Sen proposes five instrumental
freedoms: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities,
transparency guarantees and protective security. He finds the interconnection
between the five freedoms to be fundamental in establishing freedom as a
“principal means” of development (38). Sen mentions that these freedoms
harmoniously function together to expand a person’s capability. While he does
open up the possibility to add other freedoms, it appears to me that Sen
categorizes these instrumental freedoms in a way that is all or nothing. He presents
each freedom as an essential component in expressing a person’s capability so
without one of the five, a person’s capability is hindered. If one of these
instrumental freedoms is missing, for instance, a person does not have the opportunity
to engage in an economic market, the individual is unable to fully exert his
capability. Yet, it also seems that not having all of the instrumental freedoms would not prevent a person from exercising his or her overall capability. What would happen if these freedoms were not secure enough that a break
in linkage occurs?
Although a rupture
could happen with any of the freedoms, I would argue that transparency
guarantees defined as, “the freedom to deal with one another under guarantees
of disclosure and lucidity,” have the highest tendency for breaking the
interconnection (39). Our society, according to Sen, functions based on a
certain level of trust (39). Transparency guarantees work towards maintaining
this amount of trust by preserving a standard of openness. Even though
transparency guarantees aid in averting corruption, financial irresponsibility,
and underhand dealings, I am uncertain whether this freedom is a strong enough
deterrent. Although transparency guarantees set up an expectation to preserve
this level of trust, Sen provides no account of reinforcement to maintain this
expectation. While Sen admits that violations of trust occur, he lacks to take
substantial actions in addressing it. I find reinforcement as a necessary
component to ensure the protection of transparency guarantees. On the other
hand, let’s say we are content with the absence of transparency guarantees. The
Pentagon, for example, deliberately maintains its secrecy to enhance our
safety. Thus, the exclusion of transparency guarantees does not affect
capability. So I am concerned with a potential break in the interconnection. In
other words, is there a certain minimum of freedoms that constitute a person’s
capability?
Hi Tierra!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that transparency may be hard to enforce, it seems like an essential freedom to all of the other freedoms Sen addresses. The exclusion of transparency guarantees DOES affect capability.
1. Political freedom: We are actually obsessed with transparency in our political processes. We want our politicians to be trustworthy.
2. Economic freedom: Wall Street. Lying on housing ratings. Lots of lying. Market failure. (My preliminary knowledge from The Big Short)
3. Social opportunities: We trust that our doctors are giving us the best care possible and not ripping us off in the process--or not, in the case of doctors in Dubai, as noted by Kaamil.
4. Protective security: This seems the most "basic presumption of trust" (39)-- if something really bad happens to you, like "a great deprivation as a result of material changes that adversely affect [your] life" (40), you trust that other people will help protect you from "abject misery, and in some cases even starvation and death" (40).
So I would argue that there is no break in the interconnection--the Pentagon example is an acute example of limited transparency to better serve the people's best interests. Just because there are certain institutions which structurally require a lack of transparency doesn't mean that we don't altogether value and require transparency within our political processes.
And in terms of enforcement, I think Sen would say that humans enforce this sense of trust on an inherent level--we think lying is bad. We think skirting the truth is bad. But then again, remember the ending of The Big Short: "And then, after the stock market completely crashed, all the bad guys that did all the lying and cheating got locked up and sentenced to life in prison....JUST KIDDING. It's about to happen all over again" (more or less the last bit). So maybe we do need a more formal process to institute transparency--precisely because it is so interconnected with the other four instrumental freedoms.
Hi Tierra,
ReplyDeleteI think your final question about certain minimal levels of freedoms is an interesting one, especially if we assume that it may not be possible to have all five freedoms at the same time in some circumstances. As you suggest in your Pentagon example, there is a trade off between freedom (especially full-range political freedoms) and protective security. For Sen, this ultimately turns into an issue of evaluation in which citizens determine the relative weights of his five (or more, if there are more) freedoms. Through an expression of political freedom, such as processes cultivating open discussion and debate and ultimately resulting in a vote, Sen supposes that states will create policies prioritizing specific freedoms over others in specific circumstances. So, it seems that Sen would be in favor of the Pentagon performing extra security measures, enhancing protective security, at the expense of limiting other freedoms IF this evaluation of the relative weight of various freedoms is preferred by our society given the circumstances. The opposite would be true if we valued other freedoms over protective security in these circumstances. (It should be noted, however, that the political process of ranking freedoms is only legitimate in Sen's view if each person's political participation is based on freedom of choice. This presupposes that all people in society are given elementary capabilities and that their political choices actually reflect knowledge of substantial alternatives.) So, to answer your question, Tierra, Sen would not say that there is "a certain minimum of freedoms that constitute a person's capability" as they are all important. But there is a way to weigh them depending on specific circumstances, and this process is dependent on the political capabilities of people making choices within their state.