Press.
  • Sen, A. (1999a). Development as freedom. Knopf.
  • Sen, A. (1999b). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3-17.
  • Sen, A. (2004). Dialogue: Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80.
  • Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166.
  • Sen, A. (2006). Reason, freedom and well-being. Utilitas, 18(1), 80-96.
  • Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
  • Teschl, M. and Comim, F. (2005). Adaptive preferences and capabilities: Some preliminary conceptual explorations. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 229-247.
  • Walby, S. (2012). Sen and the measurement of justice and capabilities: A problem in theory and practice. Theory, Culture, and Society, 29(1), 99-118.
  • Watts, M. (2009). Sen and the art of the motorcycle maintenance: Adaptive preferences and higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 425-436.
  • Zimmermann, B. (2006). Pragmatism and the capability approach. Challenges in social theory and empirical research. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(4), 467-484.

Three Flaws in One Justification A Critical Examination of Nussbaum’s Reasoning Behind Her List of Capabilities

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 1 - 24, 16.06.2022

M. Onur Arun

Öz

Who should decide what makes one’s life good? This is a long-standing question that has recently led to an unresolved discussion between two leading figures of the contemporary political and social theory, namely Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. In this discussion, addressing the adverse effects of unjust social conditions on people’s choices such as the problem of adaptive preferences, Nussbaum proposes a philosophically-informed list of aspects of the good life developed from a particular normative account. However, the reasoning behind her proposal, I argue, involves three flaws that appear due to absence of a sociologically-informed account of people’s choices. First, considering that unjust social conditions can adversely affect not only people’s choice on aspects of good life, but also their choices in achieving these aspects, developing a list from a philosophical account of the good life cannot be a solution against these adverse effects. Second, Nussbaum excessively generalises her findings based on data involving a quite limited number of disadvantaged women in a way that her findings are applicable to all disadvantaged people living in varied social settings. Third, both existing empirical evidences and the qualitative data I collected in three distinct settings of Turkey demonstrate that disadvantaged people are not necessarily those who, as Nussbaum implicitly addresses, are unable to develop sophisticated/reasoned judgements on their material conditions, but might be those who must have developed the ability of deliberately adapting their preferences to make a living within given structural inequalities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Capability approach adaptive preferences false-consciousness structural inequalities disadvantage

Kaynakça

  • Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford University Press.
  • Agarwal, B. (1997). ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-51.
  • Agarwal, B. (2008). Engaging with Sen on gender relations: Cooperative conflicts, false perceptions and relative capabilities. In Basu, K. & Kanbur, R. (Eds.), Arguments for a better world: Essays in honour of Amartya Sen (pp.157-178). Oxford University Press.
  • Arun, M. O. (2016a). A sociological application of Sen’s capability approach to (dis)advantages in Turkey (Unpublished doctoral thesis), The University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
  • Arun, M. O. (2016b). Yapabilirlikler yaklaşımı ve değerli yapabilirliklerin tanımlanması sorunsalı: Yanlış bilinç mi, yapısal eşitsizlikler mi?. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue (November, 2016), 9-24.
  • Arun, M. O. (2018). Beyond the conventional – A sociological criticism of Sen’s capability approach. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 58, 229-245.
  • Arun, M. O. (2019). An unjustified leap of Nussbaum’s reasoning. In A. İşman & N. A. Çötok (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Contemporary Women’s Studies (pp.20-25). Istanbul/Turkey: Istanbul University Conference Centre.
  • Burchardt, T. (2009). Agency goals, adaptation and capability set. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 3-19.
  • Clark, D. A. (2009). Adaptation, poverty and well-being: Some issues and observation with special reference to the capability approach and development studies. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 21-42.
  • Comim, F. (2008). Measuring capabilities. In Comim, F., Qizilbash, M. & Alkire, S. (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures, and application (pp.157-200). Cambridge University Press.
  • Dreze, J. and Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Elster, J. (1982). Sour grapes: Utilitarianism and the genesis of wants. In Sen, A. & Williams, B. (Eds.), Utilitarianism and beyond (pp.219-238). Cambridge University Press.
  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1988). Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution. In Annas, J. & Grimm, R. H. (Eds.), Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (pp.145-184). Clarendon Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (1995). Human capabilities, female human beings. In Nussbaum, M. & Glover, J. (Eds.), Women, culture and development: A study of human capabilities (pp.66-104). Clarendon Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 33-59.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2007). Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA, London: Belknap Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2011a). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Nussbaum, M. (2011b). Capabilities, entitlements, rights: Supplementation and critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(1), 23-37.
  • Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, common foes and shared values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 463-80.
  • Qizilbash, M. (2006). Well-Being, adaptation and human limitations. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 59, 83-109.
  • Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 61-92.
  • Robeyns, I. (2005a). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93-114.
  • Robeyns, I. (2005b). Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 74, 191-215.
  • Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351-376.
  • Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what?. Retrieved from the Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative website: http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf, on 10.10.2020.
  • Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153-169.
  • Sen, A. (1985a). The standard of living. Retrieved from the University of Utah website: http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen86.pdf, on 14.10.2020.
  • Sen, A. (1985b). Well-Being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82 (4), 169-221.
  • Sen, A. (1985c). Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland.
  • Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  • Sen, A. (1990a). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(2), 111-121.
  • Sen, A. (1990b). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Eds.), Persistent inequalities (pp.123-149). Oxford University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford University Press.
  • Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp.30-55). Clarendon Press.
  • Sen, A. (1999a). Development as freedom. Knopf.
  • Sen, A. (1999b). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3-17.
  • Sen, A. (2004). Dialogue: Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80.
  • Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151-166.
  • Sen, A. (2006). Reason, freedom and well-being. Utilitas, 18(1), 80-96.
  • Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
  • Teschl, M. and Comim, F. (2005). Adaptive preferences and capabilities: Some preliminary conceptual explorations. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 229-247.
  • Walby, S. (2012). Sen and the measurement of justice and capabilities: A problem in theory and practice. Theory, Culture, and Society, 29(1), 99-118.
  • Watts, M. (2009). Sen and the art of the motorcycle maintenance: Adaptive preferences and higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 425-436.
  • Zimmermann, B. (2006). Pragmatism and the capability approach. Challenges in social theory and empirical research. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(4), 467-484.
Toplam 46 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyoloji
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

M. Onur Arun 0000-0002-5402-2120

Yayımlanma Tarihi 16 Haziran 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Arun, M. O. (2022). Three Flaws in One Justification A Critical Examination of Nussbaum’s Reasoning Behind Her List of Capabilities. İnsan Ve Toplum, 12(2), 1-24.
 Kapak Resmi İndir