Recentring care: interrogating the commodification of care

Abstract

We trace how the category of care comes to be constituted historically and in social theory in ways that privilege the autonomous individual as economic agent and, in the process, renders care a problematic residual to social order and social theory. We investigate how theoretical categories, social relations, institutional orders and discursive practices separate care and economy in ways that constitute those in need (including the impoverished) as less valuable, subordinate and a drain on society. We then highlight a global trend towards the commodification of care within market logics of choice, even as the particular expression of these processes is worked out in and through the histories and cultures of places. We further argue that this repositioning of care within market relations of exchange obscures the fundamental interrelatedness of all humans and obscures the possibility of thinking more inclusive and less hierarchical forms of sociality.

Nous faisons remonter la catégorie du soin jusqu'à ses origines dans l'histoire aussi bien que dans la théorie sociale comme concept qui fait valoir l'individu autonome comme agent économique, et rend ainsi le soin un résidu problématique pour l'ordre social et la théorie sociale. Nous enquêtons la séparation du soin de l'économie comme conséquence des catégories théorétiques, des relations sociales, des ordres institutionnels, des pratiques discursives et comment cette séparation fait des nécessiteux les personnes subordonnées qui sont moins valables et qui épuisent les ressources de la société. Nous passons alors à souligner une tendance mondiale vers la banalisation du soin dans une logique de choix du marché qui s'exprime selon les caractéristiques historiques et culturelles des lieux. Nous soutenons en plus que ce repositionnement du soin dans les relations du marché embrouille le fait que tous les êtres humains soient liés des uns aux autres aussi bien que la possibilité de penser la sociabilité d'une manière plus inclusive et moins hiérarchique.

Seguimos como la categoría del cuidado ha venido a ser constituido históricamente y en teoría social en maneras que se favorece el individuo autónomo como un agente económico y como, en el proceso, se hace al cuidadoun residual problemático al orden social y teoría social. Investigamos como las categorías teoréticas, relaciones sociales, ordenes institucionales y practicas discursivas se separan el cuidado y la economía en maneras que se constituyen los que necesitan (incluyendo los empobrecidos) como menos valiosos, subordinados y una sangría para la sociedad. Después destacamos una tendencia global hacia la mercantilización del cuidado entre los lógicos de elección, aunque la expresión particular de estos procesos está hecho entre y a través las historias y culturas de lugares. Adicionalmente discutimos que esta reposicionamiento del cuidado entre las relaciones mercantiles de intercambio se oculta la interrelación fundamentalde todos humanos y se obscura la posibilidad de pensar en una manera más inclusiva y de una socialidad menos jerárquica.

Keywords:

• care
• commodification
• choice
• dependency
• obligation

Keywords:

• soin
• banalisation
• choix
• dépendance
• obligation

Keywords:

• cuidado
• mercantilización
• elección
• dependencia
• obligación

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Sarah Atkinson for organizing the Durham International Workshop on Care of the Body: Spaces of Practice in 2008 which led to this paper. We appreciate the feedback on our ideas from all of the workshop participants: Janine Wiles, Neil Hanlon, Sarah Atkinson, Sophie Bowlby, Isabel Dyck, Ed Hall, Kathrin Horschelmann, Christine Milligan and Jennifer O'Brien.

Notes

1 The family as the domain of care shifts during the modern period from a model for patriarchal government to an instrument of government (Foucault 2001).

2 We refer to economy without a definite article (i.e. the economy) because we argue that economy is not a discernible nor fixed object. For us ‘economy’ demarcates a conceptual and discursive construction that does consequential political work. We challenge the distinction constructed between economy as social relations of exchange conducted by a subject endowed with choice and care for the needy. We argue instead for a broader sociality, constituted by all forms of relationality in which relations of care are central, not subordinate.

3 In a study from Detroit in the 1980s around 85 per cent of households were ‘either giving or receiving financial assistance’ (Stanley and Smith 1992: 51).

4 For a discussion of welfare and insecurity regimes see Gough, Wood, Barrientos and Bevan (2004).

5 These statistics come from the Center for American Progress report on the domestic economy (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_report.html).

6 These statistics are from William Domhoff's ‘Who Rules America’ (2005; http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html).

7 In contrast with Polanyi's notion of society, which is similar in many respects. The difference between Polanyi's ‘society’ and Arendt's ‘social’ is that the latter specifically views the social as a zone constituted through public intervention while Polanyi's social is a space which should be the object of interventions intended to address dislocations brought about by the economic (2001: 135).

8 Notions of care without return are equated with the subjection of self, with religious vocation and sacrifice. In secular contexts, where self-sacrifice is not valued, care as a vocation and care practices have low status when they involve hands-on care as opposed to the moral claims of being a caring person. The idea of care comes to be something that encompasses a range of positionalities and attitudes, caring about in Tronto's phrase (1993), but the practice of care when reduced to the domain of need is less valued.