Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Ethics

Four Paradigm Cases of Dependency in Care Relations

Profile image of Simon van der WeeleSimon van der Weele

2021, Hypatia

https://doi.org/10.1017/HYP.2021.10
visibility

…

description

22 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Dependency functions as a keyword in care theory. However, care theorists have spelled out the ontological and moral ramifications of dependency in different and often conflicting ways. In this article, I argue that conceptual disputes about dependency betray a fundamental discordance among authors, rooted in the empirical premises of their arguments. Hence, although authors appear to share a vocabulary of dependency, they are not writing about quite the same phenomenon. I seek to elucidate these differences by teasing out and comparing different conceptions of dependency found in the literature. Borrowing a phrase from Eva Kittay, I trace four "paradigm cases" of dependency: the infant, the physically disabled person, the profoundly intellectually disabled person, and the refugee. These paradigm cases serve as the empirical touchstone from which theorists extract their conceptions of dependency. Each paradigm case, moreover, permits (or even implores) a particular ethical sensibility toward care. How we understand and value dependency thus seems to determine how we understand and value care, and vice versa. In this way, I contend, our normative orientation toward care might influence what sorts of dependency we see-and, by extension, which forms of dependency we fail to notice.

Related papers

Toward a Dialogue on the Relations of Care
Russell Shuttleworth
View PDFchevron_right
What is the problem of dependency? Dependency work reconsidered
Simon van der Weele

Nursing Philosophy, 2020

Dependency is fundamental to caring relationships. However, given that dependency implies asymmetry, it also brings moral problems for nursing. In nursing theory and theories of care, dependency tends to be framed as a problem of self‐determination—a tendency that is mirrored in contemporary policy and practice. This paper argues that this problem frame is too narrow. The aim of the paper is to articulate additional theoretical ‘problem frames’ for dependency and to increase our understanding of how dependency can be navigated in practices of long‐term care. It does so by way of an empirical ethical analysis of how care professionals tackle the problem of dependency in group homes for people with intellectual disabilities. The paper refers to these practices of mitigating the problem of dependency as ‘dependency work’, a phrase borrowed from Eva Kittay. The analysis of dependency work suggests that for care professionals, dependency is a threefold problem: one of self‐determination, one of parity and one of self‐worth. These findings suggest that patient autonomy cannot be a full solution to the problem of dependency in long‐term care relations. But they also show that dependency as such is not a problem that can be solved, as attempts to mitigate it only serve to tighten the dependency relationship further. This is the paradox of dependency work.

View PDFchevron_right
Care for disabled people with complex dependency: a matter of justice
Marivete Gesser

Revista Estudos Feministas, 2022

The purpose of this text is to problematize care for disabled people who experience complex dependence and to defend care as a matter of justice. To do so, we establish a dialogue between disability studies and a political-feminist ethics of care. In the first section we approach the theme of care from a political-feminist perspective. We then discuss how ableism and familism, in line with neoliberal policies, obstruct access to care, which is accentuated during health emergencies such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Finally, based on the understanding that care provided by the state is a matter of justice for people with disabilities, we present some ethical-political principles that help qualify the debate on this subject and foster the construction of emancipatory social policies.

View PDFchevron_right
"Cognitive Disability and the Ethics of Care: Justifying Dependency as a Moral Claim in Relational Justice." SEA Journal of General Studies, Volume 23, Number 1 (2022): 204-213.
Christopher Ryan Maboloc

SEA Journal of General Studies, 2022

This study seeks to explain the importance of the ethics of care in making society just and equal. It attempts to respond to the exclusion of persons with disability. Using the interpretive method, this paper asks about society's ethical obligations to persons with cognitive disability. It argues that the idea of cash enhancement is not enough. Caring for persons with mental impairment requires the deep type of commitment that can only be founded in unconditional love and care. That justice is relational means that the child with autism requires the full attention of parents and the support of the state. But there is a gap since human society is reluctant to embrace the fact that there are persons who are dependent for life. The aim of this investigation is to argue that dependency on the part of individuals with cognitive disability is a morally justifiable claim that is rooted in the value of love and care as critical elements in the relational dimension of justice.

View PDFchevron_right
The subject of care: feminist perspectives on dependency
Ellen Feder

2002

View PDFchevron_right
Adela Souralova (2015), New Perspectives on Mutual Dependency in Care-Giving
Nóra Kovács

2018

There are several matters that make Czech sociologist Adéla Souralová's in-depth study on post-migratory care arrangements in the Czech Republic a unique and remarkable venture. The first and a very important one is her choice of the topic, a previously unconsidered, widespread yet somewhat invisible phenomenon related to Vietnamese migration to East-Central Europe. As it happens, there are generations of Vietnamese migrant children in the Czech Republic who have been raised by Czech women living in the Czech women's homes.

View PDFchevron_right
The meaning of care dependency as shared by care givers and care recipients: a concept analysis
Christa Lohrmann

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2007

Title. The meaning of care dependency as shared by care givers and care recipients: a concept analysis Aim. This paper is a report of a concept analysis to identify a meaning of care dependency that can be shared by both care givers and care recipients. Background. Care dependency can be perceived from the care recipient's and the care giver's perspective. To allow for comparisons, both sides should share the same understanding of the concept. The current research about care dependency has focused on external assessment by nurses and suffers from a tendency to use the concept with different meanings. As a consequence, research on dependency may capture different phenomena. Method. Walker and Avant's method for concept analysis served as the guideline for this study. The Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for the period 1996-2006 using the terms dependence, dependency, care dependence and care dependency. Results. Care dependency can be defined as a subjective, secondary need for support in the domain of care to compensate a self-care deficit. Functional limitations are a necessary antecedent and unmet needs are a possible consequence of care dependency. The conceptual difference between care dependency, functional limitations and unmet needs may be meaningless for study participants. They may better understand these differences if they are asked about all three phenomena in the same investigation. Conclusion. Care givers and care recipients can agree on the suggested attributes of care dependency but may judge them in different ways. Self-assessed care dependency has the potential to challenge preconceptions of care givers about care dependency.

View PDFchevron_right
Freedom to Care: Liberalism, Dependency Care, and Culture
Asha Bhandary

Chapter One. The Theory of Liberal Dependency Care, 2020

This book presents the first systematic account of dependency care in a liberal theory of justice. Despite the fact that receiving dependency care is necessary for human survival, the practices with which we meet society’s care needs are seldom recognized for their functional role. Instead, norms about gender and race obscure and shape expectations about whose needs for care are legitimate as well as about whose caregiving labor more advantaged members of society will receive. These opaque arrangements must be made visible if we are to remedy skewed intuitions and judgements about care. Freedom to Care develops a modified form of social contract theory with which to evaluate society’s caregiving arrangements. Building on work by feminist liberals and care ethicists, it reframes debates about care to move beyond gender with an inequality-tracking framework that can be employed in any culture. Because care provision has been enmeshed in the subordination of women and people of color, eliminating the invisibility of these forms of labor yields a critical liberal theory of justice with feminist and anti-racist aims.

View PDFchevron_right
The continuum of dependent family care: a theoretical explanation and model
Lisa M. Stewart

Community, Work and Family, 2018

Caring for dependents with disabilities and how this type of care diers from the care of typically developing dependents has largely remained unaddressed in the work-family literature, partly 15 because of a lack of theoretical development on the concept of dependent family care. Studies examining dependent family care often apply a life course perspective, missing key disability factors influencing dependent family care demands and need for resources. This article develops a theoretical framework of dependent family care that accounts for both typical care, which 20 follows the life course trajectory, and exceptional care, which follows a disability trajectory. We position dependent family care as based on a continuum, achieved by adapting life course theory, family adjustment to chronic illness, ecological systems theory, stigma theory and the social model of disability into a model. We explain how dependent family care occurs and what contributes to whether one is engaging in typical or exceptional care. We 25 draw broad constructs representing predictors of dierent types of dependent family care. We provide specific examples to illustrate how one might test theoretical propositions, an agenda for further research and discuss implications for family-work-community research and practice. 30 RESUMEN El cuidado de dependientes con capacidades diferentes difiere del cuidado atención y servicio de dependientes en desarrollo típico y natural, en la literatura trabajo-familia, ha permanecido en gran parte sin abordar debido a la falta de desarrollo teórico sobre el concepto de cuidado familiar en un núcleo normal y natural dependiente. Los estudios que examinan el cuidado la interacción familiar dependiente a menudo aplican una perspectiva de curso de vida, en estos, faltan los factores clave de capacidad diferente, que influyen en las demandas de cuidado familiar dependiente y la necesidad de recursos. Este artículo desarrolla un marco teórico de la atención familiar dependiente que considera tanto la atención típica, que sigue la trayectoria del ciclo de vida, como la 40 atención excepcional, que sigue una trayectoria de capacidad diferente. Posicionamos el cuidado familiar dependiente basado en un curso continuo, logrando adaptar la teoría del curso de la vida, el ajuste familiar a la enfermedad crónica, la teoría de sistemas ecológicos, la teoría del estigma y el modelo social de ARTICLE HISTORY KEYWORDS Dependent family care; family demands; eldercare; disability; theory development PALABRAS CLAVE cuidado de un familiar dependiente; demandas familiares; cuidado de ancianos; discapacidad; desarollo theórico 45 CONTACT Lisa Stewart

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics of Care and the Experience of Disability: an Interview with
Marivete Gesser, Helena M Fietz

Revista Estudos Feministas, 2021

We met with Eva Feder Kittay in an afternoon of December at a café in New York City where she generously spoke for almost two hours about her work on the Ethics of Care and Disability, and her experience as Sesha's mother. A recently retired Professor of Philosophy from Stony Brook University, in New York, Kittay is a leading figure in feminist philosophy and philosophy of disability and has also made a substantial contribution to the fields of social and political theory and ethics. Along with other feminist theorists such as Joan Tronto and Virginia Held, Kittay was one of the pioneers in proposing an alternative ethical theory centered not on normative, general, universal principles of justice, but on interpersonal relationships, responsiveness to specific needs, and relationships of dependence and interdependence. An Ethics of Care. Her work as a philosopher is intertwined with her trajectory as Sesha's mother and she has built her career in a way that is not common within the discipline of philosophy: writing from one's own personal life. She was also a pioneer in bringing matters of care and disability-with special attention to cognitive disability-into philosophy. In 1999 she published the groundbreaking book Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency (Eva KITTAY, 1999). In this collection of essays, she presented a feminist critique of John Rawls' theory of justice and formulated an alternative conception of equality that takes into account relationships of care, dependency, and the dependency workers. With that, she argued for the recognition of Care as a primary good. Moreover, she placed dependency, interdependency, and care in the center of the discussions on social justice. She also argues for a better distribution of dependency work, one that is not by gender, race or class, but through skills or inclination which requires the valorization of such labor. Since then, she has published over eighty papers, books and book chapters on issues of dependency, the relational self, the relationship of care and justice, asymmetry of relationships, social justice, politics of care, and disability. Kittay is also a prominent figure on Disability Studies. With a work grounded in an Ethics of Care, she has argued against philosophers and scholars who reduce the moral status of people with cognitive disability. With that, she addresses matters of the dignity of people with cognitive disability, personhood, justice, the role of care and of relationality, and also the guarantee of rights and access to health care for people with disabilities. She co-edited the book Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral

View PDFchevron_right

References (81)

  1. Adams, Rachel. 2017. Choosing disability, visualizing care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 27 (2): 301-21.
  2. Anderson, Joel, and Axel Honneth. 2004. Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition, and justice. In Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism: New essays, ed. John Christman and Joel Anderson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Back, Laura. 2015. Private dependence, public personhood: Rethinking "nested obligations." Hypatia 30 (1): 115-31.
  4. Baltes, Margret M. 1996. The many faces of dependency in old age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Barnes, Colin. 1991. "Cabbage syndrome": The social construction of dependence. London: The Falmer Press.
  6. Barton, Len. 1989. Editor's introduction. In Disability and dependency, ed. Len Barton. London: The Falmer Press.
  7. Bubeck, Diemut Grace. 2002. Justice and the labor of care. In The subject of care: Feminist perspectives on dependency, ed. Eva Feder Kittay and Ellen K. Feder. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
  8. Butler, Judith. 2004a. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso. Butler, Judith. 2004b. Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
  9. Butler, Judith. 2010. Frames of war: When is life grievable? London and New York: Verso.
  10. Butler, Judith. 2017. Bodies that still matter. Lecture delivered at Resonances of Judith Butler Conference. April 5-6. Amsterdam.
  11. Butler, Judith. forthcoming. Bodies that still matter. In Bodies that still matter: Resonances of the work of Judith Butler, ed. Annemie Halsema, Katja Kwastek, and Roel van den Oever. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  12. Collins, Stephanie. 2015. The core of care ethics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. Cushing, Pamela, and Tanya Lewis. 2002. Negotiating mutuality and agency in care-giving relationships with women with intellectual disabilities. Hypatia 17 (3): 173-93.
  14. de Beaufort, Inez. 2013. Kleine ode aan de onafhankelijkheid. The Hague: Centrum voor Ethiek en Gezondheid.
  15. Dodds, Susan. 2014. Dependence, care, and vulnerability. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Engster, Daniel. 2019. Care ethics, dependency, and vulnerability. Ethics and Social Welfare 13 (2): 100-14.
  17. Erevelles, Nirmala. 2011. Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Fine, Michael, and Caroline Glendinning. 2005. Dependence, independence or inter-dependence? Revisiting the concepts of "care" and "dependency." Ageing and Society 25: 601-21.
  19. Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2000. Cracking the foundational myths: Independence, autonomy, and self- sufficiency. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 8 (13): 13-29.
  20. Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20 (1): 1-23.
  21. Fraser, Nancy, and Linda Gordon. 1994. A genealogy of dependency: Tracing a keyword of the U.S. welfare state. Signs 19 (2): 309-36.
  22. Gallie, W. B. 1956. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 56: 167-98.
  23. Held, Virginia. 1993. Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Hoagland, Sarah Lucia. 1990. Some concerns about Nel Noddings' "Caring." Hypatia 5 (1): 109-14.
  26. Hughes, Bill, Linda McKie, Debra Hopkins, and Nick Watson. 2005. Love's labours lost? Feminism, the disabled people's movement and an ethic of care. Sociology 39 (2): 259-75.
  27. Kane, Laura Wildemann. 2016. Childhood, growth, and dependency in liberal political philosophy. Hypatia 31 (1): 156-70.
  28. Keller, Jean. 2010. Rethinking Ruddick and the ethnocentrism critique of Maternal Thinking. Hypatia 25 (4): 834-51.
  29. Kelly, Christine. 2013. Building bridges with accessible care: Disability studies, feminist care scholarship, and beyond. Hypatia 28 (4): 784-800.
  30. Keyes, Sarah E., Sarah H. Webber, and Kevin Beveridge. 2015. Empowerment through care: Using dialogue between the social model of disability and an ethic of care to redraw boundaries of independence and partnership between disabled people and services. ALTER: European Journal of Disability Research 9 (3): 236-48.
  31. Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love's labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.
  32. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2001. When caring is justice and justice is caring: Justice and mental retardation. Public Culture 13 (3): 557-79.
  33. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2002. Love's labor revisited. Hypatia 17 (3): 237-50.
  34. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2009. The personal is philosophical is political: A philosopher and mother of a cogni- tively disabled person sends notes from the battlefield. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4): 606-27.
  35. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2011. The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris 24 (1): 49-58.
  36. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2015. Dependency. In Keywords for disability studies, ed. David Serlin, Benjamin Reiss, and Rachel Adams. New York: New York University Press.
  37. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2019. Learning from my daughter: The value and care of disabled minds. New York: Oxford University Press.
  38. Kröger, Teppo. 2009. Care research and disability studies: Nothing in common? Critical Social Policy 29 (3): 398-420.
  39. Leget, Carlo, Pascal Borry, and Raymond de Vries. 2009. "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics 23 (4): 226-35.
  40. López Gómez, Daniel. 2015. Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 93 (April): 91-101.
  41. Lorey, Isabell. 2015. State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. London: Verso.
  42. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1999. Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court.
  43. Mackenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar. 2000. Introduction: Autonomy refigured. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, ed. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Mackenzie, Catriona, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. 2014. Introduction: What is vulnerability, and why does it matter for moral theory? In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Manschot, Henk. 1994. Kwetsbare autonomie: Over afhankelijkheid en onafhankelijkheid in de ethiek van de zorg. In Ethiek van de zorg: Een discussie, ed. Henk Manschot and Marian Verkerk. Amsterdam: Boom.
  46. McCrary, Lorraine Krall. 2019. From Hull-House to Herland: Engaged and extended care in Jane Addams and Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Politics and Gender 15 (1): 62-82.
  47. Mol, Annemarie. 2008. I eat an apple: On theorizing subjectivities. Subjectivity 22: 28-37.
  48. Morris, Jenny. 1997. Care or empowerment? A disability rights perspective. Social Policy and Administration 31 (1): 54-60.
  49. Morris, Jenny. 2001. Impairment and disability: Constructing an ethics of care that promotes human rights. Hypatia 16 (4): 1-16.
  50. Moser, Ingunn. 1999. Good passages, bad passages. In Actor network theory and after, ed. John Law and John Hassard. Oxford: Blackwell.
  51. Murphy, Ann. 2011. Corporeal vulnerability and the new humanism. Hypatia 26 (3): 575-90.
  52. Nauta, Lolle. 1984. Historical roots of the concept of autonomy in Western philosophy. Praxis International 4 (4): 363-77.
  53. Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  54. Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  55. Oliver, Mike. 1989. Disability and dependency: A creation of industrial society? In Disability and depend- ency, ed. Len Barton. London: The Falmer Press.
  56. Oliver, Mike. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.
  57. Oliver, Kelly. 2002. Subjectivity as responsivity: The ethical implications of dependency. In The subject of care: Feminist perspectives on dependency, ed. Eva Feder Kittay and Ellen K. Feder. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
  58. Pols, Jeannette. 2015. Towards an empirical ethics in care: Relations with technologies in health care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (1): 81-90.
  59. Reindal, Solveig. 1999. Independence, dependence, interdependence: Some reflections on the subject and personal autonomy. Disability and Society 14 (3): 353-67.
  60. Ruddick, Sara. 1995. Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston: Beacon Press.
  61. Ruddick, Sara. 1998. Care as labor and relationship. In Norms and values: Essays on the work of Virginia Held, ed. Joram G. Haber and Mark S. Halfon. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.
  62. Ruddick, Sara 2002. An appreciation of Love's Labor. Hypatia 17 (3): 214-24.
  63. Schram, Sanford. 2000. After welfare: The culture of postindustrial social policy. New York: New York University Press.
  64. Scully, Jackie Leach. 2014. Disability and vulnerability: On bodies, dependence, and power. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers, and Susan Dodds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  65. Shakespeare, Tom. 2000. Help. Birmingham, UK: Venture Press.
  66. Shakespeare, Tom. 2014. Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London and New York: Routledge.
  67. Shildrick, Margrit. 2000. Becoming vulnerable: Contagious encounters and the ethics of risk. Journal of Medical Humanities 21 (4): 215-27.
  68. Silvers, Anita. 1995. Reconciling equality to difference: Caring (f)or justice for people with disabilities. Hypatia 10 (1): 30-55.
  69. Silvers, Anita. 2001. Agency, dependency, and disability. In The encyclopedia of ethics, ed. Lawrence Becker and Charlotte Becker. New York: Routledge.
  70. Simplican, Stacy Clifford. 2015. Care, disability, and violence: Theorizing complex dependency in Eva Kittay and Judith Butler. Hypatia 30 (1): 217-33.
  71. Simplican, Stacy Clifford. 2017. Timing problems: When care and violence converge in Stephen King's horror novel Christine. Hypatia 32 (2): 397-414.
  72. Thé, Anne-Mei. 2008. In death's waiting room. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  73. Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge. Van der Weele, Simon, Femmianne Bredewold, Carlo Leget, and Evelien Tonkens. 2020. What is the prob- lem of dependency? Dependency work reconsidered. Nursing Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1111/nup. 12327
  74. Van Hove, Geert, Susan L. Gabel, Elisabeth De Schauwer, Kathleen Mortier, Jos Van Loon, Gerrit Loots, Patrick Devlieger, Griet Roets, and Lien Claes. 2012. Resistance and resilience in a life full of profession- als and labels: Narrative snapshots of Chris. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 50 (5): 426-35.
  75. Vorhaus, Jon. 2007. Disability, dependency and indebtedness? Journal of Philosophy of Education 41 (1): 29-44.
  76. Vosman, Frans, Guus Timmerman, and Andries Baart. 2018. Digging into care practices: The confrontation of care ethics with qualitative empirical and theoretical developments in the Low Countries, 2007-17. International Journal of Care and Caring 2 (3): 405-23.
  77. Watson, Nick, Linda McKie, Bill Hughes, Debra Hopkins, and Sue Gregory. 2004. (Inter)dependence, needs and care: The potential for disability and feminist theorists to develop an emancipatory model. Sociology 38 (2): 331-50.
  78. Winance, Myriam. 2010. Care and disability: Practices of experimenting, tinkering with, and arranging people and technical aids. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, ed. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
  79. Winance, Myriam. 2016. Rethinking disability: Lessons from the past, questions for the future. Contributions and limits of the social model, the sociology of science and technology, and the ethics of care. ALTER: European Journal of Disability Research 10 (2): 99-110.
  80. Winance, Myriam, Aurélie Damamme, and Emmanuelle Fillion. 2015. Thinking the aid and care relation- ship from the standpoint of disability: Stakes and ambiguities. ALTER: European Journal of Disability Research 9 (3): 163-68.
  81. Simon van der Weele is a PhD candidate at the University of Humanistic Studies in Utrecht, the Netherlands and visiting scholar at Drew University. His work combines qualitative inquiry and philosoph- ical reflection. He works on care theory, (empirical) ethics, and philosophical anthropology. His disserta- tion, tentatively titled "The Moral Charge of Dependency: The Ethical Life of Dependency Work in Intellectual Disability Care," studies the significance of 'dependency' as a moral concept for care theory and as a site of ethical tensions in intellectual disability care. S.vanderweele@uvh.nl Cite this article: van der Weele S (2021). Four Paradigm Cases of Dependency in Care Relations. Hypatia 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2021.10

Related papers

Dependence, independence or inter-dependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘dependency’
Michael D Fine

Ageing and society, 2005

Research and theory on ' dependency ' and ' care-giving ' have to date proceeded along largely separate lines, with little sense that they are exploring and explaining different aspects of the same phenomenon. Research on 'care ', initially linked to feminism during the early 1980s, has revealed and exposed to public gaze what was hitherto assumed to be a ' natural ' female activity. Conversely, disability activists and writers who have promoted a social model of disability have seen the language of and the policy focus upon 'care ' as oppressive and objectifying. ' Dependency ' is an equally contested concept: sociologists have scrutinised the social construction of dependency; politicians have ascribed negative connotations of passivity ; while medical and social policy discourse employs the term in a positivist sense as a measure of physical need for professional intervention. Autonomy and independence, in contrast, are promoted as universal and largely unproblematic goals. These contrasting perspectives have led social theory, research and policies to separate and segregate the worlds of ' carers ' from those for whom they 'care '. Drawing on the work of Kittay and others, this paper explores the ways in which sociological perspectives can develop new understanding of the social contexts of ' care ' and ' dependence '.

View PDFchevron_right
The Ethics of Care, Dependence, and Disability
Eva F Kittay

2011

According to the most important theories of justice, personal dignity is closely related to independence, and the care that people with disabilities receive is seen as a way for them to achieve the greatest possible autonomy. However, human beings are naturally subject to periods of dependency, and people without disabilities are only “temporarily abled.” Instead of seeing assistance as a limitation, we consider it to be a resource at the basis of a vision of society that is able to account for inevitable dependency relationships between “unequals” ensuring a fulfilling life both for the carer and the cared for.**

View PDFchevron_right
Thinking the aid and care relationship from the standpoint of disability: stakes and ambiguities.
Myriam Winance, Aurélie Damamme
View PDFchevron_right
Dependency, Difference and the Global Ethic of Longterm Care
Eva F Kittay

Journal of Political Philosophy, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
“Beyond the Boundaries of Care Dependence”
Michela Piredda

Cancer Nursing, 2019

Background: Dependence is a common life experience and innate condition for human beings due to their bodily and relational essence, but in contemporary society, it has become a stressful condition. Care dependence is central to nursing, and patients with advanced cancer are often dependent on care. Understanding nurses' perceptions of care dependence can contribute to awareness of the impact it has on nurses. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore palliative care nurses' experiences and perceptions regarding patient dependence. Methods: Sixteen nurses taking care of dependent patients in a palliative care center in Rome were interviewed. Giorgi's descriptive phenomenological method was used. Results: Nurses caring for dependent patients transcend the boundaries of dependence. Care dependence is an experience of powerlessness and regression. A patient's life in dependence is precarious, as they have to overcome the daily limits of life. Taking care of dependent patients requires nurses to manage the unmanageable and to know and to embrace change from within in order to build positive relations of personal closeness and reciprocal self-giving. Conclusions: Nurses should be aware that self-transcendence and the consequent positive relations could make the difference in the experience of care dependence and promote personal growth for both patient and nurse. Positive and transcending relationships can transform care dependence into the opportunity to find meaning and purpose in life. Implications for Practice: The study highlights what nurses feel in caring for dependent patients. Understanding nurses' perceptions is important to delineate a proper caring for dependent patients.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Ethics
  • Disability Studies
  • Feminist Philosophy
  • Disability Theory
  • Care Ethics
  • Joan Tronto
  • The Ethics of Care
  • Eva Kittay
  • Care Theory
  • Philosophy of Care

    • Cited by

    Thick Concepts in Social Research: What, Why, and How?
    Simon van der Weele

    International Journal of Qualitative Methods

    Thick concepts are concepts that describe and evaluate at once. Academic discussion on thick concepts originated in meta-ethics, but thick concepts increasingly draw attention from qualitative researchers working in the social sciences, too. However, these scholars work in relative isolation from each other, and an overview of their ideas is missing. This article has two aims. The first is to provide such an overview, by bringing together these disparate voices on why thick concepts matter for the social sciences and how to work with them in qualitative social research. The second aim is to reflect on the methodological difficulties of working with thick concepts, by thinking through the example of my research on a specific thick concept—the concept of dependency. The article argues that thick concepts are invoked by social researchers for either epistemological or methodological purposes. It then goes on to claim that if we want to take thick concepts as our sensitizing concepts or...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved