Confronting Power through Policy: On the Creation and Spread of Liberating Knowledge

Abstract

The expansion of capability opportunities is an underlying objective of the capability approach. However, related goals such as righting basic social inequities or correcting ecological imbalances require changes in social institutions and practices. Such change in turn rests on the creation and spread of liberating knowledge and practices. In this light, I argue that prospective analyses (i.e. analyses intended to result in concrete proposals for actions to enhance the functioning of society) require methodologies that will clarify the nature of liberating knowledge and the obstacles to its development and diffusion. Methodologies appropriate to the evaluation of the state of being or the capability to function of individuals are not sufficient for this task. Rather, methodologies are required that have been crafted for the study of social behaviour, ones that recognize the situated nature of knowledge and that work with insights from different standpoints. Such methodologies will facilitate analysis of social power in different institutional contexts and will clarify the process of the creation and spread of new social understandings and practices.

Keywords:

• Power
• Liberating knowledge
• Standpoint
• Social choice
• Capability
• Methodologies
• Policy

Notes

1. While Robeyns (cited in Alkire, 2007, forthcoming, p. 8) argues for ethical individualism, she notes that there are strong arguments against ontological or methodological individualism in the study of social issues. It is worth noting that Sen's mathematical approach to evaluating the capability functioning of individuals falls within the framework of methodological individualism. One individual's well‐being depends on his or her opportunity set (of functioning choices), which is independent of that of others. There is not a simultaneous system of interdependent equations in which each person's well‐being is dependent upon that of others. The well‐being of a group is treated as an aggregation of the welfares of individuals in the group (see Hill, 2007).

2. And, according to micro‐economic theory, since rational employers treat labour as a commodity valued solely for productivity, they do not discriminate on the basis of gender; discrimination would mean a loss of profitability. Women's lower earnings are explained by their decisions to take time off for childcare and by similar reasons. A woman who does not make such disadvantageous decisions will fare as well as a comparable man in the job market, according to this view. (The fact that labour market data show lower wages, compared with men, for both never‐married and ever‐married women that cannot be explained statistically is an on‐going puzzle for micro‐economists, who continue to search for the characteristics of women that ‘must’ account for this wage gap.)

3. In general, those with greater power rationalize accepting the benefits of that power (e.g. one person cannot change the system). Researchers, then, in addition to backing up their position with information on the effects of alternative policies and programmes, could also suggest means of increasing support for greater equity: identifying potential coalitions, based on cross‐cutting interests, and providing information on means of effective communication and coalition building. Goals such as sustainability and efficiency must be considered simultaneously, and the coalition‐building, then, is broad.

4. Public discourse, by enabling groups and individuals to better identify, refine, and decide upon their true interests, can be a valuable part of this process. Institutionally, people are often not in a position to describe their capabilities, functionings, and choices, as Hamilton (1999) notes. Needs, such as the need for safer working conditions, often accumulate unaddressed if there are no channels to enable the articulation and recognition of those needs. An unequal distribution of power in the economic sphere brings a need for increased democratization of that sphere. A similar mismatch exists in other social spheres (see Hill, 2003, for further development of this point).

5. A pressing problem facing researchers is that of identifying the kind of information about policy alternatives that is most likely to result in effective policy actions. What kinds of knowledge motivate commitment to action in different social groups? What are the priorities of different groups? What biases can be expected? (How would the assessment of efficiency be changed if shadow prices for market and non‐market goods, based on a more equitable distribution of income, were used in analyses, for example?) When do persons favour the common good over personal gain, and what strategies can build on these motivations? If winning over minds to a particular policy course is, in fact, identical to the winning over of hearts, how does this affect the form in which knowledge and information is communicated? Can policy advice be expanded to include advice regarding improving communication, addressing the use of personal stories, dialogue and the role of education, art and the media?

6. Examples of such goals include access to abortion, gay and lesbian rights, and gender equity, as well as most hotly‐contested local political issues. There are institutional limitations on donors. Donors may find that channelling funds through the local elite strengthens their control; donor projects may reproduce flaws of institutions in donor countries in areas such as environmental degradation or occupational segregation. Donors' agenda may at times undermine local progressive networks.

7. Researchers do well to work from a common theoretical understanding of social power, with agreement regarding the ways in which shared understandings facilitate the exercise of power and maintain inequalities in different social spheres. Recent work on power in the social sciences, along with a basic understanding of feminist, Marxist/socialist, and postmodern critiques of Enlightenment epistemology and of methodological individualism, can provide such theoretical grounding.

8. A potential point of agreement is that a greater portion of the wealth of society should be directed towards the alleviation of poverty. This could be a policy focus. Among the alternatives that could be considered is that of a progressive ‘tax’ with the innovative provision that the individual taxed could choose which programmes his or her ‘tax’ would fund—with this provision, he or she could even create a programme totally under his or her control, as long as the programme met specified requirements.

9. In Japan, women are expected to use different words to those used by men in many cases, and other differences are expected as well—individual women, by daring to break this custom, would be working for social change.

10. For example, businessmen can be expected to view as equitable rules protecting property rights their ability to hire and fire and other basic institutions that set the rules of the game in the marketplace. On the other hand, workers whose concerns include income security and healthcare will have a greater interest in protecting their employment and in having a voice in company policies.

11. Deneulin (2007) develops the notion of “valuable structures of living together”. These are valuable structures that strengthen a society's “socio‐historic agency” and capability to advance well‐being. For example, educational and healthcare systems provide services that enhance the well‐being of recipients of those services. Other social structures perform similarly valuable functions. The media can improve flows of information, communication and the transparency of social agreements; unions can provide protection to leaders and whistleblowers who are working for goals such as job safety or elimination of sexual harassment at the workplace; and non‐profit organizations can finance persons working to protect the environment for current and future generations or for other causes. Since the expansion of individual economic and social freedoms enhances well‐being and also offers the means of further improvement, the empowerment of individuals through education, healthcare and other means is often seen as a key policy goal. Instrumental freedoms (i.e. freedoms that are both constitutive of well‐being and a means of expanding well‐being) are considered strategically important to human development. Individuals participating actively in public life, working in self‐help groups and cooperatives, articulating their concerns and working for improved public policies are not only exercising their rights as social beings, but are also improving the life of their community.

12. Studies show emotions are a part of rational behaviour, enabling a person to set priorities in what would otherwise be an over‐determined system. Successful functioning in the workplace and in everyday life requires the ability to make decisions, which neurologists have shown depends on emotion as a critical element in sorting through information (Damasio, 1994). As Frank (1988) has earlier noted, values and commitments reflect “passion within reason”. Unfortunately, the “irrationality” of emotion rather than its role in “rationality” remains the norm in the treatment in economic literature (see, for example, Cohen, 2005). While logical argument may well trigger the emotional response indicating that an argument has ‘hit home’ in an audience of academics, for other audiences personal stories illustrating the point being made may be required as well to have the same impact. Emotional rewards are a form of non‐monetary incentives, which may be key to addressing many of today's pressing problems. Non‐financial motivations for behaviour include concern for long‐term well‐being of family, friend and others; pride in quality of work done; and satisfaction from the positive impact of one's work on others and from respect and esteem of colleagues. These motivations can be encouraged through the promoting of shared social activities in our communities and workplaces.