3.6: Collective capabilities
Several scholars have proposed the introduction of a category of ‘collective capabilities’ or ‘community capabilities’ (Evans 2002; Ibrahim 2006, 2009, 2017; Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010; Murphy 2014). The idea of ‘collective capabilities’ is used in different ways in the literature, and not always spelled out very carefully. I will try to reconstruct what ‘collective capabilities’ could mean, and then discuss to what extent these are different from human capabilities tout court.
It is instructive, first, to see in which contexts different authors introduce the idea of ‘collective capability’. Here are a few typical examples from the literature. Solava Ibrahim (2006, 2009, 2017) argues for the importance of collective capabilities from the perspective of the work done by self-help groups of poor people fighting to overcome their poverty, which is an issue also discussed by Stewart (2005). 9 David Schlosberg and David Carruthers (2010) argue for the importance of the idea of collective capabilities to understand the struggles of indigenous peoples for ecological justice. And Michael Murphy (2014) argues that political self-determination (of an indigenous group) should be considered to be a collective capability which should be a central aim for development.
What is shared in those cases, and what makes the idea of ‘collective capability’ plausible, is that a group or collective is needed to engage in collective action in order to reach the capability that the members of that group find valuable.
Sen (2002b) points out that we should be careful not to confuse this with a capability that he calls “socially dependent individual capability” — a person’s capability, which that person enjoys, but for which the person is dependent on others to have that capability realised. Perhaps we should not use the term ‘individual capability’ but rather ‘personal capability’, since for many defenders of ‘collective capabilities’ the word ‘individual’ evokes pejorative images of persons living by themselves on an island. There are no such human creatures; we all live interdependently, and none of us could grow up without prolonged care from others, or, as adults, have a decent chance of surviving and living a minimally adequate life. Human beings are, just as other mammals, animals who live in groups. Although philosophers are used to working with terms outside their everyday use, and most philosophers (especially those with an analytical background) will not have these pejorative connotations when they hear the term ‘individual capabilities’, I will proceed with the term ‘personal capabilities’ in order to facilitate the discussion in this section.
Now, if we are very strict in our terminological distinctions, then collective capabilities are also personal capabilities, since it is individual persons who enjoy the capabilities that are thus secured. Still, there are two justifications to proceed with the term ‘collective capability’ — one fundamental one, and one additional one which is especially weighty from a practical point of view.
The fundamental reason to keep and use the term ‘collective capability’ is that we may want to make a distinction between capabilities that are only realisable with the help of others, versus capabilities that require a group or collective to act in order to secure a capability for the members of that group. An example of the former would be learning a foreign language. It is impossible to do that without the help of others; one needs a teacher, or at the very least books and audio-tapes or internet lessons that help one with self-study. Still, that doesn’t suffice to say that learning a language is a collective capability. There is no group involved, and no collective action of that group is necessary in order to achieve the functioning. A different case is acquiring the capability to vote in elections for groups that are not yet given suffrage. Fighting for that capability is not possible on one’s own. One needs collective action — e.g. the first wave women’s movement, or the civil rights movement in the US, or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa — to act collectively so that the group is granted the capability, and all persons who belong to that group can enjoy the newly won freedom.
The second reason to accept the notion of ‘collective capability’ is because it is already present in the practice of certain justice movements, whose demands fit very well with the capability approach, for example because they embody claims of diversity or because they fight for a notion of the good life or of justice that goes beyond a narrow materialist or economistic view of what is valuable. Examples include the disability movement, the women’s movement and indigenous struggles.
So the idea of a collective capability can be understood and can be justified. Nevertheless, two warnings are in order, which may be needed to avoid conceptual confusion as well as an overuse or inflation of the notion. The first comment is that all that has been said so far does not permit one to conclude that one has personal (individual) capabilities and collective capabilities as two mutually exclusive categories. Rather, collective capabilities are a subset of personal capabilities, namely those personal capabilities that require for their realisation action by a group or a collectivity. Secondly, we should be very careful to be clear to keep our concepts distinct and correct when developing a capability theory. The modular account of the capability approach has ample conceptual and theoretical space to account for collective processes, the social embedding of persons, the influence of social structures on our choices and opportunities, a proper acknowledgement of social processes of preference formation as well as the crucial role of social institutions and norms in shaping a person’s capability set. But if we want to account for a social process, we shouldn’t just jump to the claim that we have now found a collective capability. Rather, we should use the quite complex and multi-layered framework that was presented in figure 2.1, and be clear when something is a social structure that is shaping our capabilities, rather than a capability itself. Means to ends (capabilities) and the ‘capability determinants’ (the social structures, social norms, institutions, etc.) can all be part of our evaluation — we just need to keep in mind which parts of what we evaluate are the means, which are the ends and why we evaluate a certain dimension. In the case of the evaluation of the means, one important reason could be to see how those means have changed over time, as well as whether there is any scope to improve the contribution that those particular means can make to the increase of capability sets.
9 Self-help groups are “any informal income-generating or social activity initiated by a poor community to achieve permanent improvements in their individual and communal wellbeings” (Ibrahim 2006, 398–399).