Moving from Frank’s work to Sen’s discourse, I latched onto
Sen’s discussion of relative position in society. Even in affluent countries, such as our own,
we find people starving and suffering. Moreover, income inequality between the
poor and the wealthy exacerbates social issues and diminishes capabilities to
succeed in society. Even if the poor in developed nations are absolutely better
off (in the sense that they earn higher incomes) than those in developing nations,
the poor in developed countries can be relatively worse off because of the way
their income compares to those around them.
Due to their relative income, they are afforded fewer opportunities in
their country than in developing countries, thus decreasing their quality of
life. As Sen explains, “a family in
contemporary America or Western Europe may find it hard to take part in the
life of the community without possessing some specific commodities (such as a
telephone, a television or an automobile) that are not necessary for community
in poorer societies” (74). Rather, it may not be the actually goods or income that matters in an analysis on income, but rather it is the “freedoms generated by
commodities” (74). Thus, even if I am
working at McDonald and making more quantitative income than someone in a developing country,
if I cannot afford the necessary car to bring me to and from work, the
necessary clothing to ensure that I can work at this establishment, or the
necessary technology to ensure that I know when my shifts are, I will not have
the freedom or capability to actually achieve success in society.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Relative Position
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Ellen,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I too am extremely interested in Sen's explanation of the importance of relative position of individuals within their own society. I just want to expand your "quality of life" framework to incorporate the meaning of relative position for an individual's capabilities within that society. The issue you highlight when you bring up Sen's note of the requirement of a telephone, television, or automobile in contemporary America or Western Europe ultimately serves to show an "individual's real opportunity to pursue her objectives" and the limitations that would ensue if that individual did not possess one of these three commodities(74). As you note, a person lacking in any one of these necessary commodities for US interaction would likely be comparatively less happy than their counterparts. But I want to stress that the primary issue for Sen is not that this person is less happy, but that this person lacks the "relevant personal characteristics that given the conversation of the primary goods into the person's ability to promote her ends" (74). In contemporary America, a car is necessary for "the concept of 'functionings'" and without it, a person lacks "the freedom to achieve" and make choices (75). A person who does not have a car may use public transit or be forced to walk through dangerous neighborhoods not because she chooses to but because she has no other option. Thus, to draw out your point a bit further, the problem of relative position translates into a problem of capabilities and is a significant part of what it means to make a legitimate (or illegitimate) choice.
Hi Ellen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post! This, along with the reading, made me think back to a study we discussed in my FHS freshman year. It came from Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and it found that, to a certain extent, money does buy happiness up to a certain point. The study () found that $75,000 would make you happier than if you had less than that much money, but any more than that doesn't buy you much. The more interesting part of the study focused on the fact that money didn't affect ones daily moods, but it did make one's general life happier. In particular, having less than $75,000 did inherently make people feel sad, but it did "make people feel more ground down by the problems they already had." When I think about $75,000, though, that can go very different lengths depending on where you live. It can get you a lot farther in the midwest than it will in New York or San Francisco, and imagine even farther in parts of the world where people live on a dollar a day, imply $365 for the year. I wonder if they were to do a study to try and see how much money was needed to buy happiness on a global standard what the results would be. Buying happiness I imagine would combine many of the freedoms Sen discusses.
Hey Bria and Ellen,
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this same section it struck me that this argument about relative position might need to be more nuanced. It cannot simply be enough to note that expectations in the developed world are more demanding than those in the developing world; we have to also account for what one actually needs.
For example, in the case of a car, I think Sen has a good point. You're right to note that not having a car (in some places) constitutes a serious risk and would exclude you from equal engagement in life.
That being said, I don't think that this same argument applies equally to luxury goods such as a television. Culturally, a television might be part of what people expect everyone to own, but I don't think we can make any provisions for people who can't afford televisions.
This isn't to say that that we shouldn't adjust our expectations and allow our understanding of welfare to account for relative position, rather it seems to me that it is important to remain conservative in what we allow to be considered as necessary. For example, my relatives in the Netherlands think the sky has fallen down when the supermarket only has 5 kinds of wholegrain bread available, or when they can only go on one international vacation per year instead of more. These 'indignities' feel serious to them, but they're obviously not.