Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a

3. Clarifications
93
actually able to do and to be” (Nussbaum 2000, 5). From those human
capabilities, Nussbaum identifies a list of ten “central capabilities” which
have the status of rights: they “may not be infringed upon to pursue
other types of social advantage” (Nussbaum 2000, 14). According to
Nussbaum’s minimal account of social justice, these central capabilities
have to be protected up to a certain threshold level.
Nussbaum helpfully distinguishes between three further notions to
unpack the concept of ‘human capabilities’: basic capabilities, internal
capabilities, and combined capabilities (Nussbaum 2000, 84–85). The
term basic capabilities refers to “the innate equipment of individuals that
is necessary for developing the more advanced capabilities”, such as
the capability of speech and language, which is present in a new-born
but needs to be fostered before it can develop into a true capability.
Internal capabilities are “the matured conditions of readiness” — the
internal aspect of the capability. If I have the skill and meet the physical
preconditions of walking, then I may or may not be able to go for a
walk — depending, for example, on whether as a woman I am legally
allowed to leave the house without a male relative, or whether there
is not currently a hurricane posing a real danger if I were to leave my
house. If those suitable external conditions are in place, we can speak of
combined capabilities.
Finally, a functioning is an “active realisation of one or more
capabilities. […] Functionings are beings and doings that are the
outgrowths or realizations of capabilities” (Nussbaum 2011, 25). Hence,
in Nussbaum’s terminology, a functioning stands in relation to a
capability as an outcome stands in relation to an opportunity.
While the substantive distinctions to which Nussbaum’s terminology
refers are very helpful, the specific words chosen may be not ideal.
There are two problems. First, for many capability scholars, the
reference to the term ‘capability’ refers to the real opportunity to do
something or be the person one wants to be; ‘internal capabilities’ do
not fit that category. They are, starting from that perspective, simply
not a capability, but rather necessary elements of a capability, or a
precondition for a capability. It would have been better to call ‘internal
capabilities’ simply ‘internal characteristics’ or else ‘skills, talents,
character traits and abilities’. Such terminology would also make the
link with various other behavioural and social disciplines much easier.