Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Pearson and responsibility:

Electronic data

  • Pearson and Capabilities AJPH Revised

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Johnson, M., Brigg, M. and Graham, M. (2016), Pearson and Responsibility: (Mis-)Understanding the Capabilities Approach. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 62: 251–267. doi: 10.1111/ajph.12248 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajph.12248/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 496 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Pearson and responsibility: (mis-)understanding the capabilities approach

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>06/2016
<mark>Journal</mark>Australian Journal of Politics and History
Issue number2
Volume62
Number of pages17
Pages (from-to)251-267
Publication statusPublished
Early online date23/06/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Aboriginal Australian public intellectual Noel Pearson has gained prominence and influence for his brand of policy reform in Indigenous affairs by drawing upon the capabilities approach. This article challenges the coherence of Pearson's position, arguing that his unrelenting focus on personal responsibility leads him to conflate different elements within capabilities thinking. Pearson 1) mistakes social capabilities (to which people are entitled) for human potential to be unfolded, and 2) casts and prescribes personal responsibility as a type of latent capability. The latter a) inverts the capabilities approach wherein phenomena such as personal responsibility arise as an effect of the realization of latent capabilities rather than serving as latent capabilities themselves, and b) is at odds with the liberal basis of the capabilities approach that rejects imposing “good” ways of life on people. This is illustrated through reference to Pearson's advocacy of Direct Instruction teaching and engagement with the “real economy”. The paper recognizes Pearson's contribution to the policy debate and that the problems he highlights are real, but argues that the remedial approaches adopted are problematic, including in terms of Pearson's stated stance against assimilationist policy agendas.

Bibliographic note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Johnson, M., Brigg, M. and Graham, M. (2016), Pearson and Responsibility: (Mis-)Understanding the Capabilities Approach. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 62: 251–267. doi: 10.1111/ajph.12248 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajph.12248/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.