This comment was posted here last night by a commentator called Howard, in response to my post on how we create change:
Each of the political parties you have listed has a foe they oppose – the establishment, the foreigner, the hand-wringer
I am wondering if the politics of care has a foe or if it is a system without any. To support something, it is helpful to know what it is not. Or maybe this philosophy is just ‘for' things
Posting in the spirit of exploration.
I thought that was a good question and had to give the response some thought, and so bought myself some time by saying I would post this response this morning
Having reflected, I do not think the politics of care needs a human enemy in the way many political movements do. There is a good reason for that. As I have often pointed out, much modern politics depends upon identifying a group to blame. The politics of care does, instead, begin from the assumption that most people are trying to make sense of the world as best they can.
That said, it will have opponents, the most important of which is neoliberal-inspired indifference to others.
More specifically, the politics of care inevitably opposes systems, structures and ideologies that deny our interdependence whilst pretending that human beings are isolated, self-sufficient individuals who owe little or nothing to each other. That means that the politics of care is opposed to:
- neglect,
- exclusion,
- exploitation,
- domination,
- and the idea that some people do not matter.
In economic terms, it challenges the belief that markets alone should determine value.
In political terms, it challenges the idea that power is an end in itself.
In social terms, it challenges the notion that success is solely an individual achievement.
But I would not want to turn any of those into a caricatured enemy. The purpose of the politics of care is not to defeat an opponent. It is to create the conditions in which people can flourish.
So if it has a foe, it is not a person, a class, or a nationality. It is, instead, the neoliberal mindset that says, “I am all that matters”, and the institutions built upon that belief. That is the opposite of care. That is the enemy of the politics of care, if there has to be one.
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!
Beveridge was an example of the politics of care.
He identified five enemies-or giants- want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
But they were abstracts -not real groups of people
Your stance is in the same tradition.
Bout we can all see people it fits
Knowing your focus on getting actual change effected, I’ve found posts like this really exercising my little grey cells.
I’ve been reflecting on possibly the most politically hijacked parable in the New Testament, the Good Samaritan, but it took me over 500 words 🙁 .
Several questions:
Legal expert with legal question about self-validation: How do I inherit eternal life?
Jesus, with legal answer: What does the law say?
Legal expert, quoting letter of law: Love God, love your neighbour.
Jesus: Go, DO it then.
Legal expert, aiming at self-justification and hoping for a narrow definition: WHO is my neighbour?
Jesus, telling story, entertains crowd, REFUSES to answer the “definition” question, by failing to identify the “victim/neighbour” instead asking: Who BEHAVED as a neighbour?
Legal expert, who can’t bring himself to say “Samaritan”: The one who cared for the victim”.
Jesus, having dodged all the definitions and the traps, having exposed the failings of the rule makers and rule keepers, having downgraded the significance of law, race, and identity, then challenges both the legal expert and everyone hearing the story, (including me, 2000 years later, in a different land) – “Go and DO likewise.”
I think your “politics of care” campaign is going through a similar process of question and challenge, and the way Jesus handled the legal expert, has much to offer – we want to see the politics of care DONE, and that matters more than defining it.
So, what will work, who will help, how can change come about?
KUTGW!
Thanks!
I was a member of the Samaritans for a number of years. We were a very diverse group in terms of education and class but we had something in common. Compassion and and, as you say, did something about it.
While there are those who oppose helping others or are selective, there are those walk by on the other side. Often it is not because they lack the capacity for compassion but they have no vision of how things could be different. Maybe Proverbs 29.18
Richard’s posts and our responses are valuable in creating a vision.
KUTGW
Thanks
I think that if the politics of care has a political foe, or opposite, it is the politics of individual self-interest as represented by a neoliberal definition. “I am all that matters” is what Reform, the Tories, and Labour advocate. Some in Labour might deny it, but when in power they follow the same blueprint. And we need to be honest, because in a monied, capitalist system, it is a very powerful weapon, backed by an established order that controls the agenda (especially the media in all its forms).
It will take some defeating.
That is what I said.
The politics of care – because everyone matters.
Yes
My question would be “how does a politics of care deal with psychopaths, people who are highly motivated and effective in seeking and achieving power to oppose a politics of care.” Where do the likes of Itamar Ben-Gvir emerge from?
It deal with them by providing an electoral alternative.
I don’t think it matters where the likes of Itamar Ben Givr emerged from. What matters to me is that they should be treated with honesty and dignity while their ideas and actions are treated as the abhorrent issues that they are. I am not a believer in any religion, but I do understand and try to follow the idea of ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’. In a politics of care everyone matters, including those whose actions are abhorrent.
Politics is about conflict. Conflict isn’t necessary always between people. It manifests within individuals. When an individual is unsure about what cause of action is best, that is conflict. He is conflicted with what he should do. Whether it is to take part in a march or do fund raising or canvassing. These actions can not all be done simultaneously. Neoliberalism sells us the idea that in all can be done. We just go to the market and buy it. This is deeply depolitical. Politics is the idea that things could be different, especially the way that I behave could be different. By promising everything is possible and that there is no alternative to this, politics has removed politics from the discussion of politics. It all becomes a branding exercise to win market share. I am in conflict with this. I remain unsure exactly how to proceed precisely because I am thinking politically about what is best to do.
And? So? I need a conclusion.
The advantage of your approach is that it would also confound our, supposedly knowledgeable, pundits who invariably resort to simplistic, polarised framing of their questions. The politics of care is not against anyone who wants a society that helps everyone to flourish.
Agreed
Such is the dire state of ‘our’ media – there might well be no overtly hostile questions – just a sneering dismissal – ‘how would you pay for it’, ‘its unaffordable’,
An anti ‘me,me,me’ story will be a tough sell. I’m thinking back to your TIARA approach were the R stands for Radical
I’m wondering if the radical and backable message is about cooperation. As humans we all know we need to cooperate which necessitates considering others needs and relying on others.
I’m looking for a middle way of positioning the politics of care between radical self interest and concepts that seem too ‘communist’ for the person in the Clapham omnibus
I am not interested in promoting a me, me, me story. Precisely because of that I had to think hard about what the foe is, which is the entitlement within neoliberalism. The pitch is entirely positive. And what is communist about care?
A driver who texts while driving.
A patient who is unheedful of a doctor’s explicit medical advice.
A friend who is unheedful of one’s personal boundaries.
The enemy of care is in all of us. “I confess……”
Marjane Satrapi, exiled from her native Iran after her parents sent her abroad as a teenager, saw the problem as patriarchy – not men, but the institution of patriarchy. I resist this view to some extent, seeing wealth-and-power structures that are blind to the needs and situation of those outside as the big problem. But the emphasis on gender roles in fascism and some religious traditions that rely on male heads of households to uphold their teachings is pernicious. Anyone who wants anything different, is pointed at as the enemy of the devout, the ‘real men’ and patriots, and a threat their position.
Thank you and much to agree with.