IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v33y2009i6p1135-1152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social analysis and the capabilities approach: a limit to Martha Nussbaum's universalist ethics

Author

Listed:
  • S. Charusheela

Abstract

Postcolonial theorists critique modernist universalisms for legitimating structural power. Responding to these critiques, Martha Nussbaum argues that abandoning universalism leads to ethical relativism. Adapting Amartya Sen's capabilities approach, she has proposed a modified universalism that draws on cross-cultural conversations as a non-ethnocentric basis for universal judgment and intervention. This paper takes as its point of departure Nussbaum's (mis)reading of a critique by Nkiru Nzegwu. Working from that conversational failure, the paper identifies the social analysis Nussbaum deploys as a point of ethnocentric breakdown in her universalist approach. Copyright The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Charusheela, 2009. "Social analysis and the capabilities approach: a limit to Martha Nussbaum's universalist ethics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 33(6), pages 1135-1152, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:33:y:2009:i:6:p:1135-1152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/ben027
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ingrid Harvold Kvangraven & Surbhi Kesar, 2021. "Standing in the Way of Rigor? Economics’ Meeting with the Decolonizing Agenda," Working Papers 2110, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.
    2. Susan Nagelsen & Charles Huckelbury, 2016. "The Death Penalty and Human Dignity: An Existential Fallacy," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-5, June.
    3. S. Charusheela, 2013. "Intersectionality," Chapters, in: Deborah M. Figart & Tonia L. Warnecke (ed.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life, chapter 3, pages 32-45, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Drucilla K. Barker, 2013. "Feminist economics as a theory and method," Chapters, in: Deborah M. Figart & Tonia L. Warnecke (ed.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life, chapter 2, pages 18-31, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Nisrine Mansour, 2013. "Gender, well-being and civil society," Chapters, in: Deborah M. Figart & Tonia L. Warnecke (ed.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life, chapter 4, pages 46-61, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:33:y:2009:i:6:p:1135-1152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.