Development as Freedom- Sen
Digging into Amartya Sen’s biography and some of the themes of his work, and learning how influencial this man was to the world theories of economic on many levels, I admit my intimidation with commenting on this piece. My two colleagues, Scott and Mike have done well to extract pertinent details and making them relevant to their own thoughts and experiences. I’m not sure if my incompetency or lull of having anything intelligent to say about this piece stems from my lack of understanding the economic worldview or once again the complexity of Ph D thinking. I felt I had more to say regarding Noddings. I understood the concept of caring as an intrinsic part of my worldview.
Grappling with Sen’s rational and logical explanations of freedoms as it relates to development boggles my mind, seems distant, and unapproachable. This weekend, my tired mind questions, ‘what’s the point of hashing this stuff to adnauseum? ‘. For an economics major this is a virtual gold mind of insightfulness into the human condition and development. My gut knows this reading wouldn’t have been included if the concepts presented here weren’t important to our overall understanding of leadership. Mustering my will into digging deeper into my own flagging intellectualism, I hope to find something that may make a relevant reflection.
I challenge the notion that development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom. (p.3)
In theory, removing unfreedoms would be beneficial to humanity as well as enhance development. I understand the need for Sen to pitch an alternative. History proves development marches on quite nicely without removing unfreedoms. We have a world filled with amazing types of development, so much that we are using up all of our resources and have nowhere to keep projecting current forms of economics, consumerism, and development. Our societies are rife with poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunity, social deprivation,(p.3) and the list continues. I get frustrated in this theoretical debate.
Sen is famous for, ‘mounting one of the few major challenges to the economic model that posited self-interest as the prime motivating factor of human activity.’ (Wikipedia). Sen’s altruistic pitch sounds laudable in the sense that he wants to lead economists and development theorists down an alternative primrose path of intellectual insight and theory, pointing to possibilities, truths, and what Scott likened to “rights”, failing to pin point the obvious to someone like me, whose world view bases freedoms on transformation. Self-interest will remain the prime motivating factor of human activity if societies do not reject the traditional world view of development as a byproduct of self-interest and instead adopt or envelope a new world view of personal transformation.
What is personal transformation? Hillman describes this in the acorn theory. Noddings alludes to the possibilities in describing the optimal roles of the carer and cared for. Without offering “how to” make this happen, Sen partially describes my interpretation of personal transformation when he declares, ‘development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy.’ (p.14) I would suggest development has to be more concerned with personal transformation. Sen’s continued descriptions of freedom, ‘making our lives richer, more unfettered, but also allows us to be fuller social persons, exercising our own volitions and interacting with-and influencing-the world in which we live.’ (p.15) describes the effects of personal transformation beautifully. How does one make the connection in academia, in economic theory, in development that true freedoms are only achievable, utilized, and incorporated to the extent one experiences personal transformation? Personal transformation is getting beyond self-interest as the prime motivating factor of human activity.
Sen states optimistically, ‘with adequate social opportunities, individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other’. (p.11) No doubt in theory, with lots of freedoms embedded into the fabric of societies, this ideal has a chance. Currently, where in the world, can we find a societal model where Sen’s theories provide freedoms on an equal basis? Where has development removed unfreedoms? Freedoms that Sen pitches for everyone, available to the elite, fail to fall equally among people. The elite somehow must give up their self interest or slice of the freedom pie, so that other portions of the population gain benefit in an equal sharing of those freedoms.
Some of Sen’s other concepts of freedom understood intellectually, for example, the empirical connection that links freedoms of different kinds with one another and how they strengthen one another isn’t rocket science. Of course free speech and elections result from political freedoms in a society that helps promote economic security. (p.11) These examples listed there seem so obvious. Most theorists fail to recognize or take into consideration, that in order for these freedoms to take hold equally among a society, individuals must get beyond their own self interests. In my experience, this turnaround in human behavior isn’t tied to having adequate social opportunities (p.11) but in providing adequate societal support for personal transformation that result in greater freedoms for everyone.
A funny parallel occurs as I make my case for personal transformation as freedoms as it relates to Sen’s ideas on development. As I read Sen’s concluding remarks in his pitch for including important concepts of freedom into the broad view of development, one could insert personal transformation in place of freedoms.
‘What would be damaging would be the neglect-often to be seen in the development of literature-of centrally relevant concerns because of a lack of interest in the freedoms (personal transformation) of the people involved.’ (p.34) Am I taking great liberties in my ideas? Yet isn’t that the opportunity reading reflections offer? Certainly, when the concepts and ideas seem daunting to summarize coherently in a few paragraphs, one may take liberties. Diana Turner
Login to the blog
Post a new entry
Subscribe in a reader
Comments
I think Diana does a very respectable job in reflecting on Sen's writings, despite the challenges for those of us who haven't had much exposure to economic theory and who aren't used to grappling with "the complexities of PhD thinking." Some of these course articles are so dense and specialized to a particular field, that I have sometimes found it difficult to access the intended "take away" message.
I did disagree with Diana's challenge to Sen's argument that "development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom". I don't believe that genuine and lasting development can really occur in an war zone, for example. How can agencies sustain development initiatives when they build infrastructure that is destroyed in ongoing battles?
Diana writes, "Self-interest will remain the prime motivating factor of human activity if societies do not reject the traditional world view of development as a byproduct of self-interest and instead adopt or envelop a new world view of personal transformation." I see this as a kind of a "chicken or the egg" proposition. Can you transform yourself when hindered by unfreedoms, or do unfreedoms have to be removed before you can achieve personal transformation? I personally don't think that one can fully achieve personal transformation if one is hindered by unfreedoms. Sen gives the powerful example of the man who was killed when he went looking for work in a hostile zone because his family had nothing to eat. There was no real choice in that scenario, no matter how enlightened he may have been personally.
There are many approaches to "development," of course. Here are examples of two different development missions, Oxfam America and USAID:
Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and injustice. Together with individuals and local groups in more than 120 countries, Oxfam saves lives, helps people overcome poverty, and fights for social justice.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.
Oxfam addresses the systemic causes of what keeps people in poverty and looks for solutions to assist the poorest of the poor around the world. The USAID does important work, but their agenda comes out of US foreign policy goals, which may or may not be in the best interest of the people that they are claiming to aid. In my opinion, there is self-interest at the heart of the work of USAID that impedes true development initiatives.
Posted by: Jackie | March 4, 2008 08:01 AM
At work, I receive daily motivational snippets, and this one came today. The messages are sent out by Leitschuh Leadership Consulting at www.career-future.com.
_____________________________________________
Freedom is the right to live as you wish.
If you wish to free yourself from enslavement,
you must choose freedom and the responsibility it entails.
There's a price for every freedom,
something to be given up for every liberty.
It's up to you to weigh the price you must pay
for each of your freedoms.
And everything you want has a price.
Freedom is the opportunity to make decisions.
It's the capacity to take a hand in your own development.
Freedom is the right to choose.
It's the right to create for yourself the alternatives of choice.
No one is free who is not master of himself.
You are free to do whatever you like.
You need only face the consequences of your actions.
____________________________________________
When I read it I had to think about the Sen text. I think that, in the context of industrial, economically fairly developed countries, this text gives a different way to think about freedom: freedom as an individual choice. In the context of war torn, very poor countries or very depressed economies, it may not make sense at all.
I wonder how Oxfam or USAID employees or volunteers would view this motivational quote?
What do you think?
Claudia
Posted by: Claudia Beermann | March 4, 2008 10:56 AM
Claudia,
this is why I am in this Master's program, searching for answers to questions like you posed about freedom as an individual choice. In the context
> of war torn, very poor countries or very depressed economies, it may not
> make sense at all. I wonder how Oxfam or USAID employees or volunteers
> would view this motivational quote?
What makes sense to me, yet not having answers on specific actions to make this happen, is the following thoughts; those of us who can identify and claim freedom as an individual choice and exercise those freedoms weighing the consequences, have a greater responsibility to make changes in the order of societal, environmental, and economic imbalances. Therefore, if what we do on a daily basis affects change of making a difference in those areas, what we take for granted, the right to choose then has a chance to become a part of the fabric of the common good for others as well.
For example, if I am willing to speak out against classism, and racism as a white privileged person, and create alternatives to that system compelling enough for participation on a broader scale, then with enough collective actions of others choosing those alternatives, we then together make room for others to have similar access to those freedoms of class and white privilege. What this mean specifically stumps me as I only am barely able to grasp the theory as someone relatively new to accepting that I have been an unconscious part of the fabric of that system I want to change.
In order for this to happen, individuals need a shift of perspective that enables clearer understanding of these issues through personal transformation, with the byproduct of altruism to motivate these changes on a personal level, radiating out to the broader community, and ultimately the world. (The concept of a butterfly's wing movement affecting a hurricane somewhere else.) Extremely hard to rationalize, isn't it on a realistic daily terms?
Yet what gives me hope and encouragement to continue exploring ways to affect the web of inter-connectivity in some metaphysical way, is the possibility that exercising my free will and personally sign up to daily "right", "sustainable", "good will" action, I then contribute to a collective effort doing the same, thus ultimately affecting change in the broader context of the common good.
As stated, I am in this class exploring these ideas, learning from what others think and believe, hoping that collectively, exchanging ideas, taking risks with one another on what we are thinking, we may discover new insights and possible courses of action to these issues brought up in class.
Posted by: Diana Turner | March 4, 2008 05:35 PM