Culture in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach Nussbaum’s version of the capability approach takes a broader, philosophical

Culture in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach Nussbaum’s version of the capability approach takes a broader, philosophical

approach, which is ‘frankly universalist and “essentialist”’ (Nussbaum 2000, p63). Her attention focuses on women in developing countries and her starting point is that culture itself is a problem. As Nussbaum and Glover state on the first page of Women, Culture and Development: ‘Cultural traditions pose obstacles to women’s health and flourishing’. And, even more strongly, they continue on page 3: ‘Customs, in short, are important causes of women’s misery and death’.

The primary response to culture is thus conceived in moral terms, and

254

TOPICS

CULTURE AND RELIGION

concerns ‘the relationship between culture and justice’ (Nussbaum and Glover 1995, p6), especially as a riposte to cultural relativists who appear to value cultural continuity above human life chances. Nussbaum takes as her starting point the (pre-cultural) human being and ‘the capacities and needs that join all humans, across barriers of gender and class and race and nation’ (Nussbaum, 2000, p61). Her project is then to define the set of functionings that are essential for a human life, and to identify a further threshold, beyond which that life may be said to be ‘good’. She sets out a list of central human capabilities to construct a universal measure against which to assess the lives of women in developing countries ‘who are currently being deprived of their full “human development”’, and to launch claims for justice on their behalf (see Chapter 2).

A fundamental problem with this is discussed in Chapter 2: the objection, by Sen and others, that such lists are inherently problematic because they are far from universal and represent a very particular point of view. Still, they can serve as a basis for dialogue about what constitutes a ‘good life’. This draws attention to the list’s particular cultural assumptions and values (rather than denying them) in a way that has opened them up to further debate. Nussbaum’s approach is somewhat different. She deliberately makes the list general, allow- ing ‘for the possibility of multiple specifications of each of the components’ (2000, p93). In theory, then, there is considerable scope for accommodating cultural difference. In practice, however, there may be relatively little room for manoeuvre. For example, as a liberal feminist, she rejects the possibility of gender-differentiated norms in functionings, even though all human societies and virtually all species have some distinction of function on the basis of gender. This suggests that the range of cultural forms she would deem acceptable as a means to express these capabilities could be rather limited.

A further concern is with the politics of the thresholds themselves. Nussbaum’s ‘minimum’ threshold of functioning, below which a life is not seen as a human life, seems to open rather wider questions than are necessary to address the ethical questions that she raises concerning severe disability and the beginning and end of life. The politics of the second threshold are even more problematic, as it appears to say that a whole set of people – in practice the vast majority of the global population – are not living ‘a good human life’. Without glorifying struggle or minimizing hardship, it is essential to recognize that people often achieve meaningful, valuable lives under even the most difficult circumstances. One cannot read off the quality of a life lived simply on the basis of the constraints people face – or indeed the apparent advantages they enjoy.

This relates to a third point: the politics of agency. One of the foundational criticisms of cultural imperialism in colonialism and in development as a whole concerns its codification of agency and subjectivity. This deploys a series of binary tropes to specify the subjects and objects of agency: the ‘developed’ and the ‘underdeveloped’; those who do and those who need development; those who ‘give’ and those who ‘receive’. Work on the ‘status of women’ since

TOPICS

colonial times has offered a paradigmatic instance of this, with its highly coloured imagery of downtrodden women needing the salvific intervention of colonial powers to protect them from male oppression (Shehabuddin 2008). While this is far from Nussbaum’s intention, the morally-charged generali- zations she makes raise uncomfortable resonances of this. The positioning of subject and object is brought into focus by her invocation of two impoverished women from India and Bangladesh, whose stories she narrates, but who have no opportunity to respond with their own respective points of view.

In sum, then, we would agree with Susan Wolf, the discussant of Nussbaum’s chapter in Women, Culture and Development, that her capa- bilities approach could be tempered with considerably more modesty and openness to other points of view. It is equally important to note that all available options are not exhausted by the two modes offered by Nussbaum: the cultural relativism of ‘anything goes’ so long as the ‘local culture’ endorses it; and universalist essentialism – both advocated, incidentally, by empowered external observers of ‘other’ lives. Rather, as the discussion above suggests, culture (at ‘home’ as well as ‘abroad’) is a primary bearer of power, which always needs to be analysed critically for its implications on political economy. Also, insiders are typically much more adept agents than many stereotypes allow us to see.