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….
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!).