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!
While I can see where both of you are coming from I suggest that Politics can only change certain things.
It can sort out things like income, housing etc which might help your well being but it can’t sort out relationships, state of mind etc that actually make it.
I learned a lot at that conference, that the State built on average half a million council houses every 4 years in the post-war period for example. That was done by the politics of a State that cared.
I see now in places like the numbered streets of colliery towns like Horden plans to demolish the terraces, four-fifths of the houses are boarded up, empty, unless there’s a cannabis farm in there. But what do the houses that are still occupied look like? Beautifully looked after in my view, and they’ve got signs in the window saying no the CPO (compulsory purchase order) and demanding the “Right to Stay”.
That is sad….
‘The State cared’.
Now that is an interesting thought………….
1. The state decided to invest in social security because it realised (as far back as Word War 1) that its population was in poor health and could defend it better and compete better on the world stage if basic needs and above were met.
2. It had been realised as far back as the Versailles Treaty – see Keynes 1919 – that economic instability and insecurity could produce crises that led to political turmoil and increase the prospect of war. Then we had fascism in Germany.
In other words, the State was acting in its best rational self interest by looking after its people. There may have been the spectre of communism as well.
We do not need to over sentimentalize the politics of care. As Richard was I think pointing out in Cambridge on Saturday, it will be about stories, narratives and making the politics of care a rational and common sense approach and solution – not just ‘woke’.
This north American style capitalism that we suffer under produces things we would would rather not have. These need to be portrayed as totally negative and undesirable and irrational and against our own best rational self-interests.
All that is stopping this is the corruption of politics and public relations theory and practice being used to support both Neo-liberalism and fascism at scale. But Neo-liberalism is just that – stupidity.
Think about what I said in the picture I drew (I’ve seen it with my own eyes) this morning of public sector workers sitting around the coffee table at break, moaning about their budgets and not being able to do their job and help people, then – because they believe the lie that taxes pay for things – they then worry that their taxes may go up to provide them with the very money they need to do their job properly!? And then, reflecting on their own needs, they go quiet and hope that someone else foots the bill………..
Can anything sum up Neo-liberalism and what its ‘cunning of un-reason’ has led us to as society better than that? We’ve got to start unpicking that for a start. That is the front line right there.
You raise an important point, and I broadly agree with the thrust of it.
The state did not create social security simply out of sentiment. There was also a strong element of rational self-interest involved. Governments realised, particularly from the late nineteenth century onwards, and very clearly during the First World War, that a population in poor health, poorly educated, and living in insecurity was a strategic weakness. Countries could not compete economically or defend themselves effectively with a population that was malnourished, ill, or socially unstable.
The experience of the interwar years reinforced that lesson. Keynes warned in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) that economic instability could produce political upheaval. The Great Depression and the rise of fascism demonstrated exactly that. After 1945 many governments concluded that economic security, full employment and social protection were essential to political stability.
So the development of the welfare state was not irrational generosity. It was sensible political economy. A society that cares for its people is also one that is more stable, productive and resilient.
Where I think your observation is particularly important is in relation to narrative. Neoliberalism has spent forty years promoting the idea that the state is financially constrained like a household and that public services depend on taxpayers reluctantly footing the bill.
Once that story takes hold, even people working within public services can end up believing that improving those services must somehow threaten their own financial security, as you often relate.
Unpicking that myth, and replacing it with a clearer understanding of how the economy actually works, is indeed one of the front lines of this debate.
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.
The politics of care already exists.
My concern is that it should not exist free of the technical means of doing so ably displayed in this blog and in your work. Because otherwise it can never come about.
On this blog we know how money can be created; how any inflationary effects can be compensated for (tax); the use of state sovereignty (as opposed to markets); functioning democracy; where to reallocate resources (The Taxing Wealth Report); the limits of the resources. These ‘ways and means’ also give real shape to our anger and frustration – a solid footing going forward.
We can all care about things – but creating a solid foundation in reality in order for care to be realised at all is also fundamental.
At the moment, we seem entombed by Neo-liberalism by ‘Can’t do’ which is just a disguised ‘Won’t do’. I suppose my point is that all progressives have the tools here to do the job. We need to make sure they know the tools are here.
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.
What you are fighting against is demonstrated by an article today in “The Guardian”.
Hartlepool Labour council have accused the housing and local government minister,Steve Reed,of “moral bankruptcy ” in failing to give extra additional funding to fund chidren in social care in the area.
Counter accusations are made about the council not managing their budget.
This argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that Hartlepool,a highly deprived area,gets a below average grant,and has had to suffer the shameful relocation of impoverished families from southern councils.Privatisation of children’s care homes have sent costs rocketing.
Unsurprisingly,Reform could be sent to gain control of the council.
The much needed politics of care will be sadly absent then.
Policy of Care mops up the failings, so always needed. As you say ‘well-being’ is a noun, a state. ‘Better-being’ or ‘amelioration’ hints at movement, and I would suggest the Deming’s (management guru) idea of continuous improvement has huge potential. One result, hopefully, would be less need to care for the casualties of our un-improved systems.
I like both, but well-being follows from care.
A system that cares enough will recognise that insecurities need to be addressed. Neoliberalism has deliberately created many insecurities in our life, and as time has gone by, they just get worse. This has a major effect on our well-being.
The current approach is one of sticking plaster politics and crisis management. What is needed is a politics of care that addresses the core issues.
It is the direct opposite of the politics of hate, fear, and insecurity that has ruled over us for as long as I can remember (and that’s a long time!).
We should ask ourselves how people feel about politics. Yes, they are lacking well-being, but what really upsets them is that _nobody cares_!
That’s why ‘the Politics of Care’ is the right message. It’s what people are crying out for.
Thanks, Kim.
Good to meet you on Saturday.
I can also see where the person who posed the question was coming from, but agree that care is better.
The term well-being is a little vague, I think. The hearer would probably respond with “What do you mean by that?”
Politics of Care says 2 things at once:
1) the government/politicians care about the situation.
2) this will result in the population receiving care in areas they need it – health, housing, wages, education etc
A little word with a lot of meaning…
Thanks
I stress, my questioner was not wrong. I have a preference.