I published a long essay here yesterday on one of the philosophical foundations of my politics of care. In that essay, I discussed the creation of the concept of the supposedly "normal people" and how this idea has permeated political thought in the 20th and 21st centuries to date.
The consequence is a political narrative of normality that spreads from the far right to the left, but with the resulting definition alienating many, if not most, people in society, now giving rise to the consequent alienation of people from the political process, and the characterisation by many of politicians as "all being the same".
If you have not had a look at that essay, I would encourage you to do so. It will be shaping some future thinking on this blog, and so it is an important and even pivotal point, and its development.
That said, I was hoping for reactions and criticism to the essay when publishing it because that, very obviously, helps develop ideas. The most perceptive criticism so far came from a commenter on this blog who goes by Tim. He said:
It seems to me that your concept of flourishing could create a dilemma.
If flourishing is ultimately an individual matter, then your politics of care risks reducing society to little more than a provider of resources and opportunities, echoing the logic behind Thatcher's famous claim that “there is no such thing as society”. In that case, the role of shared obligations, institutions and community appears underemphasised.
On the other hand, if flourishing requires shared social purposes, then the politics of care risks defining a new norm or ideal citizen, which is precisely the tendency you rightly criticise throughout your essay.
So what institutional safeguards do you propose that would allow a politics of care to genuinely empower people without presuming to know what is best for them? Moreover, who decides what politics of care requires, and what constitutional or institutional mechanisms allow citizens to reject those judgements when they disagree?
I think that is a fair challenge, but I do not think it creates the dilemma Tim suggests.
Flourishing is personal, but it is not merely individual. No one flourishes in isolation. That was one of the points that I emphasised in my essay. The difference between my concept of the politics of care and the politics that the concept of normal people embraces is that care necessarily requires living in relationship, with those relationships being dynamic, in the sense that roles continually change. The personal silo, which is at the core of neoliberal thinking, and which the concept of the normal person permitted, cannot exist within the politics of care, or of course, in reality.
People need housing, health, education, security, community, freedom from fear, and the ability to participate. Those are social conditions, not private possessions.
At the same time, a politics of care should not and must not prescribe one approved way of living. Its purpose is not to define the ideal citizen, but to ensure that people have the real capacity to live lives they have reason to value. But that is precisely why institutions matter.
The institutional safeguards within a politics of care are democracy, transparency, subsidiarity, rights, independent courts, local accountability, and the ability to remove those who govern. Care must be delivered through institutions that can be challenged, revised and democratically controlled.
So the answer to “who decides?” is: citizens must. And this need not be once every few years. I do think that a politics of care will need to embrace a broader understanding of democratic involvement. That will require electoral reform to deliver proper representative democracy both at the national and local levels, with the local level being especially important. It may also require deliberative assemblies, at least in an advisory capacity, an active civil society that is heard rather than suppressed, as is too often the case now, and proactive public scrutiny.
A politics of care is not paternalism if it expands agency. It becomes paternalism only if it removes choice. The task is to build institutions that provide security without imposing conformity, and to do that, they have to listen as well as govern. That is the critical change.
I hope that addresses Tim's question, but please do provide further comments. This is important.
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!
Might it be relevant to consider the assessment and direction placings of a society on a spectrum between the contrasting poles of enabling and draining?
Might it be that the multiple contexts in which we all live* are a mixture of the personal and the societal?
Might it be that one of the harms/cruelties of Austerity/Neoliberalism that it credits “succeses” and “failures” solely to the individual so that societal influences and structures are conveniently avoided?
* Which include health (physical, mental and emotional), life expectancy, the socio-economic etc,)
I like your thinking
One of the concepts that my MBA revealed to me was between the concept of mass production/service provision (economies of scale, cheapness, uniformity) and custom production/services (bespoke, less economies scale, more expensive, tailored).
We seem to live in a world where we are forced to choose starkly between the two. Combining approaches intelligently seems to be beyond us.
Economy of scale is favoured when you live in a world where the majority of people are told there is a shortage of money and where there is a profit motive for the operator as well. Here what you will get will be a basic ‘catch all’ just enough approach. Bespoke, more targeted approaches with more choice as to goods and services now seem to be aimed at the ‘upper end’ of the market, tailored towards those with no shortage of money and can pay. This is market segmentation gone mad because we are seeing it happen in public goods like healthcare, housing, adult social care etc.
But what is unacceptable is that a bunch of people – by virtue of a low ability to spend in increasingly marketised services that should not be marketised – are forced to receive less, more simplified goods and services and have their real needs ignored. Where Tim’s argument falls down is that yes – meeting individual needs is very personal. But, when the experiences are POSITIVE and collectivised/shared by sheer volume (people talk don’t they?), the personal care becomes public experience and that can restore faith in ‘the system’. And remember – people are falling for Reform because we have collectivised NEGATIVE experience now pushing us toward Fascism. This can be turned around by the politics of care.
Thank you
So the paragraph – So the answer to “who decides?” is: citizens must.
i have a couple of thoughts from this I always question when thinking about how do we make all peoples voices heard.
how can a citizen decide what they want without a giant decision making paralysis?
Arbitrarily imagine if there is a vote to decide the colour of a parliament building, there are say 4,000 colour options. How would consensus be reached? Would not narrowing the colour choose down to ten to choose from say is as in the comment assuming what’s best for the people?
how can every voice be heard and represented in this respect, there may be like the maths dude yesterday a statistical commonality for one cornflower blue does that mean the one person advocating for taupe is wrong or should not be heard as they are minority? And if the person wanting taupe wants there voice heard even in a small deliberative assembly what if they are not good at being heard?
and in trying to get a representative to ensure the taupe voice is heard how do we not go back to the start where we are now with the representatives assuming what we need?
Also what about bias and collective shaping/ influencing to a particular colour, is it not like sheep that follow, as we are a social species that’s likes to go with others of our collective,
how would we get a true representation in this respect of the individuals true wants? Even with tiny assembly’s,
I hope that makes sence lol
I leave this or otehrs to comment in
I am pretty busy
Sorry
Yesterday I mentioned the authorities listen more to economists than psychologists and sociologists.
About 15 years ago I helped organise a conference where the main speaker was Martin Seager. He had been asked by a Labour minister to look at psychological aspects of welfare policy. His main point was that there is a trinity of health (biology) happiness ( psychological ) and wealth (social ). Much of our social policy lacks a psychological foundation. His advisory group decided that Bowlby’s attachment theory was the best foundation. Sadly, the minister moved on before anything could be done.
They identified needs as attachment, trust, empathetic communication, identity and belonging, security, discipline, esteem, meaning and purpose, self determination, resilience and learning to give respect and responsibility
My take is that modern life increasingly undermines relationships and
One example I used was from a paper by Emeritus Prof. Paul Hoggett at UWE He cited teachers having to complete detailed lesson plans, nurses care plans and police spending more time filling in forms than out on patrol. “What progressively disappears is the idea of an encounter between the two people in which the client or user is recognised as a unique locus of experience, a subject to be understood rather than an object to be acted upon via re-skilling and reprogramming. Here then we see the spread of instrumental relations in welfare.’
How often do we hear, ‘I would prefer to talk to a human being, not do it online?’
Economists talk about material wealth creation, distribution and consumption. All necessary but they are, in many ways, a means to an end.
We were told 2000 years ago “Man does not live by bread alone.” The alternative to that can enable us “to have life more abundantly”.
That has now become the radical alternative.
Thank you
Watch Arena – ‘The Spectre of Hope’ (2001) – on BBC iPlayer. covering the work of Sebastio Salgado – the South American photographer. Apparently Salgado was trained as an economist. At the end, he asks a simple question that all economists should ask when confronted with documentary evidence of their ‘theories’. A must watch.
Thanks
During the Civil War the one group that both sides hated were small farmers who owned their own land as they were not obliged to serve either side.
You can still see it in some of the attitudes to smallholders and those who wish to live on the land today
Perhaps the resolution to this dilemma lies not only in institutional design but also in shared cultural attitudes that encourage mutual support and cooperation in ways that enable people to flourish together.
It then seems to me that the question is: what is needed for people in Western societies to shift away from the individualism that has been strongly encouraged during the neoliberal era towards a culture in which we support one another? The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind.
However, a fundamental question immediately arises: is the attitude of individualism humanity’s natural condition?
If I may be allowed to look East, some aspects of traditional Chinese culture suggest the answer is no.
The Chinese concept of “Face” the idea that a person’s social standing, dignity, and reputation are valuable assets that must be maintained through appropriate behaviour, mutual respect, and consideration for ancestors, family, friends, and others creates incentives for cooperation and self-restraint. “Face” also encourages people to consider how their actions affect others’ perceptions of them, including the impact on other people’s “Face”. This idea dates back more than two millennia and it has continued to shape social relations through very different political systems.
Turning back to the West, this suggests that flourishing may depend not only on institutions but also on cultural practices that evolve organically within societies. The challenge for a politics of care may therefore be less about defining flourishing from above and more about nurturing the social conditions and behaviours through which flourishing can emerge and be sustained.
Since neoliberal individual autonomy often emphasizes self-interest over collective responsibility, do Western societies today possess the cultural foundations required? A politics of care may therefore face a cultural challenge as much as an institutional one.
People are alienated by neoliberalism.
Isn’t that your answer?
My daughter sent me this link today – https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jun/01/a-new-start-after-60-i-became-my-husbands-carer-and-saw-travel-nature-and-love-anew
This couple “flourished”, in a very difficult situation. I identified with the experience. Jesuit writers speak of “finding God in all things”, such as a tiny flower bursting through a crack in some grim urban concrete – but I’m sure atheists and agnostics experience similar revelations.
A politics of care, makes sure such things remain possible for many different types of people and experiences, and it doesn’t have to be uniformly “enforced” by a rigid societal/state system, any more than chemotherapy should be forced on someone who wants palliative care, pain relief and precious time with loved ones during which they can also “flourish ” (but chemo, care and palliative pain relief should be available).
Much to agree with
I really like the way this going Richard. FWIW.
“We do not choose to exist. We do not choose the environment we will grow up in. We do not choose to be born Hindu, Christian or Muslim, into a war-zone or peaceful middle-class suburb, into starvation or luxury … This is the lottery of birth. … We make choices with a brain we didn’t choose.”
~ Raoul Martinez “Creating Freedom”.
Provision must be universal, because there are no ‘undeserving’ people. Only people.
I’ve also always liked Joseph Campbell’s way of putting it “God is a circle whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere”. I have the right to do what I think is best for me, as long as I don’t infringe anyone else’s right to exactly the same thing. Which comes down to your “No one flourishes in isolation.”
Thank you
We have become so acclimatised to centralisation that even our local authorities are seen as mini governments in which the ordinary person has no place or interest. For ‘centralisation’ read ‘powerlessness’. Politics is something that other people do.
We have to develop a sense of agency in our populations which this current round of creating unitary authorities is perversely making worse. Agency should start at school but instead we get conformity. It should develop in higher education but instead we load debt like a pair of lead boots on students and for their trouble lead them up a path to nowhere. No job and no sense of being able to make your way in the world. An economic prison. Then we are expected leave the running of our locality and the country to whichever party can muster the finances to catch our attention for the brief election period.
We need to provide purpose and possibility and this starts in your street. There will be more than one issue that your neighbours will be concerned about. Get together and do what you can to make it better. Often this is litter, overgrown verges, wasteland that needs care. Perhaps there is no local shop. Get together and bulk buy some basic items and agree a distribution method. It doesn’t really matter what. The act of changing something for the better is a tonic for the soul.
From this, real local governance is born. Yes, we need higher institutions too but they should serve the lower ones, not the other way round.
Much to agree with