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.