EdSight

Martha Craven Nussbaum was born on 6 May 1947 in New York City, into a prosperous family that gave her early access to music, theatre, and the arts — experiences she has credited with shaping her conviction that the humanities are indispensable to a fully developed human life. She studied at New York University and then Harvard University, completing her doctorate in classical philology and philosophy at Harvard in 1975 under the supervision of G.E.L. Owen, and going on to an academic career that moved through Harvard, Brown, and Oxford before settling at the University of Chicago, where she is Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, with appointments in the Law School, the Philosophy Department, and the Divinity School. Her intellectual formation was shaped by immersion in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy — Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics are her most constant interlocutors — alongside sustained engagement with contemporary political philosophy, including the work of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, and the development economics of Amartya Sen, with whom she developed the capabilities approach in the early 1990s through their collaboration at the World Institute for Development Economics Research. Her intellectual range is extraordinary: she has written with authority on ancient Greek tragedy, the philosophy of emotions, animal rights, disability rights, feminist theory, the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, environmental justice, and the political philosophy of the Old Testament and Hindu nationalism, as well as on education, distributive justice, and the philosophy of law. She has received honorary degrees from dozens of universities on multiple continents and has been named among the most influential public intellectuals in the world by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. She remains an active scholar and teacher in the first decades of the twenty-first century.

Nussbaum's most foundational contribution to educational theory is her development, with Amartya Sen, of the capabilities approach to distributive justice — a framework that asks not merely what resources a society distributes but what its citizens are actually able to do and to be. Sen had defined capabilities as the freedom to achieve the things one has reason to value; Nussbaum gave this framework concrete normative content by developing a list of ten central capabilities that she regards as necessary for a life worthy of human dignity: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one's political and material environment. She argues that a society that does not guarantee all of these capabilities to all of its citizens at some appropriate threshold level “falls short of being a fully just society, whatever its level of opulence.” The educational implications are direct and demanding: equal distribution of educational resources is insufficient for justice if individuals need different levels of resources to reach the same capability threshold, and if some individuals have been socialised to expect less than others — making them unable to imagine the full range of possibilities that a just society should make available. Education, on the capabilities account, is not merely a good to be distributed equitably but the primary mechanism through which individuals develop the capacities for practical reason, affiliation, and critical engagement that the full range of capabilities requires. Nussbaum draws an explicit connection between Adam Smith's insight that human abilities require environmental support — including education — if they are to mature “in a way worthy of human dignity,” and her own insistence that educational provision must meet citizens where they are, addressing physical, emotional, and intellectual barriers to personal growth rather than treating the formal availability of schooling as equivalent to genuine educational opportunity.

Nussbaum's most widely read contribution to educational debate is her book Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2010), in which she argues that democratic societies are engaged in a dangerous and largely unnoticed transformation of the goals and content of education. Nations “thirsty for national profit,” she warns, are “heedlessly discarding skills that are needed to keep democracies alive”: the arts, the humanities, and the social sciences — subjects that teach students to think critically, to engage empathetically with the experiences of people different from themselves, and to analyse their own assumptions and beliefs — are being systematically marginalised in favour of subjects with measurable economic returns, and the result will be “generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person's sufferings and achievements.” This argument connects Nussbaum's educational philosophy to her broader political theory: the capacities required for democratic self-governance — the ability to think independently, to resist manipulation, to see the world from multiple perspectives, and to recognise the equal humanity of those who are different — are precisely the capacities that a narrowly vocational education fails to cultivate. She argues that “no system of education is doing a good job if its benefits reach only wealthy elites,” and that the tendency of parallel educational systems to provide critical thinking and leadership training for elite students while delivering rote skill training for others represents a systematic violation of the capabilities approach — a society organised to produce unequal citizens.

At the heart of Nussbaum's vision of good education is a particular kind of pedagogical practice: the Socratic method, or what she calls Socratic pedagogy — a mode of teaching and learning centred on dialogue, questioning, argument, and the rigorous examination of one's own assumptions. Rooted in her reading of Plato's accounts of Socrates' conversations in the Athenian marketplace and the gymnasia, Nussbaum argues that Socratic practice is both a method and a disposition: it requires students and teachers alike to inhabit the posture of genuine inquiry, willing to follow arguments wherever they lead and willing to revise beliefs that turn out to be unsupported. The goal is not merely to teach students to question other people's claims but to teach them to question their own — to examine themselves, as Socrates put it, and to take responsibility for their own thought and speech rather than accepting the inherited habits, traditions, and prejudices of their communities. Nussbaum argues that this kind of self-questioning is essential to democratic citizenship: “We will only have a chance at an adequate dialogue across cultural boundaries if young citizens know how to engage in dialogue and deliberation in the first place.” She insists that Socratic pedagogy requires structural conditions to work — smaller classes, ample discussion time, and intellectual space for investigation and synthesis — and observes that its absence from many public school classrooms is not accidental but reflects educational goals that privilege measurable, testable knowledge over the forms of reasoning and judgement that standardised tests cannot capture.

A distinctive feature of Nussbaum's educational philosophy is her argument for the central role of literature and the arts in moral and civic formation. Drawing on Aristotle's claim that tragic poetry cultivates moral understanding by enabling audiences to participate vicariously in the experiences of characters unlike themselves, Nussbaum argues that reading fiction — and encountering art, music, and theatre — develops what she calls the “compassionate imagination”: the capacity to see the world from another's perspective, to understand how circumstances shape a person's needs and choices, and to feel genuine concern for the welfare of people one has never met. She argues that this capacity is both morally important in itself — it is what enables citizens to recognise the equal humanity of those who are different — and instrumentally essential for democracy, since democratic self-governance requires citizens who can deliberate together across difference rather than simply asserting the superiority of their own community's values. “It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated,” she notes, “if you have never learned any other way to see them.” Critics have questioned whether compassion toward literary characters reliably transfers to compassion toward actual people, whether the canon of literature available in schools includes adequate well-rounded representations of diverse cultures, and whether familiarity with fictional others can substitute for direct engagement with actual people from different backgrounds. Nussbaum acknowledges some of these concerns and emphasises that literature-based education must be embedded in a broader multicultural curriculum that engages students with real cultural diversity rather than its representation alone.

Nussbaum's educational philosophy has a consistently global orientation: she argues that education must cultivate what the Stoics called “cosmopolitan” citizenship — the recognition that one's primary identity is not as a member of a particular nation, ethnicity, or religion but as a human being bound to all other human beings by ties of recognition and mutual concern. Students educated for global citizenship must learn to see themselves not simply as citizens of a local region or group but as members of a world community, responsible for the welfare of all other global citizens. This requires, practically, an education that engages with the histories, cultures, belief systems, and social practices of people from around the world — not as exotic footnotes to the study of Western civilisation but as equally valid and equally complex manifestations of the human experience. Nussbaum draws extensively on the educational philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, whose school at Santiniketan she regards as a model of education that combined Socratic argument, exposure to many world cultures, and the infusion of music, fine art, theatre, and dance into every part of the curriculum — and whose democratic, anti-hierarchical educational vision aligns closely with her own. She argues that the interdependence of nations in the face of global challenges — climate change, economic integration, communicative technology — makes education for global citizenship not a luxury but a practical necessity.

Nussbaum's influence on educational philosophy and policy is pervasive and continuing. The capabilities approach has reshaped how development economists, policy analysts, and educational researchers measure the outcomes of schooling — shifting attention from aggregate financial metrics to the actual lives people are able to live. Her arguments for the humanities have been taken up by academics, administrators, and advocates across the world who are defending the place of literature, the arts, and critical thinking in curricula under pressure from STEM and vocational priorities. Her critiques of standardised testing — as an instrument that systematically marginalises what cannot be measured on multiple-choice exams — have given philosophical substance to a widely felt but often under-articulated unease about the direction of educational reform. The unfinished business in her framework is significant. Critics including Claassen and Duwell have questioned the consistency of her philosophical justifications across different stages of her career; Jaggar has raised the concern that the central capabilities list may reflect a Western philosophical tradition that does not adequately account for the distorting effects of colonialism on the perceptions and expectations of marginalised communities; and Maxwell has questioned whether literature-based empathy reliably transfers to real-world compassion. More broadly, the gap between the normative vision Nussbaum articulates and the actual realities of educational provision — in which wealth gaps grow, public school funding erodes, and “back to basics” legislation pushes humanities education further to the margins — remains as wide as ever, and the political and institutional mechanisms for translating her philosophical arguments into educational policy change remain incompletely specified. The unfinished business, as she herself acknowledges, is to implement the vision of democratic, humanities-centred, capabilities-oriented education in the public schools — and to do so not for the benefit of elites but for every child.

• Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1990). Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 289–303.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Liberal education and global community. Liberal Education, 90(1), 42–47.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2009). Education for profit, education for freedom. Liberal Education, 95(3), 6–13.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.