|
Subject J’s interview was identified as the most distinct and interesting interview. Unlike the other subjects, she
mentioned sexual freedom, reproductive rights, and choice as significant factors of women’s well being. She believed
she took for granted that, unlike women in many other countries of the world, she was not owned by her father. Her life has
clearly been shaped by very different familial experiences. Her experiences further deviated from the other respondents due
to her experiences with homelessness. During this time, she lacked adequate shelter and food. Obviously, these experiences
have made her opinions on many issues – including women’s well being – very unique. Her entire perspective
was different from the perspectives of the other women from the United States and other western countries.
Most respondents expressed the opinion that a woman’s well-being is largely dependent upon other persons in her life.
Subject C expressed that the attitude of her boyfriend greatly affected her physical well-being both positively and negatively,
while subjects E and F both touched upon the detrimental impact of abusive relationships. This seemed to indicate that women
voluntarily cede control of their well-being to other people in their lives by allowing those closest to them to dramatically
impact them physically as well as emotionally. It would seem that no matter how much apparent freedom a woman has, she is
still inextricably bound to others, and perceives their well-being as deeply interconnected with her own.
This concept was elaborated on by the interviewees’ general feeling that women function as the core of relationships,
providing support to those who depend on them. The women tended to recognize the importance of their role in relationships,
but were incapable of recognizing the importance of appropriate selfishness – i.e. when to worry about themselves. This
was most poignantly expressed by subject G who stated that her life revolves around her children. Although this interdependence
has the potential for both positive and negative impact, respondents from family-based cultures were more likely to view relationships
as contributing positively to their well-being. Subject D spoke of the importance of the family in Asian cultures where family
members act as a support system for each other. Subject I made a similar point in reference to Panamanian culture which also
emphasizes the importance of family.
The subjects from certain ethnic groups – for example Subjects D, E, F, and I – referred back to their cultures
and gave examples of how their cultural background has impacted them. Interestingly, the women commonly perceived as “western”
were not able to identify aspects of their cultures that affected them or did not fully elaborate on these aspects. However,
culture definitely impacted the results of the survey. The interviewees identified religion – generally understood
as an aspect of culture – as a factor which influenced them. Women are raised in a particular culture – and to
a certain extent, a particular place – and do not have much control over what they are taught during childhood. These
teachings have a major influence, not just in the way women live, but also in what they pursue and how they frame their experiences.
Martha Nussbaum identified ten central human functioning capabilities: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination,
and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment. The respondent’s
answers focused primarily on bodily health, affiliation, and control over one’s environment. Remarkably, although Nussbaum
considers practical reason to be one of the two most important capabilities, the respondents never mentioned this as a personally
significant aspect of well-being. However, answering the questionnaire is in itself an act of practical reasoning. It is
an engagement in critical reflection about life and well-being.
Almost every respondent mentioned bodily health at some point during their interview. Access to nutritional food and adequate
shelter was identified as an important factor of well-being, a factor which Nussbaum includes in bodily health. Some subjects
addressed physical fitness, which Nussbaum did not specifically address in her article, although it can be assumed that bodily
health encompasses this idea. Lack of bodily health was a huge factor in the women’s experiences of most negative well-being.
Obviously, bodily health is one of the capabilities women feel to be most important.
The interviewees also talked about the bodily health of their families as having an impact on their well-being. This experience
relates to two of Nussbaum’s capabilities: bodily health and affiliation. Women tended to define affiliation in terms
of relationships – friendly, romantic and familial. However, most women discussed affiliation in regards to their families.
Respondents also identified the loss - whether through death or distancing - of affiliation with family members as negatively
impacting well-being. It is interesting to note that one of the respondents mentioned affiliation as a negative influence
in a broader sense, relating to her adolescent experiences. Subject D claimed that adolescence was difficult to handle, especially
developing a sense of self-worth and finding a niche in society. The mention of society is crucial in this response. The
inference is that adolescence is so difficult because you are trying to determine your place in and value to society.
Another aspect of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach focused on in the interviews was control over one’s environment.
Nussbaum defined control over one’s environment as the possession of political participation, free speech and association,
and equality in the workplace. As defined by the respondents, control included freedom of choice, lack of persecution, and
lack of male domination. Education, free speech, and workplace gender equality were also identified as contributing to control
over one’s environment. The rights of women in the United States promote opportunities to advance status through public
education and readily available resources with which to advance personal knowledge. Some respondents pointed out that these
factors, defined generally as “freedom” in the United States, are often taken for granted.
When analyzing the interviews, Nussbaum’s central human functioning capabilities appear to be interconnected. For
example, all but two subjects mentioned physical well-being in specific, and those two subjects mentioned health in a general
way. The interviewees agreed that bodily health is an important component of well-being. What happens when the ability to
have bodily health is taken away? The other nine components are immediately in jeopardy. Life and bodily integrity are obviously
affected first, because one cannot expect to live a natural lifespan and be able to move freely from place to place without
the threat of violence if one’s bodily health capability is compromised.
According to the respondents, bodily health influences many other factors of well-being. Subjects provided specific examples
of how health negatively influenced well-being. Nussbaum defines play as laughter, play and participation in recreational
activities. However, one generally cannot do these things without a high level of bodily health. It is hard to laugh when
one is wracked with pain. Since women are obviously concerned about bodily health, a compromised bodily health likely indicates
a lack of control over this aspect of well-being, such as inadequate access to health care, nutrition or shelter. This illustrates
the capability identified by Nussbaum as control of one’s environment. If bodily health was under one’s control,
then bodily health might not be compromised.
Bodily health, according to the respondents, has a direct impact on the mental and emotional state of a person. Many interviewees
grouped the words “happy” and “healthy” together. They also grouped “physical,” “emotional,”
and “mental.” Emotions are tied to psychological health, which is listed under senses, imagination and thought
by Nussbaum as avoiding unnecessary pain. Relationships – romantic and family – influence one’s emotions.
When emotions are at a high negative level due to the absence of bodily health, one cannot mentally function correctly, nor
can one utilize the potential of practical reasoning. Affiliation through relationships suffers when either member experiences
a compromised state of bodily health. Furthermore, how can one be in control of their mental and emotional well-being when
other factors, such as one’s bodily health, are not under one’s control?
Although interaction with other species is only mentioned in one interview (Subject J), women do interact with plants and
animals. When a woman who shares her life with a pet is sick, her pet responds to her state of well-being. Furthermore,
the woman’s emotional and mental state can be affected by an animal’s illness in the same way as a child’s
illness. With or without acknowledgment of the importance of other species, bodily health impacts this capability as well.
The project has shown that the capabilities identified by Nussbaum in the capabilities approach are interconnected. They
are necessary components of women’s well being. If one capability, such as bodily health, is negatively affected, all
other capabilities will also be negatively affected. This conclusion supports and illustrates Nussbaum’s contention
that these capabilities enjoy complex relationships with each other. It also confirms Nussbaum’s belief that each capability
is distinctly important.
|
