Gelenekselin Ötesi -Sen’in Yapabilirlik Yaklaşımının Sosyolojik Bir Eleştirisi-

Yıl 2018, Sayı: 58, 229 - 245, 07.12.2018

M. Onur Arun

Öz

İlk olarak Amartya Sen tarafından geliştirilen yapabilirlik yaklaşımı kalkınma, refah, yoksulluk, sosyal seçim kuramı, eşitsizlik ve adalet ile ilgilenmeyi amaç edinmiş bilim insanları ve siyasa yapıcılar tarafından sıklıkla başvurulan yeni bir değerlendirme çerçevesidir. Söz konusu yaklaşım, bireylere ve onları çevreleyen çok çeşitli sosyal/kurumsal farklılıklara ilişkin sosyolojik bir bakış açısını kullanarak, faydacı, liberteryen ve Rawlsçu sosyal adalet teorileri gibi kimi ana akım siyasal adalet yaklaşımlarını eleştirmektedir. Bu sebeple, ilgili literatürde sıklıkla “sosyolojik yönelim” olarak işaret edilmektedir. Bu çalışma, yapabilirlik yaklaşımının sosyal ve kurumsal çeşitliliklere işaret eden sosyolojik perspektifi daha çok rekabet halinde olduğu adalet teorilerini eleştirmek için kullandığını, fakat “bireylerin bir nedene dayalı olarak değer verdiklerini gerçekleştirebilmeleri” olarak ortaya koyduğu kendi özgün önerisinin analitik dokusunu oluşturmak için aynı sosyolojik bakış açısını kullanmadığını tartışarak, kendisine atfedilen bu özelliği tam anlamıyla hak etmediğini iddia etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yapabilirlik yaklaşımı, sosyal adalet, sosyoloji

Beyond the Conventional -A Sociological Criticism of Sen’s Capability Approach-

Öz

The capability approach initially developed by Amartya Sen is a new evaluative framework frequently used by scholars and policy makers who aim to deal with issues related to development, welfare, poverty, social choice theory, inequality and justice. Drawing upon a sociological account of various diversities related to individuals’ characteristics and their social/institutional surroundings, the approach criticizes some mainstream political theories of social justice such as the utilitarian, libertarian and Rawlsian models of social justice. Therefore, it is usually addressed as a “sociological turn” within the relevant literature. This work argues that this is not a fully-deserved characteristic since the approach employs a sociologically-informed perspective of various diversities primarily to criticize rival theories of justice, but not to configure the analytical texture of its own authentic proposal that advocates “individuals’ ability to achieve what they have reason to value” as the focal point of assessment of social justice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

The capability approach, social justice, sociology

Kaynakça

• Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–133.
• Alkire, S. (2008). Using the capability approach: Prospective and evaluative analyses. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 26–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Alkire, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). The human development and capability approach. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and capability approach (pp. 22–48). London, UK: Earthscan.
• Bentham, J. (2005). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1789)
• Campbell, T. (2010). Justice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dean, H. (2009). Critiquing capabilities: The distractions of a beguiling concept. Critical Social Policy, 29(2), 261–278.
• Deneulin, S. (2005). Promoting human freedoms under conditions of inequalities: A procedural framework. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 75–92.
• Deneulin, S., & McGregor, A. (2010). The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of well-being. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(4), 501–519.
• Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60.
• Fokuo, J. K. (2009). The lighter side of marriage: Skin-bleaching in post-colonial Ghana. African and Asian Studies, 8(1–2), 125–146.
• Hill, M. T. (2003). Development as empowerment. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 117–135.
• Hume, D. (1998). An enquiry concerning the principle of morals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1751)
• Hunter, M. (2007). The persistent problem of colorism: Skin tone, status, and inequality. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 237–254.
• KONDA Araştırma. (2011). Kürt meselesinde algı ve beklentiler. İstanbul, Turkey: İletişim Yayınları.
• Locke, J. (1956). The second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published 1689)
• Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Marx, K. (1999). Critique of the Gotha Programme. in Jon Elster (Ed.), Karl Marx: A reader (pp. 291 –294). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1875)
• Miller, D. (1976). Social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Navarro, V. (2000). Development and quality of life: A critique of Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. International Journal of Health Services, 30(4), 661–674.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Osmani, S. R. (2010). Theory of justice for an imperfect world: Exploring Amartya Sen’s idea of justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 11(4), 599–607.
• Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. US: Columbia University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2003). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1971)
• Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351–376.
• Ryan, A. (1993). Introduction: Justice in general. In A. Ryan (Ed.), Justice (pp. 1–17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sandbrook, R. (2000). Globalization and the limits of neoliberal development doctrine. Third World Quarterly, 21(6), 1071–1080.
• Saracoglu, C. (2010). The changing image of the Kurds in Turkish cities: Middle-class perceptions of Kurdish migrants in Izmir. Patterns of Prejudice, 44(3), 239–260.
• Sayer, A. (2012). Capabilities, contributive injustice and unequal division of labour. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(4), 580–596.
• Sugden, R. (2006). What we desire, what we have reason to desire, whatever we might desire: Mill and Sen on the value of opportunity. Utilitas, 18(1), 33–51.
• Sen, A. (1979a). Utilitarianism and welfarism. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(9), 463–489.
• Sen, A. (1979b). Equality of what? The tanner lecture on human values. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf.
• Sen, A. (1983a). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1983b). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153–169.
• Sen, A. (1985a). The standard of living. Retrieved from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen86.pdf.
• Sen, A. (1985b). Well-being, agency and freedom. The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.
• Sen, A. (1985c). The moral standing of the market. Social Philosophy & Policy, 2(2), 1–19.
• Sen, A. (1987). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1988). Freedom of choice, concept and content. European Economic Review, 32, 269–294.
• Sen, A. (1990a). Justice: Means versus freedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121.
• Sen, A. (1990b). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities (pp. 123–149). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1993). Markets and freedoms: Achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in promoting individual freedoms. Oxford Economic Papers, 45(4), 519–541.
• Sen, A. (1997). On economic inequality. J. E. Foster & A. Sen (Eds.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (2004). Dialogue: Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.
• Sen, A. (2006a). Reason, freedom and well-being, Utilitas, 18(1), 80–96.
• Sen, A. (2006b). Conceptualizing and measuring poverty. In D. B. Grusky & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty and Inequality (pp. 30–46). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Sen, A. (2008). The idea of justice. Journal of Human Development, 9(3), 332–342.
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London, UK: Penguin Books.
• Tocqueville, A. (2004). Democracy in America. New York, NY: Literary Classics of the Unites States Inc. (Original work published 1840)