so 22 Theme ofaducton the economic development of East ad Southene ‘nat cel ded tn Wer Bank (99 32, See Hinchmon (977 1983) Brian and Hani 9): rin (ye tamer (990), Appdura (090 owes (on8: Cone (ph 03, Le (998 UNESCO (198 200); Acepe (2B (201) and Troy (0) ae ‘atl aseareas of mankeoricel cele, sping im diferent deseo 24 On ace ina he coma of fdan Heme Sen (999, carte 3 ‘The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition The Argument “Ti way ceeks to provide a new approach othe question: why does ce matter? Let lengthen the question and ask why i maces fot Arvelopment and forthe reduction of poverty. This both narrows and ‘ton of calure to economy, Hur tof = new foundation on which Policy makes can base amwer to two Bade questions why seule a Capacity (orth building and arenghening, ad what ate the concrete ‘ys im which ec be songthened? Getting Past Definitions We do not need one more omits definition of cl than we nee! one of the marke. In Both ete, the texthoo the changes over the lng centiry in which antropogy and economics Juve ken formal shape as aeaemie spines And pot only have the Asfinon mongers had ample ay, thre has ben re refinement amd aca demic progres on both sides. Toda’ definitions ar both more mot, and mere elpl Oder ate Better euipped 1 ell he story of what werealy ought to mcan when we weak of markets. Here L addres the cul tural side ofthe equation. General definitions of culate righly cover aoc of ground, ranging fiom general ideas about human creativity and value, io mates of cok lective idemiy and social organisation, matters of culate grty and propery and matters of heritage, monument, and exprssions. The fate ition behind this capucious net chat habe galis a epee ‘edge: In eis chapter, | dono deny Broa arate imlitiong freedom, and expresso Buel Fens 08 ‘orientation tthe for poverty and custom, heritage, ‘On the oxher hand developments ass em frctermeof the rore—plas, hopes, gol, ages. This oppoxiion is an trtfct of our definitions and hs been crippling. On the anthropological Side, in spite of many mporant technical moves the understanding of culture, dhe fours resins 9 sanger to most anthropological models of ‘uinue, By defaue, and abo for independent exons, economics bevome the seience ofthe fare. and when human beings are een 2s ‘ng inure, the keywords sch a want, needs expectations, ella have Become hardwired neo ultra actor sa perso of and from the past and the economic ator ‘person ofthe foture. Ths, fom the sar, cultae is opposed to deve re a acreirce: treat a worry ora dag onthe forwand momenta of pnd econ change. Ten csstomary for antropoleyne to pro the Bsme for the sate of affairs on economists and theie unwilling to broaden their views of pic acon and motivation and to take culture into account. Ard jis anlly mel, in is growing preoccupation with models 1h aburaction and parsimony chat they ean hardly take most real ‘cconomics on board, mach les the mater of eulure, which simply ses the biggest tenant in the black box of ageegste rationality But nthropologis need to do better by ther own cove concept. And this is where the question of the fitu comin, In fat, mow approaches to culture do not ignore the fare: Bute smuggle i in inecl when they speak of norms, belief, and values. ( The Casi Api 64 bpeing central to cukures,conecived as specifi and multiple designs for orang the implications of norms fs ati 30 1 definitions tend to allow dhe sense of eau a esto dominate Even che mont interning recent stems, notably Esodites-with dhe name of Picrre Bourdieu (1977). 10 being practic, Srrtegy. calculation, and a stong agonistic dimension to cultural action hve been atticked for being too structural (hati, too formal and sarc) on the one hand, and too economistic on the other (Hourdien ‘jr7) Aud what #8 sometimes called practice” thery in anebropology doesnot deel tke up the mater of how collective horizons are shaped. tnd of how chey constitute the bass for collective aspirations which may be regarded a5 cura “There have besn ow key development inthe anthropological debate cover cultre that ae vial building block for the cena concern of this ty. The fits dhe insight, ancubated in strctrallngustics a ety Shussre, tht curl coherence isnot a mate of individual ems bu oF | their relationships andthe related insight tha these relations are system tiie and generative: Fven chose andhropoogiss who are deeply unsympa= thetic to Lévi-Strms and anyhing that smacks of ingusstc analogy in the Srudy of culture, ow assume thatthe element of a cultural system make {eose only in velation to one another, and tha there syitematic relations Sr somchow slr to ehowe which make Languages miraculously ovdetly tint prokctve. The second important development in clea Uaeory i the idea that disensus of toms sores part and pace of caltre aod that a ‘shred cute eno more guarantee of complet consensus than a shared platforn in the democratic convention, Eater ia the history ofthe disc pling, this incomplete sharing ws stud asthe central sue in suds of dren and of wecklzaon in anthropology, of "encalksraton”) and was Ines on the obvious face everywhere that chldren become cltre bea crsthrough specific forms of education and diipline This isi became ‘depened and extended through work on gender, pois, and resistance Jn the bat three decades, notbly dough the work of scholars sach a, Jobs and Jean Comarfl James Scot, Shey Ortner and bos of ethers. ‘ove so numerous as to be invisible (Comaroff and Comat 1991: Scott {s9o; Orser 1999) The thi important development in anthropological bndrstndings of clare isthe recogeition thatthe boundaries of cule tural systems ac leak. and tha trafic and osmosis ate the norm, noe che exception. This stand of thought now underites the work of ome of the key theorist ofthe cultural dinensions of globalization (Beck 2000; Hhimncrz 1992, 1996: Mbembe 2004; Sasien 1998, 1995). who foreground mixture, heterogeneity, diver heterogeneity and play ak cecal fae‘ss fcuk inthe ef ablaton Tei work reminds that tale pastor pec conceal nd um sale cx the iapon oto Cara Ben ee toaome dee. Ofcoune exh ofthe devdopmentsnachroplog is companied by ao affcmots debs oogaog igo mat be tee ity veiw sade dcp) St serous comemporay under Sonding of cle ca ignore thee the Key dnenson ony (between nora alc Bele te} destin some amework of Contents (speci in ed othe magn po eee aos ‘power connor enaland weak bam gray ‘le in proces of migradom sad and ware now wr hg in bs alizing cultural traffic) Teed “This chapter om and cura to dh 3s importa development They at ofc rlvanes to the covey of the ue m4 era capaci a making thi cone wil ao ned to eel sono tho ‘ier debe within mtnoply Buty mats concern here ‘vith the pesto of thee mons for caret Seats about devdop. Sal poy re Bringing the Future Back fn ‘The corto eo gg and oregound th pe fhe ie ‘now undsnatap fear sans tee brunseipaiee me poly hr vee he ee wh Ales rh efi ca fd tha ery of Gls ad clos etmpng fom ped ey ed ier pap to elie etm ta ome igh stn i pt on nl se wh te importa ca of dest Uh come fom cue wehopogy a ses from within it. apicreh pri uni poly he ino rengthen he de oF apna scr epuian Bl on Chaser pa edn aero cop? ny conan te ces one ie Tet on af macula hr gph tee wt Toles edt thee tach hing splot fle te tam eed option extnd wt of man coprnee’ pee the shred words Seely Sin om er own Ths ss Inporant move which ge the ero wetace soe ala et aes ner undtandig an olan an opsoeand Agu he indepen a 6 iy ow clan wars ‘pet om inl of rdclnwon The eng a ae ee The Capaity te Aap 65 have noted is how to bring the poiics of dignicy and the plies of poverty ito a single famework, Put nother vay.te ue fs whether cle Fil recopution ean be extended so as to eniance redistribution (= ‘Specially Frater and Honneth 2003; Foscr 200), Tako take imspration from Albert Hirschman’ now elasic work (Girclman 1970) on the relations berwcen different forms of elective {Sennication and satisfaction which enabled us to se the general appli tabi ofthe ideas of "loyalty? "exit and/oiee” rms that Hirschman ted to cover a wide range of posable rations dat human beings ave to ‘cline im firm, organizations and sates. In Hirschman terms I would “gest that we have cede! to see cultural afliatons almost entiely in enas oflyaty (oa tachment) but hase pad lite attention to ext and tice Noice is critical mater for my purposes since it engages the ques ‘on of disensus, Even mocedhan ce idea of exits vital to any engage Tene with the poor (and thus with poverty, singe one of their gravest {uch isthe lack of resources with which to give "woe" that yo express their views and get results skewed to their own welfare in the political tdbater ene surround wea and welfare mall societies, Sova way t pot fay central question in Hirschman’ terms would be: how can we tengthen the capability ofthe poor to lave and eo exlivate "voice!" snce {hits nota desabe oti fr the worlds poor an loyalty s len no Tonger generally clearcut? iy approach alo responds to Amarya Sen, eho has place usall in his dee tinugh a series of efforts to argue for the place of values in s¢o= omic analysand ithe polities of weltire and well-being Through his fariee work on woul valves snd development (Sen 1984) t0 his mone ecene work on social welfare (ote characterized asthe “capabiliis” Spproach) (Sen 19852) and on freedom (Sen 1999). Sen has made major Ghd overlapping arguments for placing matters of freedom, digty and moral well-being a the crt of welfare and is economics. Thin approach tus many implications and applications, but for my purposes it highlights the need fora parallel internal opening op im how to understand culture, fo tha Sen's radical expansion ofthe dca of welfare can find es srongest ‘Clr counterpoint In this chapter Tm pally concerned to bring api~ tation in ab. strong fatare of cual capacity. ata step in reatinga more fobust dialogue between “capacity” and “capabiiy the later in Sen's ferms In mote genera terms, Sent Work 2 major inviaion to anno tology to widen is conceptions of how human beings engage their ow Fieures. "Within anthropology, in ation to the basic developments [adresed lea { gad ths chapter at being in a dialogue with fro Key scholars,