I was asked on Saturday why I had chosen to talk about the politics of care rather than the politics of well-being. My questioner appeared quite upset by my choice, thinking that I had made an obvious error of judgement. I have to disagree.
We can, and maybe we should, talk about a politics of well-being, but the term is a description. It is, in fact, a noun. It describes a state in which we might exist. The problem is, many of us are nowhere near it.
We do, therefore, require a politics that moves us from where we are to where we wish to be. In this context, care is not a description or noun. Care is a verb. It is about action. It is about change. It is about how we create the processes that take us from the toxic position we are in, where the politics of destruction and hate are too pervasive, to a situation where we can have not just the politics of care, but the economics of hope.
That is why I made my choice. I hope the logic is clear.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
That makes sense, if a politic of care, an action, is adopted, overall well being automatically follows as the logical outcome. There is no real conflict in the outcome of the concepts.
In my mind well-being is what i try to achieve for myself. care is what i offer to others. And, if I offer care, they may find well-being.