this tradition is our mission
At the tail-end of Chapter 1: The Perspective of Freedom, Sen discusses the conflict between development and traditions. That, in the commercially globalized world, modern economic systems render traditional ways of life either economically unviable or socially unappealing. On one end, traditionalists warn that rapid economic development "may lead to the elimination of traditions and cultural heritage." On the other, globalists retort that its "better to be rich and happy than impoverished and traditional." For Sen, the question at hand is who gets to decide, and how?
Sen places the classical agent at the center of resolving the development-tradition dilemma. He argues that the freedom and opportunity of people as agents to participate meaningfully in deciding their own path forward is paramount. If economic progress requires sacrificing tradition, it should be the community itself--not technocrats or cultural purists--who deliberate and decide accordingly. Thus, development, for Sen, expands the opportunity and freedom of individuals to determine their lives.
But, the erosion of tradition by development often happens indirectly, without community choice or deliberation. For instance, global conglomerates like Nike or Nestle. Their mass-produced goods outcompete local artisans, making traditional goods economically unfeasible. The community as agents are not fairly deciding development as the correct course of action, rather being forced by economic necessity to adopt industrial products or face increased financial burden. In this way, the decision of development or tradition reminds me of Sen's childhood anecdote.
Furthermore, social and cultural shifts can often be directly imposed by capitalist structures. Take, for instance, the Nestle baby formula scandal in 1977, wherein Nestle aggressively marketed infant formulas to underdeveloped and developing nations, shifting traditional communities away from breastfeeding and toward "development" in baby formula. You can look up the results of the scandal and how evil Nestle is. In this instance, tradition was not only unviable economically--it became forcibly outdated.
In short, these examples demonstrate a failure of development as freedom. Sen argues that true development expands freedoms, giving people autonomy to shape their lives and communities. Yet, when global markets invalidate traditional practices through economic necessity or intensive marketing campaigns, communities are not exercising freedom. Instead, they're responding to external pressures that diminish their autonomy. Their choices are constrained by necessity rather than emboldened by deliberation or preferences. Therefore, protecting traditions through a traditional authority might, paradoxically, enhance overall freedom by preserving choices that would otherwise vanish. Sen, rightly, warns of the dangers of advanced authority--such as oppressive regimes like the Taliban--but balancing external protections with community deliberation would, I think, better safeguard the freedom to rightly choose development or tradition. It would give tradition-oriented communities a fighting chance against a global economic structure designed to drive them toward development.
Finally, adressing a question that came up while writing this: why are traditions valuable in the first place? Certainly, as Sen discusses, not all traditions promote equal freedom (for example, traditions limiting women's rights). Despite this, I hold that traditions embody cultural capabilities extending beyond economic viability. Sen emphasizes capabilities as substantive freedoms, encompossing not just economic, but also social and cultural dimensions--elements essential to human dignity and identity. Traditions (pulling on MacIntyre) sustain these deeper capabilities: they provide meaning, identity, and community cohesion through virtue. Losing traditions isn't an economic loss, its a loss of the capability to maintain this core cultural identity. Globalists might argue that shifting to mass-produced goods is a valid choice or a preference (did you even read my blog post!?). If Sen's goal is expanding capabilities, then merely choosing economic options is insufficient. True capability involves authentic choice--the freedom to sustain ways of life that are tradition, independent of market pressures. Economic necessity, while it may appear as a choice, is a constraint on autonomy: if traditional practices vanish due to external economic coercion, the community's freedom to define itself vanishes with it.
Hey Gabe, this is a great post. I wanted to add some thoughts and questions.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate how Sen, to some extent, centers the community in deciding a path forward toward freedom as opposed to the globalist who seems to essentially see freedom chiefly as an end to more profit. My struggle with Sen comes from his promotion of the free market. I totally see his point on the economic capabilities of the free market, but as I see it today, liberal capitalism, because of its individualistic nature, facilitates a form of community break down that I would imagine to conflict with the way that communal deliberation is necessitated to carve a path forward toward developing freedoms. Unless Sen is in favor of a highly reformed capitalism (beyond the neo-liberal social safety net), its hard for me not to view this portion of his account as being flawed.
I like your framing of the tradition. One question on my mind since our tutorial has been: what do we have, if not tradition? It seems as though, without tradition, a community becomes extremely vulnerable to the thralls of the free market and being reduced to a mere economic statistic. I think your Nestle example is representative of that. But I imagine in that case those "under-developed" communities were already being influenced by the globalists which made them more susceptible the shifting of tradition.
I think the key here is respecting the self-determination of a community to dictate its "development." But I guess the question is at one point is helping an "underdevelopment" community crossing into the realm of influence or paternalism. Does providing material means, and education fall within the "ok" realm? What type of education (as I always advocate for) is appropriate?
Hey Squad,
ReplyDeleteSuper cool questions you guys are talking about. I wanted to add some super quick thoughts to some of Shriaz’s final questions - specifically about helping an “underdeveloped” community since this is also something I’ve been thinking a lot about.
In addition to the paternalism problem, I also think it can be difficult to help such countries achieve development when they lack the ‘big 5’ instrumental freedoms (political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparent guarantees, and protective security) especially since they are all, as Sen asserts, are interconnected. Take corruption, for example. It falls primarily under the lack of transparency guarantees, but its impact is much broader. In corrupt systems, political freedoms are often hollowed out—elections may be manipulated, dissent suppressed, and public trust eroded. Economic facilities become inaccessible to many as resources are redirected through patronage networks rather than distributed equitably. Social opportunities like education and healthcare are undermined when funds are siphoned off or mismanaged. In this sense, providing funds to the government or another entity to help address educational deficits, for example, would be undermined because of the lack of transparency guarantees—and thus corruption—which may redirect or misallocate those resources. As I write this, I’m thinking back to my own time spent in Uganda this summer, where I witnessed firsthand how normalized corruption is both at the micro and macro levels, and how deeply it impedes progress in social sectors like education and healthcare. While one method to address this could be to provide direct grassroots initiatives (i.e start an organization that focuses on education rather than providing the funds for education), I think this then crosses into the territory that Shiraz was concerned about re paternalism. That’s why I think any such initiative must be rooted in genuine partnership: built through direct collaboration with the communities they aim to serve, led by local voices, and accountable to those most impacted.
I guess my question here then is: how can we meaningfully support development in contexts where all or almost all of the instrumental freedoms are lacking without reinforcing paternalistic power dynamics or replicating the very systems of control we’re trying to dismantle? Is it even possible to actually do this?