The Capability approach can be used as an interesting informational indicator that may tell us where and how to look at people’s life. Yet it does not compel us to focus on any specific aspect in life as the most important one, to measure its quality. Here, emerges again, the necessity of public reasoning for the ranking and weighting process of capabilities.
The capability approach, as presented in Sen’s work, does not offer any precise weighting nor commensurability criteria to decide on concrete capabilities. Sen rightly argues that the weighting of capabilities can reduce its informational perspective and multidimensional
[36]
features. Nevertheless, he suggests that we can conduct this “weighting” process within a specific societal context.22
The roadmap suggested by Sen to carry out this public discussion consisting of the selection of capabilities includes the case study of a defined group of people or specific society to find out what are their disadvantages and how may they affect their quality of life directly. Such disadvantages might be, for instance, lack of specific resources, or the violation of individual freedoms. Sen puts up a lot on the ‘diplomatic’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ language of the capability approach to bridge between different ideologies and interests. So it is most likely would not exclude certain social groups or miss certain aspects of life, as it is in the case of other theories. Sen emphasizes the importance of clarity when communicating and discussing our suggestions and thoughts about the type of society that we advocate for, which may result in public engagement. Public engagement can, then, be converted into public reasoning and public discussion, which opens the way for the selection and weighting process of different capabilities.
In other words, people will be engaged when they understand. And they will understand when politicians, academics, activists, journalists, and everyone really interested in social change and justice are clear enough about their ideas and proposals for a better society. Such clarity could be interpreted through their writings, podcasting, lectures, talks, speeches, and
22 However, this does not require that all Capability approach pioneers, share the same view. Martha Nussbaum, for example advocates the creation of a list of a central human capabilities that can be globally adapted. She actually presents her own list of such capabilities in her work: “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice,” introduced in the Feminist Economics Journal, Volume 9, Issue 2-3, 2003. Moreover, the capability approach literature is quite full of related debate over the selection and creation process of basic list of capabilities.
[37]
so on and so forth. Those efforts would probably raise awareness about many problematic issues, and only then public reasoning would lead to the most suitable list of constitutional
capabilities. In this light, Sen invites us to explore a new aspect of democracy that is measurement by discussion. This concept shows, as Sen suggests, certain proximity to John
Stuart Mill's conception of democracy as ‘government by discussion’.
Still, talking and discussing remain a difficult task for many, not to mention bringing on public engagement. Thus, many of already engaged people –of which I have mentioned some categories above-, will tend to the lazy option of accepting a preset of weights for the quality of life (David McRaney, 2012)23, such as national index, GDP, etc. For this particular reason,
I also count on the broadness and diplomacy of the capability approach to promoting my thesis further in the future.
Moreover, the decision-makers in this particular society -namely the State- can decide upon this ‘observation’ process. If it is going to be produced at certain stages in people’s lives, i.e., its citizens, or to broader its limits to include their whole lifetime phases, from childhood till elderliness. Consequently, if the former case occurs, then a set of ‘functionings’ should be generated, not capabilities (Ingrid Robeyns, 2003).24
23 Sen mentioned this in one of his interviews, but it was actually “scientifically approved”, that people are lazy by nature and tend to accept presets of life routines more than willing to accept any “radical” changes in their lives, simply they do not like to “reason”. Moreover, only smart humans can adjust and control this “lazy nature”; if that to result into their own benefit (well-being). See: “You are not so smart” by David McRaney, 2012
24 Functionings are actual human beings and doings; as being healthy, being happy while Capabilities are the alternative combinations of functionings a person is feasibly able to achieve. “Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities”. by Ingrid Robeyns, 2003
[38]
In Palestine, we face a very critical situation where people are subject to life loss at any moment regardless of age, place of residence, or any other applied criteria but being a Palestinian citizen25. Thus, there is a need for an aggregated set of ‘functionings’ for
Palestine, which is the primary orientation of this thesis.
Ultimately, it is a comparison process between advantages and disadvantages that people may have to learn more about their capabilities altogether and not only to focus on a certain ‘disadvantage,’ or status of ‘deprivation’ that they might suffer from. In the case of Palestine, we need to look at the whole picture to see the overall capabilities of Palestinians. Hence, Palestinians ought to be seen in all of their real ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ and not only as occupied (unfree) people. Although as mentioned earlier, this particular status merits grabbing a lot of interest and effort, this thesis argues that it should not be the only exclusive focus while examining the well-being of Palestinians, especially with a gender perspective. The view of the Capability approach, within its informational attributes, makes us recognize our duties in the society, and not only our unrealized rights.