Wolff and de-Shalit develop Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach by introducing the notion of fertile functionings and corrosive disadvantages. Although Nussbaum suggests that these concepts lack ‘theoretical clarity’ (Nussbaum, 2011: 44) because of lack of clear distinction between functioning and capability, all four (Sen, Nussbaum, Wolff and de-Shalit) seem to concur that looking for fertile
capabilities or functionings and corrosive disadvantages allows identification of the best intervention points for public policy (Nussbaum, 2011: 44). Fertile
functionings are those that open up and have a positive impact on others; corrosive disadvantages are those that have a negative impact on others. A
corrosive disadvantage is ‘the flip side’ of a fertile functioning: ‘it is a deprivation that has particularly large effects in other areas of life’ (Nussbaum, 2011: 44). So important is education that it is a fertile functioning (it can enhance a life, as it seems to do for Alec in ‘Sailmaker’) and lack of it can be a corrosive disadvantage that can thwart a life – and this explains why education permeates all of
Nussbaum’s capabilities as discussed earlier. Consequently, as well as targeting resources at fertile functionings because this will result in improvements in other areas (a sort of domino effect), politicians and policy makers should work towards eradicating corrosive disadvantages because these too have an impact on other areas of life (Nussbaum, 2011: 99).
The concepts of fertile functionings and corrosive disadvantages ‘enhance the theoretical apparatus of the Capabilities Approach’ (Nussbaum, 2011: 42-3), because assessing capabilities as fertile or corrosive provides a very good way of seeing how people are faring. Nussbaum concurs with Wolff and de-Shalit that ‘education plays a fertile role, opening up options of many kinds across the board’ (Nussbaum, 2011: 44), a fertile functioning that is crucial in addressing
disadvantage and inequality (Nussbaum, 2011: 152). As Davie (the father) in
‘Sailmaker’ seems to realise, ‘a good education’16 should lead to enhanced chances
of employment, political affiliation and bodily health – whereas lack of it can have a negative impact on all these areas. Clearly then, providing better education is
37 key to addressing other forms of disadvantage because the less well educated a person is, the fewer chances of gaining ‘a decent job’17. Lack of employment in
itself also results in risk to other capabilities such as practical reason, control over one’s environment (in the form of insecurity) and affiliation (lacking the resources to be socially included): the clustering of disadvantage that I discuss later in this chapter.
Corrosive disadvantages can also be dynamic and transgenerational, meaning particular disadvantages that parents are exposed to can also have adverse consequences for their children – which will be discussed fully in Chapter 3. Research shows that children from poorer families are often less well educated than children from wealthy families (Mayer, 1998: 1). In addition, young people who grow up in poverty have an increased likelihood of ending up ‘poor’ and needing state support when they become adults (Mayer, 1998: 1). However, this is not to say that increased income per se would improve the life chances of young people in poorer homes. Mayer’s research shows that the relationship between parental income and children’s outcomes is more complicated than was previously thought because it is not simply income that makes a difference in young people’s lives (Mayer, 1998: 8), as highlighted by Sen (2000: 3). Not all parents are like Davie in ‘Sailmaker’ who recognises that education is the key to a better life for his son – it is ‘a great chance’, a ‘great opportunity’18 to improve his situation.
Equality of educational opportunity should combat disadvantages that some young people bring with them to school – or at the very least, not add another layer of disadvantage to those that already exist. However, schools cannot always
compensate for what goes on (or does not) in young people’s homes – despite the aims of policies like GIRFEC (Getting it Right for Every Child)19 which will be
discussed fully in Chapter 4. Furthermore, it cannot be said that all young people growing up with disadvantaged parents will themselves remain disadvantaged in their adult lives. However, children and young people from disadvantaged homes
17 As above
18 Spence, A. (2008 [1988]) ‘Sailmaker’, p. 34
19 GIRFEC is a Scottish Government policy that supports children and young people by providing a framework for all those working with them.
38 might need more support to secure functionings (Wolff and de-Shalit, 2007: 121) – hence the raft of policies concerned with social justice we have in Scotland, such as GIRFEC and Curriculum for Excellence. Wolff and de-Shalit’s strong assertion is that ‘governments ought to attend to corrosive disadvantages and fertile
functionings’ (Wolff and de-Shalit, 2007: 152). Since education can be both a fertile functioning and a corrosive disadvantage, I suggest it is a good place to start and the Capabilities Approach might help to evaluate how each and every young person is doing.
However, there are of course criticisms of the Capabilities Approach. There are claims, for example, that the Capabilities Approach is too individualistic (Gore, 1997; Sen, 2002; Stewart, 2004) because of the insufficient attention to groups and social structures. Robeyns (2005), however, refutes the overly individualistic
criticism outright and concludes that these claims are evaluative rather than factual judgements. To elaborate, firstly Robeyns explains that the Capabilities Approach embraces ethical individualism, which purports that only individuals are the units of moral concern, but does not rely on ontological individualism, the notion that all social entities and properties can be identified by reducing them to individuals and their properties. Further, ethical individualism still allows for recognition of the interconnectedness of people. With regards to education, it could be argued that ethical individualism is required to meet the needs of each and every child: education should be ‘sensitive to the individuality of every child’ (Nussbaum, 2006: 377). Besides, how can we assess the ‘doings and beings’ of a structure? We can and do say that a school is doing well or badly, or that the educational system is flourishing or mediocre, or perpetuates inequality (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1997). However, following Mills (1959), we can quickly see that the ethics of the ‘sociological imagination’ demand that we turn our attention to the person who is part of the social structural nexus. It is, of course, easier to assess the doings and beings of groups of people, such as those of a certain nationality or religion, or marginalised groups such as people with disabilities. Knowing how groups of people are faring can inform social and political policy – and much is known about this. There is a wealth of literature and policies which address class, gender and race. However, we still want to know how the person is doing and being, since the person, arguably, is often overlooked in policy statements and
39 instruments, or homogenised and subsumed into groups (and I discuss the demerits of homogenisation and group labelling in Chapter 3). For example, if Alec were autistic we would know that he has characteristics he shares in common with other people with autism such as repetitive behaviours or a narrow range of interests. However, Alec will still be unique and his needs may not be the same as others on the autistic spectrum. I would argue that individual wellbeing is important in an approach that is designed to bring about a change in society and encourages each and every person to make choices about how they wish to live. This seems to accord with the GIRFEC policy and Curriculum for Excellence, which I discuss in Chapter 4.
The listing of specific capabilities and the universal nature of the list for everyone everywhere in the world have also raised some questions (for example by Sen, 2004; Robeyns, 2005) with claims that it is a series of general rules to be applied universally without reference to context. Nussbaum acknowledges this
universality, advocating that the capabilities are indeed ‘for each and every
citizen, in each and every nation’ (Nussbaum, 2000: 6), and asserts that her highly general list should be made specific by local people (Nussbaum, 2000, 2003a). Nussbaum’s list is not a series of general rules to be applied everywhere without reference to context because that would make it crude and inflexible. The
universal principles are broad, general, and with little content so that they can be infused with contextuality and rich particularity by complex, varied local contexts. Further, the Capabilities Approach is not a comprehensive ethical doctrine, it is a
partial one, meaning that at the political level, and depending on the country’s
level of development, it is up to governments to decide the minimal threshold levels to which the capabilities should be developed. In light of criticism, in 2003 Nussbaum subsequently detailed six ways in which her Capabilities Approach deals with cultural differences. For example she contended that the list is ‘open-ended and subject to revision’ (2003a: 37), and that the items on the list are specified in an abstract and general way to allow for local interpretations. To me, this
universality seems fitting when discussing equal access to education if no group of children or individual child is to be treated differently to another due to
background or any other reason. The general nature of Nussbaum’s list with specific details being determined by different sets of people in their different
40 locations (Nussbaum, 2000, 2003a) seems to resonate in some ways with
Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland. For example, the curriculum advocates
different schools creating their own particular courses while adhering to the
universal prescription of the curriculum, such as pupils taking subjects in the eight curricular areas, their entitlement to all the experiences and outcomes and to be literate and numerate.
Nussbaum acknowledges that her Capabilities Approach ‘demands a great deal from human beings’ and asks if it is ‘hopelessly unrealistic’ (Nussbaum, 2006: 409- 10). In response to her own question she suggests that the Capabilities Approach encourages us to ‘think creatively about what justice can be’ (Nussbaum, 2006: 415). I suggest that an education system, in Scotland and every other country in the world, should demand a great deal from human beings. Further, I opine that there is nothing unrealistic about hoping and planning for all young people in a nation to have equal educational opportunity regardless of where they live or what their parents do. Enhanced by the concepts of fertile functionings and corrosive disadvantages, the Capabilities Approach can help educators to judge how well young people are managing. Educators in Scotland would also benefit, I suggest, from consideration of what Sen calls sources of variation and I discuss these next.