A Space for Dignity: The Vantage of Capability Approach.

Date01 October 2023
AuthorRajan, Soumya G.,Bino, Paul G.D.,Rajan, Soumya G.^Bino, Paul G.D.

Introduction

The case ecosystem was that of a Worker Cooperative Society which originated in Kerala and later spread across the country rendering a successful model in the service sector. The research largely looks at how this Worker Cooperative Society has built in itself a structure that drives 'dignity' and has at the same time placed itself in a strategic vantage in terms of its business performance. Without compromising the objective of the enterprise to earn desirable profits and stay insulated in times of distress, how has this Worker Cooperative ingrained dignity (beyond decent work) in their processes and functioning? The paper shares some thoughts in this direction using an interpreted framework of Capability Approach.

Understanding Literature

Social theorists across centuries have often given such core questions to humanity to ponder. Some of the search was to fundamentally make sense of the life as we lived and the institutions like society and family which made an indelible mark on the human actor. A set of such literature reading has been placed hereunder which speaks of what constitutes (justice-laden) society and social institutions pointing in the direction of freedom, self--order and capabilities.

Reflecting upon Adam Smith's ontological view that human nature is essentially ordered and so is society when allowed with sufficient freedom; he puts forth the premise that self--order may produce unity and concord. What Smith referred to as the 'invisible hand', that guides society towards stability and harmony simultaneously empowers each individual to pursue his and her own interests (positively). He famously lays the groundwork for his argument that self-love is the force that drives the market system in his 'An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Smith, 1784) where he says: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage".

He, recognizing the ill effects of such unfettered freedom to pursue one's self-interest which may work against the choices of other members of society, further searched for answers in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" (Smith, 1759). In his analysis the sine qua non for a successful liberal system of free people and markets is security for all participants: "Society ... cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another". Smith believed that the source of this refuge must be a system of justice that establishes and enforces principles of interpersonal behavior that ensure individuals' security. He also emphasized that such cohesiveness of a liberal order would be a result of self-organization or self-government which stems out of the ethical maturity of the actors.

Another theory that almost succeeds Smith and is often read in unison is that of John Rawls who was essentially dissatisfied with the traditional arguments in philosophy particularly the utilitarian arguments (greatest good for the greatest number) on what makes social institution just. Even the human intuit argument which believes that humans get to understand intuitively what is right or wrong by relying on his innate moral sense, failed to bring together the questions on the format of justice and equality. Inspired by David Hume's (circumstances of justice) and Immanuel Kant (fair choice situation) views, John Rawls famously united the themes of justice and equality in his 'A Theory of Justice' (Rawls, 1971). He believed that society ought to be structured in such a manner that the greatest possible liberty is ensured to members as long as the liberty of one member does not infringe on that of the other. This situation would then tend to promote mutually acceptable principles of justice and argues that inequality is acceptable only if it privileges those who are worst off. Amartya Sen critiques these arguments through his 'The Idea of Justice' (Sen, 2009) that ideas about a perfectly just world do not help address real inequality. He explains that Raul as he emphasizes that institutions grant justice in society, has failed to consider the effects of human behavior on the institutions' ability to maintain a just society.

Sen, on the other hand, argues that governments/ leadership should be rather evaluated against the concrete capabilities of their citizens/ constituent actors. He defines capability as "a person's ability to do valuable acts or reach valuable states of being; [it] represents the alternative combinations of things a person is able to do or be" (Sen, 1993). Capabilities are opportunities or "the freedoms [people] actually enjoy to choose the lives that they have reason to value" (Sen, 1992). Bringing back what Kant once explained that humans as an end in itself and not as means to an end, Sen believes that one must not only evaluate freedoms for people to be able to make decisions they value but also work to remove obstacles to those freedoms, that is, expand people's capabilities. Since the late 18th Century, questions on social justice have largely concentrated on the balance between freedom and equality. Sen (1980) apparently renders a solution to some of the core issues by posing question: "Equality of what?"

Looking from a strategic vantage, the capabilities approach framework can be one way in which a particular structure can be understood to imbibe its nuances. Now understanding 'dignity' which has a rather subtle underlying presence in all these arguments would enable the integration of the core concepts that form this paper. To be dignified or have dignity is first to be in control of oneself, competently and appropriately exercising one's powers. Then, dignity is about self-command and freedom leading to self-organization remembering Aristotle's claim that Freedom is obedience to self-formulated rules (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1925). He begins by saying that the highest good for humans, the highest aim of all human practical thinking, is eudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as well-being or happiness--where self-order leads to realizing freedom paving the way for well-being.

Karl Marx believed that work itself means dignity which was further expanded to include the necessity for interesting and meaningful work to ensure dignity at work (Agassi, 1986; Fox, 1994; Hodson, 1996, 2001; Hodson & Roscigno, 2004). Some scholastic inquiries briefly touch upon the theme of dignity as a recognition of self-esteem/worth (Maslow, 1965) followed by pleas for 'humanization of work' through writings of Freidman (1977); Gemmill (1977); Khan (1981); Rosow (1979); Ryan (1977); Schumacer (1979). Our definition of dignity at work encompasses both the structural prerequisites as well as the meaningful work stances posed above.

Kant (1964/1785) explains that in the realm of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalence, has dignity. Kant postulated dignity resides within the human being, rather than being determined by one's behaviors. Kant's thought that every human being should never be treated as a means, but always as an end in itself (Kerstein, 2014; McCrudden, 2014; Rosen, 2012). His perspective on dignity (or Wurdigkeit/Wurde) introduces an egalitarian view of dignity (Rosen, 2012), which means that every human being has an intrinsic worth which should not be violated.

The relational aspect of dignity is relevant according to Rosen (2012), with the notion that dignity obtains relevance through its focus on duties. He argues that it is through the implication of duty resulting from inherent dignity that directs human actions (Bayefsky, 2013). Kant believed that the most important duty that one had was to oneself leading to ways to behave and direct actions respectfully. This tends to reflect while exercising freedom and independence where the individual with dignity derives his privileges in line with his moral obligations. This, to a large extent, answers the concerns on free-riders who may be an after-effect of uncontained freedom.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT