MARTHA NUSSBAUM, HUMAN FUNCTIONING AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
Martha Nussbaum, born in 1947 in New York city, is one of the most prominent still living philosophers. She has a special interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and works mainly in the field of political philosophy and ethics. She sees philosophy not merely as a theoretical exercise. She tries to give humans a central role and aims for theories that are closely related to the practical world of men. Also her personal life is often used by her as an inspiration for her writings. In the text that I read her personal role as a mediator in a problematic family expressed itself in mediating between two opposite positions in the debate on international relationships.
HOW TO VIEW DISTANT CULTURES?
The two oppositions between which she mediates are both philosophical and social relevant. It is the opposition between essentialists or absolutists and relativists. The mere problem that both groups are confronted with is how to deal with other cultures, especially when moral or ethical judgements are involved. For example, how to view a culture where the position of women is an inferior one? The essentialist believes in the existence of absolute and universal truth of moral facts. He would think that every human is essentially the same and should be treated the same. We would agree, I guess, but it is also clear that this position does not do any just to the differences between people and cultures and might therefore even be seen as a racist position. The person and culture that will be judged by such an essentialist position would feel been treated without respect and with insult.
The relativist on the contrary would view the other culture as radically different and would argue to respect those differences by putting of his judgement. We can also see where the problem occurs in this standpoint, because it would make us accept a culture and society that has taken on discrimination as one of its core values. We are then deprived of our right (and duty) to discuss and argue about values, a right that has resulted, in my opinion, in the development of humanity as we have seen it so far.
INTERNALISTIC-ESSENTIALISM
Nussbaum agrees and sees the necessity of a position somewhere half way. We cannot accept a radical difference between every human being, simply because the bare eye can already see the similarities. But likewise we cannot neglect the historical context of people and cultures by imputing the same moral laws to all. She wants to develop an internalistic-essentialism, that does not have a transcendental metaphysical truth, which she believes to be proved a false assumption by great thinkers as Wittgenstein that have deconstructed the Platonic view with right and reason, but which at the same time acknowledges the fundamental sameness of human functioning, cross religious, cross, culural and cross metaphisical, and the historical differences of people living in different times and places. The theory must form a basis for an activity that men has being doing throughout its existence: sharing ideas, reasons and arguments.
Her inquiry of the fundamental functions and capacities of humans is made out of an examination of a great variety of stories and myths that men has used to explain himself and his position in the world throughout his own history. This produces off course a list that is open ended and subject to discussion, but that is exactly its goal: open up discussion about what it is to be human and what it is to lead a good human life. The list contains only abstractions. For one of the elements to truly express itself in the world it is mediated by a personal and cultural context that makes it manifest, for example the need for nutrition will be mediated by some cultural understanding of a meal.
The list can be read in the article, but contains among others our mortality, our body and its needs, limitations and possibilities, our senses and capability to imagine, think, grasp and distinguish and understand, our practical reason, our affiliation with others and our absolute individuality.
A PARADIGM FOR POLITICS
Nussbaum sees this list as starting point for formulating political and social policy. We should pay attention to creating circumstances that enable all to function according the list, not merely to a minimal standard, but in a way that we can speak about a good human life. Discussion on this threshold deserves our full attention as it is one of the most complicated matters. She sees that a state or governmental institution should not provide people with a standard package that already fill in the composition of the good life, witnessing the important architectural role she ascribes to practical reasoning and affiliation with others. A good human life to her is not a passive, but an active one, where a man has been provided with circumstances to use its capabilities, of which one is to shape its own life, considering his individual and cultural context.
I think that the opposition between the essentialist and the relativist position is still very up to date and describes in an adequate way some of the key problems that have dominated international relationships over the last years. The tone of voice heard nowadays from out of the USA is showing an awareness of the malfunctioning strategies and Obama’s attempt to restore the moral position of the North America will, I hope, include a rethinking of the perspective that they have on other people and other cultures. Now that the Netherlands is aiming to, again, fulfil a special role in international politics I would advice Balkenende to read Nussbaums paper and become the true mediator he wants to be.
