In my paper, I argue that the underlying social ideals of the late modern labor market, namely flexibility and singularity, undermine human flourishing as conceptualized by Martha C. Nussbaum. It is on these grounds, that we should be critical of late modernity. For an account of late modernity, I rely on the sociological works of Ulrich Beck (1992), Zygmunt Bauman (2000; 2007a), and Andreas Reckwitz (Reckwitz & Pakis, 2020). My account of this socio-historical era focusses on the three main components that set it apart from the previous industrial modernity according to the aforementioned sociologists: the revolution in ICT, the creative economy, and the socio-cultural revolution within the new middle class. It becomes clear that these three components contribute to a more liquid, flexible, and singularized setting. On this basis, then, I will introduce the ethical theory of Martha C. Nussbaum: The Capabilities Approach. I will justify the methodological choice of using her theory, and not that the Capabilities approach of Amartya Sen. My focus on human flourishing will be defended against the accusation of being universalist or biased, and the suggestion that preference utilitarianism would be a better fit for my research objective. The main body of my paper is the ethical analysis and weighing of arguments for and against my thesis, that we ought to object to the social ideals promoted by the late modern labor market because they undermine human flourishing. I will give two main arguments in support of this thesis, each corresponding to one of Nussbaum's central Capabilities. The first one identifies a conflict between the requirements for our emotional Capability and the kind of self-sufficiency needed to achieve the social ideal of flexibility. I show, that flexibility has become a necessary coping strategy for the late modern individual, making the conflict a pressing one to solve. My second argument draws out a lack of respect and dignity granted to those who perform functional labor (mostly in the service sector) in late modernity, because the functional worker can not live up to the social ideal of singularity. The lack of respect for functional workers pushes them below the threshold required for human flourishing. Finally, I will consider the counterargument, that the late modern labor market provides better opportunities for creative expression and self-actualization. Is that not the epitome of human flourishing i.e. the actualization of one's potentialities? However, I refute this counterargument on multiple grounds: firstly, the goal is not human flourishing, but economic profit. Secondly, it promotes a kind of consumerism, that seems to conflict with emotional needs. Lastly, the workers who are enabled creative expression, are and will remain few.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-186758 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Gürtler, Paula |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för kultur och samhälle |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds