In her essay, “Women, Work and the Capabilities Approach,” Martha Nussbaum states that “human beings have
a dignity that deserves respect from laws and social institutions” (1). Nussbaum believes that “the idea of equal
worth: rich and poor, rural and urban, female and male, all are equally deserving of respect, just by virtue of being human,
and this respect should not be abridged on account of a characteristic that is distributed by the whims of fortune”(1).
Nussbaum demonstrates how many factors such as culture, politics, and even social class prevent women from achieving success
and primary means of survival and well being throughout the world.
Nussbaum believes that cultural norms have “their own distinctive beauty” and that “the world risks becoming
impoverished as it becomes more homogeneous” (1). However, she also believes we need to determine which cultural practices
are worth preserving because they do not cause harm. Nussbaum claims that giving women basic economic and political rights
will not negatively impact their assigned traditional roles.
Nussbaum illustrates that traditional economic approaches are defective. The resource-based alternative uses Gross National
Product per capita as its main analytical tool. Nussbaum objects to this approach on the basis that it does not incorporate
the actual distribution of wealth, income, and available resources. Nussbaum claims that “if we operate only with an
index of resources, we will reinforce inequalities” (2). Nussbaum then critiques the preference-based approaches. Nussbaum
believes that preferences are often created by social patterns of male privilege and female subordination. She claims a preference-based
approach will only reinforce inequalities and injustice.
According to Nussbaum, having laws and documents describing rights does not guarantee the ability and opportunity to exercise
those rights. Laws often perpetuate and codify inequalities such as unequal access to basic nutrition, health care, employment
and education. Equality is not fully realized. Nussbaum argues that some liberties – such as religious tolerance and
associative freedom – are themselves cross-cultural norms. She argues that a normative framework for addressing these
issues across cultural boundaries is necessary. Nussbaum prefers her own modified capabilities approach. This approach focuses
on a central question: what are women “actually able to do and to be?” (2).
The core idea of Nussbaum’s approach is that each woman is a dignified and free being with the ability to shape her
own life. Nussbaum’s list of capabilities identifies aspects that are all-important to a woman’s well being:
life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species;
play; and control over one’s environment. These capabilities, she argues, are “particularly central to human
life” (2). She feels that these capabilities constitute a normative framework to address women’s issues in all
cultures.
The first capability Nussbaum identifies is life, or the ability to live a normal lifespan. The second and third capabilities
– bodily health and bodily integrity – also impact the first. Bodily health includes access to adequate nutrition
and medical care, while bodily integrity encompasses the ability to move and travel freely, security against assault, sexual
satisfaction and choice in reproduction. The capability of sense, imagination and thought pertains to adequate educations,
the ability to produce self-chosen works and events. Freedom of expression and freedom of religious exercise are necessary
to safeguard this capability. The ability to form emotional attachments and to have normal emotional development –
development not impacted by fear and anxiety – is the main focus of the capability of emotion.
The sixth capability Nussbaum identifies is practical reason, which she defines as being able to conceive of “good”
and to critically reflect about one’s own life. The seventh capability listed is that of affiliation. Affiliation
encompasses the ability to live with others and to engage in social interaction. Affiliation requires protections against
discrimination in all forms. These two capabilities – practical reason and affiliation – are the two that Nussbaum
feels are the most important.
The eight capability identified by Nussbaum is concern for animals, plants and the world of nature, which she calls simply
“other species.” The final two capabilities Nussbaum lists are play and control over one’s environment.
Play includes the ability to laugh freely and enjoy recreational activities. Control over one’s environment means being
able to participate politically, to be able to hold property, and to seek employment on an equal basis with others. This capability
requires freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Inherent “basic capabilities” are the basis for more advanced capabilities. Internal capabilities incorporate
the state of the person that allows for the “exercise of functions.” Together, these two capabilities comprise
what Nussbaum calls “combined capabilities.” (3). She states that her list of functional capabilities is made
up of combined capabilities. According to Nussbaum, “capability, not functioning, is the appropriate political goal”
(3). No woman should be forces into the function of any capability listed by Nussbaum.
She believes that the best way to think about rights is to view them as combined capabilities, because capabilities are not
as linked to cultural and historical tradition as the concept of rights. Women should be able to exercise these combined
capabilities if they so choose, especially practical reasoning and affiliation. These cross-cultural capability norms, she
argues, are necessary to protect both “rights” and diversity.
