Tradition and Agency in Sen's Framework

 This reading was pretty interesting! I liked the themes Sen explored in his book. For my blog post, I’m going to attempt to synthesize some smaller concepts from our assigned readings so far, focusing especially on tradition and agency.

Part 1: At the end of Chapter 1, Sen explores the nature of participation and its influence on tradition. In defining how tradition should be handled legitimately and who should have the authority in doing so, Sen asserts that tradition is but a means to enhance human freedoms (31–32). For Sen, the legitimacy of any tradition depends on its survival through participatory resolution rather than preservation by “guardians” or arbiters (dictators, religious authorities, etc.) (31–32). As he puts it, “conflict between the preservation of tradition and the advantages of modernity calls for a participatory resolution” (32). Sen’s argument implies that traditions must always be open to being dismantled, especially if they are found to conflict with human development and freedom.

MacIntyre, on the other hand, offers a very different perspective in his After Virtue, where he argues that traditions form the very backbone of ethical life. To him, traditions are not mere cultural relics but rather are “historically extended, socially embodied arguments” (222) that provide communities with shared narratives and virtues. While Sen may see discarding tradition as a necessary vehicle for expanding development and freedom, MacIntyre warns that doing so with these traditions may erode the communal bonds and the shared ethical principles that underpin communal life. That, to me, raises an interesting point of tension: does liberation from tradition represent a triumph of agency (and development and freedom), or does it lead to a fragmentation of the narratives that anchor our identity and virtue?

As a side note, I feel as though Sen’s optimism around participatory resolution falters when confronted with entrenched power structures. Firstly, how can marginalized groups (for ex. women in patriarchal societies) engage in reasoned scrutiny of traditions that actively and systematically silence them? Secondly, where are the tools that we could use in order to dismantle power imbalances that inherently distort deliberation?

In essence, my question is this: what role can/should tradition play in the development-driven society posited by Sen?

Part 2: Sen defines an agent as someone who “actively brings about change, with their achievements measured against their own values and objectives” (19). Here, I find striking similarities between Sen and Shelby on the idea that genuine agency cannot be understood when examined apart from the structural conditions that either enable or constrain individual action. Sen’s depiction of Kader Mia, the Muslim laborer whose tragic death he attributes not to personal failure but to “unfreedom” imposed by systemic injustice (8)—reminds us that individual agency is deeply affected by external forces. 

To me, this is exactly what Shelby highlights when insisting that blaming individuals in marginalized communities for their plight or holding them accountable to civic obligations overlooks the profound impact of systemic barriers like racism and economic deprivation. Additionally, I think that both stress the notion that fostering true agency requires enhancing individual capabilities, especially when considering how education plays a critical role in equipping individuals with the tools necessary for meaningful participation (egalitarian pluralism for Shelby). Sen argues that education provides the essential knowledge and skills for informed democratic engagement, a point he makes through his comparative analysis of social preparedness in India and China (42–43). 

Their shared perspective suggests that without addressing these foundational disparities, whether through educational empowerment or dismantling entrenched inequities, agency remains more an ideal than a practically realizable reality. I think both Sen and Shelby advocate for a model of agency that recognizes the interplay between individual effort and the broader structural context, especially in that they agree meaningful (and constructive) change requires both the enhancement of personal capabilities and the reform of systems that limit opportunities.