To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Lyon uses the COVID epidemic to think about the instrumentalizing role of surveillance capitalism in digital society. He argues that the tech solutionism proffered by tech companies during the pandemic too often implied that democratic practices and social justice are at least temporarily dispensable for some greater good, with disastrous consequences for human flourishing. As a counterpoint, Lyon uses the notion of an ethics of care as a way to refocus on the importance of articulating the conditions that will enable the humans who live in datafied societies to live meaningful lives. He then offers Eric Stoddart’s notion of the “common gaze” to begin to imagine what those conditions might be. From this perspective, surveillance can be conceptualized as a gaze for the common good with a “preferential optic” focused on the conditions that will alleviate the suffering of the marginalized.
Drawing on two decades of collaborative legal ethnographic research with Indigenous communities, this article weaves personal narrative and lived experience to highlight working-class scholar-activism and embodied spiritual rituality as an act of resistance within academia. It critically challenges Western research ethics paradigms by emphasising ethics as a lived, relational practice grounded in rituality and interconnectedness rather than mere compliance. Through an audiovisual lens, it demonstrates how visual storytelling can embody and amplify more-than-human voices, fostering relationality and responsibility. The paper offers two key contributions: recentring the positionality of working-class scholars and recentring the agency of the more-than-human int he field of law as vital in knowledge production. While decolonial and Indigenous scholarship advocate for diverse epistemologies, they often overlook working-class perspectives rooted in societal justice. I argue that a heart-based resistance grounded in critical care, relationality, Indigenous ontologies and spirituality can foster transformative academic knowledge.
Death elicits needs such as an adequate farewell. Attending and responding to such needs is central to the organization of death, that is, the management of end-of-life situations before, during, and after a person’s passing. However, prior research points to insensitivity and marginalization of such needs in the organization of death. I refer to this phenomenon as “organized carelessness,” and I draw on the ethics of care to examine how it is produced. Based on a case study in the field of funeral services, I show how organized carelessness emerges through four processes: sequestration, deauthorization, reskilling, and moralization. Together, these processes contribute to stripping away ethical choices in relationships with the bereaved, and moving forward with little, if any, sensitivity and responses to their specific needs for an adequate farewell. These findings have implications for understanding carelessness in the organization of death in particular, and in organizational life more generally.
Citizen participation and empowerment are high on the political agenda of Western European welfare states. They are often pursued through processes of decentralisation with an appeal to ‘place-based’ working. Existing research focuses on citizen experiences or policymaker motivations, neglecting the perspectives of (municipal) public servants as mediators. Using an ethics of care framework, we examine the concept of ‘privileged irresponsibility’ within the context of local decision-making processes to help us understand how public servants negotiate local initiative within the spaces of local decision-making. Drawing on semi-structured in-depth interviews with twenty-three municipal public servants and managers, we show that they frequently experience an absence of care and eschew joint responsibility for concerns voiced by citizens. We show how ‘privileged irresponsibility’ depends on invisibility and normativity and is the outcome of local political relations and institutional pressures. ‘Tokenist’ forms of participation make it difficult for municipal public servants to take up ‘caring’ responsibilities towards citizens, with effects on their job satisfaction.
Contemporary human-centered organization and management practices endanger the planet’s health, affecting the life and death of multiple species—including humans. Drawing on insights from multispecies ethnography and feminist new materialism, this article contributes to the business ethics literature by developing a theoretical framework for multispecies organizing as a matter of care. Going beyond existing understandings of human-animal relations, we show how ethico-political dynamics shape multispecies relations in three ways: how we and other species relate to ecologies-in-place (affective relationalities); what we and other species do (vital doings); and, finally, what kinds of worlds we—through our ethical sensibilities—commit to bringing into being (ethical obligations). Using an illustrative example of a rewilding site in England, this article shows how multispecies organizing plays out in a specific ecology-in-place. Our argument has important implications for the conception and contemporary practices of the organizational ethics of life and death.
This article contends that investigating relationalities between business continuity management (BCM), staff behaviours, and bureaucratic resilience advances understandings of the survival of international organisations (IOs). Drawing on in-depth interviews, a global staff survey, and a discourse analysis of United Nations (UN) reports and applying a post-colonial feminist theoretical approach foregrounding care ethics to the study of IOs, the article examines how the UN Secretary-General’s Alternative Working Arrangements directive to close physical offices and open ‘virtual offices’ was implemented in the first 18 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is contended that BCM is necessary for IO survival, since if the IO bureaucracy is unable to be productive and maintain its spheres of influence during a crisis, it risks losing power and authority. Between March 2020 and August 2021, staff facilitated IO survival organically, from the bottom up, in four ways: demonstrating good performance and productivity; being adaptable and resilient; maintaining personal spheres of influence; and building communities of care within the UN. However, the UN’s neoliberal, technocratic approach to business continuity and bureaucratic resilience-building neglected staff care needs. Consequently, IO survival is predicated on staff performing as exploited gendered and racialised ‘neoliberal subjects’, revealing a chronic structural crisis rooted in the UN bureaucracy’s hierarchical composition and unequal employment regime.
While Indigenous knowledges have long recognised forests as sentient and caring societies, western sciences have only acknowledged that trees communicate, learn and care for one another in recent years. These different ways of coming to know and engage with trees as sentient agents are further complicated by the introduction of digital technologies and automated decision-making into forest ecosystems. This article considers this confluence of forest sentience and digital technologies through a pedagogy and ethic of immanent care as a relational framework for analysis and praxis in environmental education. The authors apply this framework to three key examples along Birrarung Marr, an ancient gathering place and urban parklands in the city of Naarm (Melbourne). These include an immersive theatre-making project exploring forest communication networks with young children; the Melbourne Urban Forest data set, which hosts digital profiles for over 70,000 trees; and the Greenline masterplan which aims to revitalise the north bank of the Birrarung over the next five years. Exploring the ethical and pedagogical contours of these examples leads to propositions for rethinking the role of environmental education in navigating the current confluence of animal, vegetal, fungal and digital life.
Relations between diplomats and civil society are central to diplomatic work. However, scholarship on diplomacy has not paid sufficient attention to how diplomats interact with civil society actors abroad. This article theorises and empirically examines diplomatic engagements with civil society organisations (CSOs) in host states. The article introduces a new concept – maternalism – into the analytical toolbox of diplomacy studies. While the Bourdieu-inspired ‘practice turn’ has entailed a recalibration of the study of diplomacy towards the everyday work of diplomats, I claim that we need notions that will help us understand these everyday practices in the context of structural power inequalities. In this endeavour, instead of turning to the established notion of paternalism, I follow feminist thinking regarding motherhood and the ethics of care. Maternalism is proposed as a complementary heuristic to paternalism that is helpful in capturing different modes of engagement between unequal actors in international politics and is not marked by financial dependency or military power. Maternalism and paternalism rely on distinct practices of care and control. To empirically illustrate the utility of the notion of maternalism, I analyse diplomats representing seven liberal states in the illiberal states of Poland and Hungary.
My hypothesis is that the beginning of the twenty-first century marked the emergence of a ’therapeutic’ way of writing and reading. Literature is viewed as a way of bringing literature and medicine closer together and extending a more general view on literary forms of attention and the ethics of care. With the example of French and Francophone literature, I suggest a relational turn defines the contemporary literature: literature is considered as a relationship – between the author and herself, between the author and her relatives, between the author and her readers, and between the readers themselves. Literature is a means of producing awareness and attention, that is to say, to point out, to make visible, to give importance to people or to situations that society and the economy do not make visible or invisible.
The book concludes on a note of hope. The UK’s legal and non-legal landscape is often fragmented, but nevertheless facilities the efforts of communities of care, who care about cultural heritage, to care for it. This chapter sets the book in the context of being the start of a conversation about care of cultural heritage with a hope to expand the concept more widely in the future.
This chapter defines care in the context of cultural heritage, drawing on the work of Joan Tronto, who treats care as both a disposition and a process. Central to this is the notion that care represents how people care about cultural heritage, but also the action of caring for it. Given the multitude of communities that care about, and care for, cultural heritage, it is clear that care is relational in nature. Building on the work of other academics who have analysed the nature of care, this chapter applies these to the context of cultural heritage and identifies the central elements of care as (a) developing and sustaining relationships; (b) acknowledging and assuming responsibilities; and (c) identifying and maintaining the appropriate care in the circumstances and revisiting this regularly. The need for caution with the concept of care is addressed, in particular to ensure that care is not paternalistic. Any system of care needs to build in space for revisiting the current allocation of care to determine whether it remains appropriate.
We seek to be both loving and just. However, what do we do when love and justice present us with incompatible obligations? Can one be excessively just? Should one bend rules or even break the law for the sake of compassion? Alternatively, should one simply follow rules? Unjust beneficence or uncaring justice - which is the less problematic moral choice? Moral dilemmas arise when a person can satisfy a moral obligation only by violating another moral duty. These quandaries are also called moral tragedies because despite their good intentions and best effort, people still end up being blameworthy. Conflicting demands of compassion and justice are among the most vexing problems of social philosophy, moral theology, and public policy. They often have life-and-death consequences for millions. In this book, Albino Barrera examines how and why compassion-justice conflicts arise to begin with, and what we can do to reconcile their competing claims.
In this article, I respond to symposium articles by Clark Wolf, Elizabeth Edenberg, and Helga Varden. With shared sympathies for anti-oppression liberalism and social contract theory, they urge me to develop the theory of liberal dependency care (LDC) in new directions — respectively, as a form of subject-centered justice, with a political liberal justification, and with a Kantian foundation for ‘private right.’ I respond by explicating the inclusivity that is built into the arrow of care map and the variety of contract theory I advance. Furthermore, I insist that anti-oppression liberalism need not formulate its claims in political liberal terms.
A focus on care draws attention to the fact that ethical self-cultivation, even in traditions that foreground moral autonomy, relies upon relationships of dependence. The recognition of relational and ethical dependence is familiar to anthropologists and has long been central for feminist ethics. However, the enormous body of anthropological scholarship that has emerged on care over the last decade raises the question of ethical dependence anew. This chapter problematizes the concept of care. It asks: how might ‘care’ as a topic, and as engaged ethnographically, trouble some of the ways that ethical life more broadly has been conceived in the philosophical and anthropological literature? Conversely, how might attention to the ethical stakes of care trouble some of the rich ethnographic scholarship on care? The chapter draws most substantially on anthropological and philosophical scholarship in virtue ethics and in phenomenology to consider both the relational complexities of care and care’s ineffable and elusive ethical dimensions.
Digital technologies induce organised immaturity by generating toxic sociotechnical conditions that lead us to delegate autonomous, individual, and responsible thoughts and actions to external technological systems. Aiming to move beyond a diagnostic critical reading of the toxicity of digitalisation, we bring Bernard Stiegler’s pharmacological analysis of technology into dialogue with the ethics of care to speculatively explore how the socially engaged arts—a type of artistic practice emphasising audience co-production and processual collective responses to social challenges—play a care-giving role that helps counter technology-induced organised immaturity. We outline and illustrate two modes by which the socially engaged arts play this role: 1) disorganising immaturity through artivism, most notably anti-surveillance art, that imparts savoir vivre, that is, shared knowledge and meaning to counter the toxic side of technologies while enabling the imagination of alternative worlds in which humans coexist harmoniously with digital technologies, and 2) organising maturity through arts-based hacking that imparts savoir faire, that is, hands-on knowledge for experimental creation and practical enactment of better technological worlds.
Lawyering in the 21st century is a complex mix of skills, knowledge, experience and ethics. While all these are obviously important for successful practice, it is the ethical zone that ultimately defines reputable lawyers and separates them from those who are merely successful in financial terms. Reputation is an elusive concept and hard to analyse in a short introduction. But one vital element of reputation is the notion of sound ethical judgement – the capacity of a lawyer to understand and choose wisely between contrasting ethical frameworks before making a difficult decision. In this task, it is vital to appreciate that there are several possible approaches to legal ethics. In this chapter, we explore those different approaches and explain why it is frequently appropriate to assess all alternatives for their possible impact.There are four main strands of ethical reasoning or considerations specific to lawyers in the context of Australian legal institutions: adversarial advocacy, responsible lawyering, moral activism and ethics of care. These four types are set out in this book as ideals, and we emphasise what is distinctive about each approach.
The differing roles a lawyer can play in civil dispute resolution require ethical judgement to determine how best to act according to the context in which the lawyer is working. As key actors in this system, lawyers have a paramount duty to the administration of justice. This chapter considers some of the impacts of a lack of care by the lawyer and the need for a fulsome notion of competence in providing legal services in dispute resolution. It then turns to how the law of lawyering attempts to balance or observe lawyers’ obligations to the client and the administration of justice in each case. We go on to consider the possibility for lawyers to go beyond the legal minimum, to take responsibility for a more moral activist approach by engaging in a moral conversation with clients. In the final section, we turn to lawyers’ roles in the administration of justice outside the courts, where they represent clients in alternative and more collaborative or non-adversarial forms of dispute resolution.
Parker and Evans's Inside Lawyers' Ethics provides a practical and engaging introduction to ethical decision-making in legal practice in Australia. Underpinned by four theoretical concepts – adversarial advocacy, responsible lawyering, moral activism and ethics of care – this text analyses legal and professional frameworks, highlighting relevant parts of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules. Case studies and discussion questions offer contemporary, practical examples of the application of ethics. The book also addresses the challenge of ethical action and offers techniques to deal with ethical conflicts.This edition has been comprehensively updated and discusses the implications of advances in legal technology, mental ill-health in the profession and the complexities of government legal practice. A new chapter covers lawyers' ethical obligation to address the legal challenges posed by climate change. Written by an expert author team, Parker and Evans's Inside Lawyers' Ethics empowers readers to identify ethical challenges and resolve them through good decision-making practices.
This chapter discusses efforts to transcend disagreements between carer and disability rights perspectives in relation to care and support. The tension between these perspectives rests on a dichotomous view of people with disabilities as being either dependent on others and in need of ‘care’ or independent holders of rights. Ethics of care theorists have challenged this dichotomy, arguing that interdependence – both giving and receiving care – must be reconceived as normal and universal human experiences and elements of citizenship. Some disability scholars have engaged with the ethics of care perspective, drawing especially on a human rights perspective on disability, to devise an approach that can recognize and meet care and support needs on the basis of shared dignity rather than shared vulnerability. This would require the introduction of care and support policies that recognize and extend support to people in all forms of care and support relationships, recognize diversity of need, impairment and preference and facilitate the exercise of the full suite of citizenship and human rights. While this approach is promising, some conceptual differences between the carer and disability rights perspectives remain unaddressed, including a persistent tendency to prioritize one side of the care or support relationship over the other.
This chapter introduces a set of six principles to guide the evaluation and design of rights-based care and support policy in liberal welfare states. The principles build on and extend the reconciliation efforts discussed in earlier chapters, using the common thread of social citizenship rights claims that runs through the feminist, carer and disability rights perspectives. The principles provide criteria for evaluating the extent to which existing policies encompass the concerns of multiple care and disability perspectives, including whether they ease policy tensions between supporting women’s unpaid care and paid work and between meeting the claims of carers and those of people with disabilities. The principles can also inform the design of policies that promote equal social citizenship rights to care, support and paid work participation for all parties to these relationships. The principles address matters including access to financial resources and good quality services; flexibility in how life is organized; time for unpaid care, paid work and self-care; incorporation of the ‘voice’ of all affected people in the policy design; and responding to difference associated with gender inequality, disability and impairment, and citizenship status.