A capability list must be specified contextually, not fixed in advance

Evidence

Sen argues that we can agree on the usability of the capability approach without specifying any singular agreement on the particular capabilities. The approach, he argues (2005: 157) ‘allows considerable variations in application’. In contrast to Nussbaum, Sen’s ‘reluctance to join the search for such a canonical list arises partly from [the] difficulty in seeing how the exact lists and weights would be chosen without appropriate specification of the context of their use’ (Sen 2005: 157), which obviously could vary in different situations. In the above example, the capabilities of the native tribes would differ from local skiers, and the capabilities important in this specific case would be different from those listed for other issues, in other places or times. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 592

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes Sen’s flexible, context-dependent capability approach from Nussbaum’s canonical list — the operative distinction the reader needs.
• XREF: Contrasts with earlier chapter on fixed capability lists becoming paternalistic (ch30) — same tension within the book. — connects to: Fixed capability lists chosen without public reasoning become paternalistic. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 144; Symbolic forms are context-specific and cannot anchor a definition — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 906
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Symbolic forms are context-specific and cannot anchor a definition #corroborates (0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 906