Between dystopias and alternative ideas of caring

• Pages: 314-317
• Date: 21 May 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-03-2018-0048
• Published date: 21 May 2018
• Author: Brigitte Aulenbacher,Birgit Riegraf
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Guest editorial

Between dystopias and alternative ideas of caring

Introduction

An inherent problem of capitalist societies has ever been that their primary orientation –

towards maximis ation of profit an d self-intereste d utility, towa rds optimisatio n of value

and pursuit of particular interests, towards rationalisation and efficiency –is in conflict

with ideas of a good life not just for a few members of society, but for all. Although as

modern societies they embody a promise of equal participation in material and ideational

goods and associated opportunities for all members of society to engage in effective

self-care and caring, their self-conception as performance societies means that this is in

fact meritocratically framed. The emphasis is on the individual as autonomous and

capable of self-care, while caring is at odds with this, and can best be realised in

connection with participatory and need-based justice, i.e. in a framework that deems care

requirements to be legitimate.

In this constellation, self-care and reciprocal care, and hence also care work, are directly

linked with questions of justice and democracy. By duly accommodating the care

requirements that are prerequisites for a functioning life and coexistence, they foster social

integration and cohesion. Conversely, people’s ways and means of caring for themselves and

others and obtaining care from society play a part in determining how and to what extent

they can participate economically, politically, socially and culturally in society’s goods and

values. Therefore, questions of justice and democracy have a place at the core of the care

debate and international care research.

Joan Tronto’s discussion of the “caring democracy”is well-nigh programmatic for the

debate when it comes to sounding out the democratic relevance of caring (Tronto, 2016,

842ff.): in her view, care is not democratic per se. First, she argues, it is not enough to urge

societal responsibility for care without linking this to questions of equality and justice.

Capitalist societies, for example, make top-quality care services available but generally only

for those who can afford them. Second, caring will not become democratic practice per se but

necessitates reflection on its intrinsic risks. The author talks about the “paternalism”that

results when asymmetrical care relationships are bound up with the exercise of power

whereby the caring party asserts its own perspectives as the societally relevant ones vs

those of the cared-for party. And she addresses the “parochialism”when the care needs

perceived as urgent are primarily those playing out nearby; for example, when the scandal

of “neglected care”(Becker-Schmidt, 2011) is perceived in “our”but not in “other”societies

or even on a global scale. If the democratising potential of care is to be unleashed and

democracy changed so as to do justice to care concerns, what matters is the equal

distribution of care responsibility within society and giving all those who bear it a voice

when it comes to shaping the politics of coexistence. In the logic of the equal distribution of

care responsibility, articulated by Nancy Fraser (1996) in the term “universal care giver”,

this means that ultimately all people will have a say in the shaping of society, although the

social inequalities that exist for historical reasons need to be acknowledged in order to be

able to change them (Tronto, 2016, 845f.).

Concepts like “caring democracy”are inspired by the ethics of care or moral-

philosophical discussions (Tronto, 2011) and at the same time build a bridge to the analysis

of capitalism and to perspectives for social change by turning capitalist thinking upside-

down. They think about society from the viewpoint of the care services that are overlooked

by capitalist economics in its intrinsic “structural carelessness”, whereby it proceeds to

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 4, 2018

pp. 314-317

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-03-2018-0048

314

EDI

37,4