Sex and Social Justice

I will start this review by noting two things. I greatly appreciated Nussbaum's 'Upheavals of Thought', and I am uncomfortable with the way sex sits in the society I live in. (But, then, I recognise things in myself that - for good or bad - change my perspective from that of the society I am embedded in.) But Wedekind's play 'Springtime Awakening' should raise alarm bells for most of us. We are sexual beings (most of us anyway) and we have to deal with that - learn to accept it within ourselves, learn to share it with others (it is, of course, the quintessential sharing experience), learn to grow with it, learn to let it go .... The easy path to take is to grasp a social 'norm' and follow it regardless of the morality of that path. Societies do present many 'norms' to a young person developing sexual awareness but not all of these are equally desirable. If Nussbaum's book does nothing else but diminish the acceptability of some of the undesirable 'norms', and enhance the more socially responsible ones it will have achieved a great service. There are curious things in this book for me. Nussbaum refers to many sources but many of them are male - Aristotle, Seneca, JS Mill, DH Lawrence .... To be fair, the last chapter is about 'To the Lighthouse' by Virginia Woolf, and other writers such as Andrea Dworkin are prominent. However I was surprised that some powerful women writers are totally ignored - where is Mary Wolstonecraft, where is Emma Goldman, where is Mary Shelley? Why is 'Maurice' (Forster) referred to but not 'The Well of Loneliness' (Hall)? The chapter on female genital mutilation (FGM) is an appalling indictment on the behaviour of some societies. Nussbaum has a glancing reference to circumcision; not surpringly it is glancing for someone who was converted (so I read) to Judaism. While I would never compare what happens to baby boys with what happens to young women in severity or risk, nevertheless I think the motivations for both practices come from the same source. If, for cultural (religious) reasons it is appropriate for Jewish boys to be circumcised, I think it is a very dangerous position to take to expect other societies to abandon the practices they see as legitimate, if not mandatory. The chapter on Equity and Mercy impressed me immensely - it is so balanced I expect many feminists will hate it. But for me, her rare use of a Christian quote ('Forgive them, for they know not what they do.') was a revelation. Never before had I seen how compromised that plea is. (Compare with Tolstoy: 'It is a wonderful thing to be loved because of oneself, but it is a far more wonderful thing to be loved in spite of oneself.') The fact that often I have other feelings than Nussbaum expresses does not concern me, because she often has perspectives that broaden or hone my own thoughts. In the chapter on prostitution and its illegality I had to agree with most of what she writes simply from a libertarian point of view rather than one of mor

Nussbaum's persuasive arguments altered my position on human rights in that I was able to see new possibilities for all men and women. Her many perspectives on human rights were so well-documented that I have used her books, "Sex and Social Justice" and "Women and Human Development," as textbooks and sources to support my thoughts when writing papers and having conversations on subjects that have ranged from early child development to global poverty. Her capabilities approach to issues of gender equality are supremely encouraging. If you are looking for a scholarly text that encompasses multi-faceted, intelligent viewpoints, I recommend Martha C. Nussbaum's books.

Readers should be aware that Nussbaum has been trained as a classicist, and makes references to ancient Greece and Rome (but especially Greek philosophers) at every conceivable opportunity. Her manner of thinking and style of argumentation rest squarely within analytic philosophy. The fact that Nussbaum shows so much talent in these faculties is a tribute to the feminist cause. Sectioning off an entire methodology of thought as "male" is limiting. I don't buy it. The evidence of her work with international development is quite abundant in the numerous firsthand accounts she gives of viewpoints expressed by men and women living in societies that sanction cruel treatment of women (mostly in Africa and South Asia). "International perspective" means, in this case, that she draws upon knowledge gained in communicating with individuals from other cultures, and incorporates that knowledge into her arguments (which happen to fit into the western tradition of rational inquiry). It does not mean that she adopts a rhetorical style specific to a non-western culture.Several articles relate to Andrea Dworkin's work, of which I am appreciative. As a male, it has for obvious reasons been hard to let Dworkin's ideas about my gender slide by unnoticed. Nussbaum's balanced approach helped me see some of the value I had missed, without relenting on the criticism where it was appropriate.I took off one star because it gets a little old to see *everything* related to Aristotle, and because the themes of the essays are a little repetitive - unavoidable in a book that compiles essays that were written individually at various times. These papers are fairly dense, filled with complex arguments and legal minutiae. People who have never taken an academic interest in law or philosophy might get overwhelmed. People who love both of those subjects, as I do, and who take an interest in issues affecting women, as I once again do, should find something of value in this book.

I decided to write this review just to be fair to anyone who is thinking about reading this book. I say this because the reviews I read of the book that were posted were severely misleading and unnecessarily harsh. So I will first of all respond to some of the misguided criticisms of the book that you will find in the other reviews, and then present my view on the book. First of all, no the author does not discuss discrimination against children or the elderly. Why would this make her book bad? She is dealing with SPECIFIC issues, like issues of justice relating to gender and sexual orientation. These issues are certainly large enough in scope and importance to justify their own treatment in a book, there is no reason why a discussion of every conceivable type of discrimination should also be included. The issues of discrimination against the young, the elderly, and the religious are important, but there are numerous books out there on those issues if someone wants to read them. It is unfair to say that this particular book should have to address them, it already runs 550 or so pages, that should be enough. Also, someone complained that the author takes a purely male - centered perspective on the issues, and thus could not possibly be a feminist. I must confess I don't think you honestly read the book if you think that. She gives REASONS as to why her perspective is right and is feminist as well. There is no reason why rationality is a peculiarly male preoccupation, and I think that to intonate that is sexist in and of itself, because the conclusion seems to be that women are not reasoned creatures like men are, and that is a view women have been struggling against for centuries. Basically, the important thing is that there can be disagreement about the issue of how important rationality is to ethics, and that is certainly legitimate, but it is unfair and nothing more than ad hominem argumentation to say that someone cannot dispute the supposition that rationality is not important to ethics and still remain an important philosopher or feminist.Finally, someone complained that this book is not "philosophy," because it pertains to political and social issues and is not well argued. The book is obviously well reasoned, and Nussbaum is an eminently respected philosopher. More importantly though, if philosophers don't deal with political and social issues, who should? Should we leave that up to politicians, because they obviously care and know about the issues? It seems to me that someone should do some serious thinking about political issues, and I see no reason why it should not be philosophers, who generally have a reputation for clarity and calm rationality. This is nothing more than someone's bias about what is most important for philosophers to discuss, and you can have your bias, that is fine, but you shouldn't tell people not to read this book because you don't like the subject matter. If anything, that should cause you to N

This is what all philosophy should be--tightly argued, clearly written, and deeply moving. Nussbaum (and Amartya Sen's) capabilities approach offers promise in taking on problems of distributive justice and human rights. Nussbaum deserves praise for unflinchingly shining the moral spotlight upon all institutions--from the family to the nation-state--a project unsatisfactorily handled by some brands of liberalism. I eagerly await Nussbaum's next book.