Joan C. Tronto (Minnesota, 1952) is a professor of Political Science at the University of her hometown and a researcher focused on the ethics of care and its relationship with politics and democracy. He has written several books, of which have recently been translated into Spanish and Catalan. Democracy and care and Who takes care of it?both edited by Raig Verd. In them he discusses the need to return care to the center of democracy and the economy in order to live in the best possible way.
An ode to interdependence that Tronto contrasts with the ultraliberal drifts that have been on the rise in recent years. In fact, the author uses the United States election campaign as an example, during which it has been seen how Trump has stoked fear of citizens’ lack of protection as a way to get votes.
What is the relationship between care and politics?
Politics is the way in which we organize ourselves to achieve certain purposes. Care has generally been thought of as something private, outside the realm of the political. But in reality, politics should organize the world so that we can take good care of it.
What changes would need to be made to bring care from private life to public life?
Care should be both part of private life and public life, as it requires and creates relationships. What politics can do is help us organize those relationships so that they are the best they can be.
An example is found in a law promoted by Tim Walz, governor of Minnesota [y candidato demócrata a la vicepresidencia]which ensures that all children receive free breakfast and lunch in schools. That gesture can change relationships a lot. There is more equality, freedom with friends, less anxiety, less shame, less stigma…
Monetary interest distorts our values about what we should really care about.
What is the biggest impediment to better distributing care?
The logic of care in market economies is to take care of yourself and that’s it. If there’s something you can’t do, you pay to have it done. If you don’t have the money it’s your fault. At many levels, achieving good economic status becomes a form of caring. But it shouldn’t be like that.
The economy should mediate care as little as possible. Monetary interest distorts our values about what we should really care about and how we should take better care of ourselves. If healthcare costs money, you will be more interested in having money to provide care than in the quality of that care.
Has the 2020 pandemic changed the way people view care? Did it make them more visible on the political agenda?
The pandemic had a big effect on care, but it was temporary. Because many people were terrified of getting sick, they began to recognize the extent to which their lives depended on care workers, whether they were healthcare workers, cleaners, bus drivers or supermarket stockers. Suddenly they became visible. In fact, that empowered these groups to demand better working conditions.
For the first time, a health crisis took priority over the economy. People spent more time at home and realized that there was a lot of work at home. There was a big change in perception.
Do you think this learning will last?
In 1919 there was a global flu epidemic. But people forgot it and I think they will forget this one too. The years that followed that epidemic are known as the roaring 20s. The years that have followed COVID-19 have involved a ‘vacation revenge’, the phenomenon of traveling non-stop, as if the fact that we had to be locked up for The pandemic would have awakened that desire. People are spending money on frivolous things because they can and that’s a reaction to the fact that we had to care more for a while.
And taking more time off, in this case traveling, couldn’t it be said that it is also a form of care? More specifically self-care?
Self-care is selfish. Additionally, we have been encouraged to take care of ourselves more and more, in part because it fuels the economy. More and more people are living lonelier lives. And that is harmful. Humans are social animals and we need to be able to live and think about others.
This culture of “you do you” [hazlo por ti]of self-care, is a way of leading people to think that they are taking care of themselves, but they are only individualizing themselves and spending more money. And this leads to what I call privileged irresponsibility: there are those who can be irresponsible about their own needs because there is someone else taking care of them. For example, many men can afford to stop doing housework because they assume their wife will take care of it.
When a policy is created, there are always those who find ways to benefit themselves in a way that was not planned. Is that bad? Yes. Is that why it has to be eliminated? No
A few weeks ago a study was published that showed how Some fathers tend to use their paternity leave to extend their vacations or make them coincide with sports events such as the soccer World Cup.. How can we change these dynamics?
This example is very curious and sad. When a policy is created, there are always those who find ways to benefit themselves in a way that was not planned. Is that bad? Yes. Is that why it has to be eliminated? No, because perhaps there are many more men who have used it to invest time in their children.
We must campaign and try to reach young people to have a public debate. Thinking about how changing relationships among younger people can change those of older people. And for that it is important that they have models of masculinity of men who do participate in care.
Back in the United States, the presidential elections are coming up. How does care affect voting in a country with hardly any welfare state?
Care may not be on the front page of politics, but it is below it. The Republican party has dedicated itself to saying that Americans are unprotected. in the book Strangers in their own land (Captain Swing, 2018), sociologist Arlie Russel Hochschild explains that what motivates many people to go to the extreme right is that they feel that they have been abandoned by the Government.
The truth is that it has not been like that, but they think that other people are receiving more than them and they try to protect what they have. And neoliberal movements are feeding on this fear. In my books I call it the protection scam, which is a way of instrumentalizing care. If we speak in these terms, we are accepting that there is an other, an enemy, who not only steals resources from us, but who does not deserve to be cared for.
The feeling of being neglected motivates these people who call for an America for Americans. It’s a negative, visceral, angry position that Trump has benefited from for the last ten years.
What would a second Trump victory mean for care democracy?
Things would regress. They would dismantle the welfare state, make workers more dependent on their employers. All of this would lead to a society that would trust less, that would have less sense of solidarity. And as you move in that direction, the violence increases. It is truly difficult to return from a vicious circle like that.
In this electoral campaign, in what aspects has it been possible to observe the politicized use of care?
Republicans have focused on the transgender issue, saying that public money is used to buy products related to sex change instead of caring for citizens. One thing Republican voters have in common is a conservative view of gender roles. So denying and attacking transgender people is one more way to secure and solidify your base because nothing scares Trump voters more than not having gender categories marked or men having to take care of.
#Joan #Tronto #political #scientist #scares #Trump #voter #idea #man #care
