Martha Nussbaum – Women and Cultural Universals

Martha Nussbaum’s work regarding women and finding cultural universals addresses three different ways in which one’s quality of life can be measured. In rejecting what she views as unjust measurements of one’s well-being using the Utilitarian and Rawlsian approaches, Nussbaum introduces her capabilities approach. This approach consists of a list of ten central human capabilities that include but are not limited to bodily health and integrity, play and affiliation. I think her extensive list covers all the critical areas needed for one to lead a good human life beyond mere survival. Other feminists have been known to disagree with Nussbaum claiming that her approach is one of a white advantaged feminist and that it only appeals to a specific demographic. There have also been concerns raised regarding Nussbaum’s capabilities list interfering with autonomy of the individual to determine what is essential to their own well-being based on personal cultural, religious or national norms. Nussbaum might respond to these objections using what she refers to as “adaptive preferences” being the change in one’s preferences due to its unavailability. Though this sometimes happens unconsciously, Nussbaum is firm in her belief that it is unfair for someone to no longer desire a basic human right just because they don’t think they can obtain it. Her list is not meant to impose upon citizens but ensure that they are aware and able to exercise these capabilities as they choose do to so without external pressure or limitations.

In trying to determine the essentials of an account for a good life, Nussbaum focuses on social impositions determined by outside influences. While promoting her list, Nussbaum faces much opposition as many deem her list to be alienating and containing cultural, but more specifically western bias. Her battle against cultural relativists is a difficult topic as it goes hand in hand with the struggle many countries face when their government imposes religious traditions that may be compromising to their citizens. There lies value within upholding cultural respected beliefs and religious traditions but oftentimes these ways of life interfere with an individual’s well being. History has an important role in determining how a group of people will run their society though sometimes in protecting this culture, sexism is also promoted. I agree with Nussbaum that in these circumstances there must be a backdrop with which these traditions can be compared and then determined whether they need to be rejected. I don’t think it is justifiable to deny a woman her right to an education in the 21^st century which is the case in many countries around the world, such as India, where a higher value is placed on purity and virginity compared to education. It seems nearly impossible to promote international human rights without a list such as Nussbaum’s that is compatible with cultural diversity and serves to provide a foundation through which traditions can be equally evaluated.