Great essay. I really enjoy your substack and learn a lot from your writing. I think the challenge of scaling care - or support for care - is one of the central issues of care; conceptually and in policy. I've been thinking - wrestling - with this a bit in the concept of care infrastructure: infrastructure that cares, and care as infrastructure. In neither case, do I think the concept really works and while the phrases might have rhetorical or political value, I don't think they actually help us improve and expand care.
I'm not sure, but the same might be true for care institutions or institutions that care. We might be better off reserving care for the very granular and relational experience/service/activity between specific humans. And finding other words and concepts for scaled versions of that.
A relevant problem is that care is highly heterogeneous and also temporally variable (changes over time). So, scaling care to industrial levels will inevitably miss the mark in many (most?) cases.
Anyhow, just thought I'd comment and thank you for your writing and thinking.
Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you're finding it informative ! Indeed, scaling care is absolutely a central issue, and a thorny one to dissect because it can take so many forms and yield so many levels of quality. That's an interesting point about care infrastructure, it does get thrown around a lot whilst meaning a great variety of things.
One thing I tried to grapple with as I wrote this essay and ultimately didn't include, because I couldn't formulate it clearly enough, was that maybe the principle we need to integrate is that relationality is in fact unscalable: it is contingent on a particular relationship between particular individuals, and as you say it's temporally variable. So we can't reasonably be claiming to "scale care". However, we can aim to scale the conditions that make good care possible -- kind of "putting the circle inside a square". That's what I was trying to express with this idea of institutionalising fluidity: not institutionalising the process of care itself, but setting up a formal framework in which relationality can flourish, circulate freely, and be protected from external "care-icide" tendencies.
Thank you for sharing your article, too, will check it out now ! Seems very relevant indeed.
I'm not sure I like fluidity - but definitely think variability is essential when thinking about care. And it's a problem for me because, in the end, I'm interested in public policy which doesn't manage fluidity or variability well. For policy, we're looking for simple, observable actions, thresholds, legal status, universality. I don't think it's impossible, but I think the taxonomy and entitlements on care need a lot of thinking and work for policy purposes.
Thanks for this, Mélina. A lot to follow up on : I knew about the pioneering examples of intergenerational care, which I think are wonderful, but the Buurtzog and other models you write about here were new to me. Some parallels with the very first episode of my Careful Thinking podcast, on relational care: https://carefulthinking.substack.com/p/relational-care-mary-larkin-and-manik
Thank you for sharing, will read or listen! It’s interesting that there is even a concept called ‘relational care’, as it would seem to be a pleonasm, since care cannot be anything but relational. Intrigued to see how they frame it in the episode.
The buzzword/term in care used to be 'person-centred care', and 'relational care' is intended as a step on from that, in that it emphasises the agency of the care receiver and their capacity to be an active partner in the relationship - I suppose 'reciprocal care' might be a useful synonym, though it doesn't encompass everything that's meant by the term. But I should say I'm not expert: listen to Mary and Manik talking about their research in the episode (in relation to elder care) for a more accurate picture!
Great essay. I really enjoy your substack and learn a lot from your writing. I think the challenge of scaling care - or support for care - is one of the central issues of care; conceptually and in policy. I've been thinking - wrestling - with this a bit in the concept of care infrastructure: infrastructure that cares, and care as infrastructure. In neither case, do I think the concept really works and while the phrases might have rhetorical or political value, I don't think they actually help us improve and expand care.
I'm not sure, but the same might be true for care institutions or institutions that care. We might be better off reserving care for the very granular and relational experience/service/activity between specific humans. And finding other words and concepts for scaled versions of that.
A relevant problem is that care is highly heterogeneous and also temporally variable (changes over time). So, scaling care to industrial levels will inevitably miss the mark in many (most?) cases.
Anyhow, just thought I'd comment and thank you for your writing and thinking.
Here's a recent blog from me: https://niawag.substack.com/p/infrastructure-as-care?r=9kmoz&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you're finding it informative ! Indeed, scaling care is absolutely a central issue, and a thorny one to dissect because it can take so many forms and yield so many levels of quality. That's an interesting point about care infrastructure, it does get thrown around a lot whilst meaning a great variety of things.
One thing I tried to grapple with as I wrote this essay and ultimately didn't include, because I couldn't formulate it clearly enough, was that maybe the principle we need to integrate is that relationality is in fact unscalable: it is contingent on a particular relationship between particular individuals, and as you say it's temporally variable. So we can't reasonably be claiming to "scale care". However, we can aim to scale the conditions that make good care possible -- kind of "putting the circle inside a square". That's what I was trying to express with this idea of institutionalising fluidity: not institutionalising the process of care itself, but setting up a formal framework in which relationality can flourish, circulate freely, and be protected from external "care-icide" tendencies.
Thank you for sharing your article, too, will check it out now ! Seems very relevant indeed.
I'm not sure I like fluidity - but definitely think variability is essential when thinking about care. And it's a problem for me because, in the end, I'm interested in public policy which doesn't manage fluidity or variability well. For policy, we're looking for simple, observable actions, thresholds, legal status, universality. I don't think it's impossible, but I think the taxonomy and entitlements on care need a lot of thinking and work for policy purposes.
Thanks for this, Mélina. A lot to follow up on : I knew about the pioneering examples of intergenerational care, which I think are wonderful, but the Buurtzog and other models you write about here were new to me. Some parallels with the very first episode of my Careful Thinking podcast, on relational care: https://carefulthinking.substack.com/p/relational-care-mary-larkin-and-manik
Thank you for sharing, will read or listen! It’s interesting that there is even a concept called ‘relational care’, as it would seem to be a pleonasm, since care cannot be anything but relational. Intrigued to see how they frame it in the episode.
The buzzword/term in care used to be 'person-centred care', and 'relational care' is intended as a step on from that, in that it emphasises the agency of the care receiver and their capacity to be an active partner in the relationship - I suppose 'reciprocal care' might be a useful synonym, though it doesn't encompass everything that's meant by the term. But I should say I'm not expert: listen to Mary and Manik talking about their research in the episode (in relation to elder care) for a more accurate picture!