Women and Cultural Universals: Capabilities Approach

In her work, Women and Cultural Universals, Martha Nussbaum speculates and argues on the topic of women and their rights, focusing on aspects that determine quality of life. Nussbaum takes on a universalist approach in believing that every country should have the same relative rights, or freedoms, for every person in order to live a full and fruitful life. She outlines these freedoms in her “Capabilities Approach” as a list of ten essential capabilities (life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play and control over environment) that should be allowed and available for all people in order to thrive. In my opinion, Nussbaum’s list of ten central human capabilities is extensive, yet basic enough that it can be applied to cultures all over the world, thus should be held as basis for standard fundamental human rights.

A main point to consider when addressing Nussbaum’s capabilities approach is the great variance throughout cultures of the world, in which some of the capabilities are just not attainable at all for women of a non-western, more patriarchal society. Does this automatically mean that all the capabilities cannot be applied to everyone? In certain cases yes, and the anti-universalist would highly agree, but I believe Nussbaum’s approach is very successful in summing up principal human rights. In this case, an anti-universalist would find Nussbaum’s approach to be inconsiderate and would consequently accuse her of complete disregard of the differing aspects of unique cultural traditions around the world in where some of the ten capabilities would simply not be an option at all.

I find this anti-universalist objection to be much too superficial; yes, there are significant differences between cultures in the world, but basic human rights are basic human rights, thus I believe regardless of what situation a woman is born into she should be guaranteed, or at least given the opportunity, to have access to all of the ten capabilities Nussbaum identifies.

I do not think that Nussbaum is ignoring the cultural restrictions some women may have, rather she is considering the issue on a much deeper level – a universalist level-  focusing on morality, and humanity as a whole rather than excluding non-western cultures. The ten central capabilities seem basic enough and substantial enough where if someone is lacking one or more capabilities they are truly being deprived of living a full life in which thriving as a person is highly restricted in one way or another.

Jenkins

Michael McCool

Blog Post

Word Count: 435 (Without 1,2,3,4)          

In Katherine Jenkins’s Amelioration and Inclusion, Jenkin’s overall argues that the concept of gender as identity should not be assigned a secondary or peripheral status within a critical feminist analysis of gender but should have equal status with the concept of gender as class. (415). Jenkins means by this that the role of gender as an identity and gender as a social class should be viewed as equal. One is not more important than the other and one is not less significant. These two ideals should be viewed equally. If one only looks at gender as an identity, then one cannot see how oppression can operation through self-policing behavior. Jenkins gives four examples to support this argument.

1.      A trans woman does not publicly present as a woman and is perceived as a man by people around her. (399-400)

2.      A trans woman publicly presents as a woman, but her gender presentation is not respected: she is seen by those around her as a man “pretending” to be a woman. (400)

3.      A trans woman publicly presents as a woman, and her gender presentation is respected by those around her (they use her correct pronouns, etc., and think of her as a woman). Specifically, though, her gender presentation is respected because she is perceived by those around her as having bodily features associated with a female’s role in reproduction (e.g., she may be perceived as having breasts or be presumed to have a vulva). (400)

4.      A trans woman publicly presents as a woman, and her gender presentation is respected, but, unlike in scenario 3, this is not because she is perceived as having bodily features associated with a female’s role in biological reproduction. Although she may or may not be perceived as having such bodily features, her gender presentation is respected unconditionally, being taken as an indication of how she would like to be treated socially. (400)

By viewing these statements through the scope of Haslanger then trans women will only be identified as women in a situation of scenario 3.

Gender has two concepts in Jenkins view. Gender as a social class and gender as a lived identity.

                Gender as a lived identity is expressed as one in which a person identifies as a gender and lives through the social characterizes of said gender. This gives the freedom for any person to identify as the gender they feel best suits them, being male, female, or a gender that does not fit this two system of societal gender.

                Gender as a social class is expressed through the example of job opportunities. One who identifies as a woman and is treated as one, may take a job at a lower pay rate or be offered the job at a lower pay rate. This shows how if one does not recognize gender as a social class, equally as gender as a lived identity, you neglect to see the oppression the social class view can bring.

                In my opinion, even treated equally, both views proposed by Jenkins will still offer some oppression no matter what. This oppression too is not equal, or would be very hard to express as being equal. Through the lived identity of gender, a person who identifies themselves as a gender that they were not born into will still face oppression. Whether this be in day to day life or applying for employment, oppression in the 21rst century is at a peak amongst transgender persons. Also, though gender as a class, there is a clear oppression of “natural born women” but this oppression may be even greater for transgender women seeking employment. No matter which view is looked at, these views must be viewed together and not separately to ensure that one may account for the varying ways in which gender can be oppressed. 

Martha Nussbaum Women and Cultural Universals

In her piece Women and Cultural Universals, Martha Nussbaum discusses “…the tremendous importance of keeping some such list of the central functions before us as we assess the quality of life in the countries of the world and strive to raise it.” (53). The list she mentions is what she considers to be the Central Human Functional Capabilities, or a way of measuring a person’s quality of life.

In responding to a cultural relativist’s challenge that any account of measuring quality of life is inherently biased, Nussbaum states that her account of what is needed for a good life leaves much room for cultural diversity. While this in theory would seem to stand true, and would be the ideal, in reality I do not believe this would work. For instance, theoretically speaking, the notion of “being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature” seems perfectly plausible. Even in the U.S., a country that thrives on the mass, unethical production of meat (the production of which often causes extensive harm to the environment and atmosphere), one could argue that you have the freedom - the capability - to do as you please — be a vegan, live a waste-free life, etc. While this (again, theoretically) is correct, the actual doing of such things in a way that increases your quality of life is hindered by many aspects. Speaking as someone who does her best to engage in such a way of life, I speak from experience when I notice societal standards that don’t allow easy dining for vegans, or that the potential inability to live waste-free due to uncontrollable, material circumstances such as living environment or income all have an affect on your capability. Therefore, the argument that Nussbaum’s list of capabilities allows for cultural diversity can be proven unrealistic by even as seemingly a less significant (to some) measuring tool as the above.

Another example is using the capability of “being able to live in relation to others”. In some cultures, school children are separated by gender as youths, or men and women are separated from each other in church. While Nussbaum might argue that this means one is not “able” to live in relation to others, not only can said culture argue the point of tradition, they might also say they are living in relation to each other, just not in the way Nussbaum is expecting. Here enters the concept of subjectivity, which, along with reality, sparks issue with Nussbaum’s list and the room for cultural diversity it allows.

Nussbaum is, however, supposedly only attempting to open up a discussion towards public policy. In that case, something working in theory itself is completely alright. My objection to this is simply that looking forward, there are kinks in the fabric that need to be smoothed out before any of this is put into play. 

Nussbaum: Capabilities Approach

When reading Nussbaum’s chapter: “Women and Cultural Universals”, I liked the idea of the capabilities approach as I thought that it was a very open approach and took important things into consideration such as the distribution of resources and opportunities along with considering people one by one instead of as a unit. As Nussbaum pointed out this approach should focus on one question which is: “What are the people of the group or country in question actually able to do and to be?” (Nussbaum, 34). It is very important to also note that along with that it is important to realize how preferences are not always obtained and that we can not judge quality of life based on preferences because barriers such as oppression and deprivation could be deforming people’s quality of approach. It is crucial to realize that with the capabilities approach, the resources themselves do not carry any value besides increasing the functioning of humans. However, upon further reading and evaluation I decided that maybe this is not the most secure or effective approach. 

With the capabilities approach, there are 10 central human capabilities and in order to live a full life an individual has to be CAPABLE of each of these. These capabilities include: 1. life, 2. bodily health, 3.bodily integrity, 4. senses, imagination and thought, 5. emotions, 6. practical reason, 7. affiliation, 8. other species, 9. play, and finally 10. control over one’s environment. If an individual is not capable of one of the capabilities does that mean that they are unable to life a good life? In the eyes of Nussbaum, even without one of the listed capabilities the individual will be depriving themselves of fulfilling a “full life”. Unfortunately, I have to object to Nussbaum’s capabilities approach as I believe that with this approach it is taking away a person’s individuality and leaving them unable to determine what is needed or what is not needed for them to live a full life. People differ in so many ways and there are many factors play a role in people’s happiness considering what may or not be available. I feel like it is an extremely bold statement to say that if an individual is lacking any of the central human capabilities, that they are not living  full life. We need to be understanding of different cultures, and more importantly accept the idea that not everyone finds the same aspects of life fulfilling. While I may feel that way Nussbaum would object to my statement, by point out that in order for genuine choice and autonomy is possible, that certain social and material conditions are met. The central human capabilities is a basis of what everyone should be including in their lives to ensure that those conditions that make a full life complete are met as they are extremely important to our overall happiness. It is just important to reiterate that while she might believe that this is necessary for genuine choice and autonomy, I believe that it is not taking individuality into consideration and the idea that everyone does not need the same things to live a fulfilling life. 

Jenkins

Gender concepts have been up for discussion for many years in hopes to put a definitive label on what makes a woman. Sally Haslanger's 'Ameliorative' makes the attempt in doing so but with many objections. In Katherine Jenkin's Amelioration and Inclusion, Jenkins touches on Haslanger's approach with her own opinions on the matter. Haslanger believed that her account of being a woman only "excludes females who are not observed or imagined to be females and so are not viewed and treated as members of a subordinate gender class". Jenkin's objection to this is that it does not "solve the inclusion problem because it does not include trans people with their identified genders." (396). Although it seems both Haslanger and Jenkins can agree that women who appear as women face oppression because external intimidation, however, Jenkins likes to shed light on the fact that a large part of the oppression comes from internal sources too. For example, a woman who just starts a job in a new office might aim for a lower promotion than a man because the CEO is a man and the woman has internally reinforced that only a man can attain such position. Therefore, anyone who identifies as a woman, regardless whether they appear as such, still faces the same internal struggles as any other woman.
I believe that Haslanger is wrong to leave out the trans community because by saying that they do not count as women means that anyone who does not have the physical appearance of a woman does not deserve to identify as such. I think this puts too much emphasis on what a woman should appear to look like while it should really be of more focus on the identity of an individual. People of the trans community already face many different types of oppression and struggles as it is, and to not accept them for the gender they identify with would be cruel. Although I could see how a person would argue how it is not the same for a female who has looked like a "woman" her whole life and therefore been oppressed because of it to be places in the same category as someone who was born a male and benefitted from those privileges for a part of his life and then just decides to become a woman. However, when identifying as a female you then take on the oppression of a woman as an internal mindset. This what Jenkins meant when gender also becomes a class.
The exclusion within genders is very unsettling to me. Does Haslanger believe that the people of the trans community should forever feel like an "other"? Haslanger seems to believe that there are no positives of being a woman because for every positive you could point out a negative, which you could say the same for any trans person. Because of this, I believe that any person who identifies with being a female and lives by that deserves to be considered a woman.

Katharine Jenkins

Up to now, many feminists have tried to define woman, either as a social identity, a social class, or a social status. However, since every woman is different from each other, it seems impossible to come up with a clear classification of women yet. In Katharine Jenkins’s Amelioration and inclusion, she discussed Haslanger’s article and made several improvements as for the definition of being a woman. In the article, Katharine Jenkins agreed with Haslanger that gender is an imposed social class, and she also suggested the idea of gender as a lived identity.

Katharine Jenkins questioned Haslanger’s definition for gender because it cannot classify all kinds of woman. A good example in this case Katharine Jenkins mentioned was transgender, and both the ones transformed from male to female, and the ones transformed from female to male. Out of all five scenarios in the article, I am most interested in the first one: Scenario 1: A trans woman does not publicly present as a woman and is perceived as a man by people around her. (Ethics, 400) According to Haslanger, being a woman mean function as a woman for the majority of the time, and the kind of trans women in scenario one does not count as women because they do not function as women in front of public. In my opinion, these trans women are just the same as all other people that born women. Most of those woman trans people choose to be a woman themselves, and they went thought series of surgeries to become one. They see themselves as a woman, and even though they born as male, they decide to be a woman. It is possible they does not present as a woman in public because they are ashamed of the fact that they are transgender, or maybe they are simply need time to adjust being a woman. How people present themselves is their own decision, and it is nothing wrong with having lifestyles and present differently from others. Some women may choose to dress and behavior like a man because they feel more conformable doing that. This kind of women does not function as a woman in public just like the trans people in scenario one, but this does not make them a man rather than a woman.

Many people do not include trans women as part of the woman social group. One possible reason is a trans woman does not experience all oppression a person who born woman does. For example, for people who transformed from male to female, they usually do not have the experiences of being part of the oppression and subordinate gender class before their transformation processes, so they do not classified as women. However, since transgender is also a subordinate social group, they are also the victims of oppression. As far as I am concerned, although they may experience different kinds of oppression, trans people may experience even more oppression than women.