Why 'cultures of care'?
Why 'cultures of care'?
复制标题
为什么要“关怀文化”？
DOI：
10.1080/14649365.2022.2105938
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Greenhough B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Greenhough B
关于护理的学术讨论强调了护理概念的复杂性（Fisher & Tronto，1990），以及定义护理“需求”和“良好护理”的困难（Engster，2007; Held，2006; J. Tronto，1987）。在Noddings（2013）和Gilligan（1982）等女权主义者的早期工作之后，他们主张重新评估护理工作和技能，许多人注意到护理技能被广泛视为女性化。研究经验表明，执行护理任务的社会义务具有强烈的性别和种族化（Fisher & Tronto，1990年; Yeandle等人，2017年），并指出，护理工作和护理工作者被社会低估，相互加强的方式（卡恩斯和里德亨利，2009年）。J. Tronto（1987，2005）的工作产生了关键影响，因为它强调护理取决于特定的情感技能和能力，并强调护理对象包括人类以外的存在和实体。因此，Fisher和Tronto（1990年，第40页）在一个经常被引用的定义中提出，照顾是“一种物种活动，包括我们为维护、延续和修复我们的世界所做的一切，以便我们能够尽可能地生活在其中。这个世界包括我们的身体，我们自己和我们的环境，我们试图将所有这些交织在一个复杂的，维持生命的网络中。这种强调需要理解的照顾嵌入在一个更丰富的背景是一个特别好的共鸣与地理奖学金。照顾一直是地理学家感兴趣的话题，作为一个特殊的分析对象，在提供卫生服务和护理劳动的形式（例如，见米利根2000年，戴克等人，二○ ○五年;霍尔，2011年; Power & Bartlett，2019年）;作为对特殊形式的关怀的探索，如友谊（Bowlby，2011年）以及那些接受护理的人的经历（Wiles，2011年）;因为需要注意不同的地点，规模和时间，在照顾发生，从跨国（参见Raghuram，2012年）;城市（ER Power &威廉姆斯，2020年）和农村（Parr等人，2004年）;“私人”和“公共”的需求和规范之间的相互作用（参见，Bowlby，2012; Bowlby等人，2010; Dyck等人，2005年）;并作为发展一个更道德的地理学的基础（Kearns & Reid-Henry，2009年; Lawson，2007年; Popke，2006年; Raghuram等人，2009年;史密斯，2000年）。最近的工作已经扩展到关注人类作为护理对象，例如，考虑土壤等实体（Puig de la Bellacasa，2017）和非人类动物（Davies，2012; Greenhough，2011; Schuurmana &富兰克林，2018; Srinivasan，2013年），Power and Mee（2020）已经提出，“照顾能力”是通过在社会物质基础设施中的治理和话语的架构和系统的交织而产生和形成的。小心。
Academic discussions of care have stressed the complexity of the concept of care (Fisher & Tronto, 1990), and the difficulty of defining care ‘needs’ and ‘good care’(Engster, 2007; Held, 2006; J. Tronto, 1987). Following the early work of feminists such as Noddings (2013) and Gilligan (1982), who argued for a revaluation of care work and skills, many have noted that care skills are widely seen as feminised. Studies have shown empirically that the social obligation to carry out caring tasks is strongly gendered and racialised (Fisher & Tronto, 1990; Yeandle et al., 2017), and noted that care work and care workers are socially undervalued in mutually reinforcing ways (Kearns & Reid-Henry, 2009). The work of J. Tronto (1987, 2005) has been a key influence, through its emphasis on care as dependent on particular affective skills and capacities, and through stressing that the objects of care include beings and entities beyond the human. Thus, in a much-cited definition Fisher and Tronto (1990, p. 40) suggest that care is ‘a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue and repair our world so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web’. This emphasis on the need to understand care as embedded within a richer context is one which resonates particularly well with geographical scholarship.Care has long been a topic of interest for geographers, as a particular object of analysis in the form of the provision of health services and care labour (see for example, Milligan 2000, Dyck et al., 2005; Hall, 2011; Power & Bartlett, 2019); as an exploration of particular forms of care such as friendship (Bowlby, 2011) and of the experiences of those who receive care (Wiles, 2011); as requiring attention to the different sites, scales and times at which care takes place, ranging from the transnational (cf Raghuram, 2012); to the urban (ER Power & Williams, 2020) and rural (Parr et al., 2004); to the interplay between the demands and norms of the ‘private’and ‘public’(cf., Bowlby, 2012; Bowlby et al., 2010; Dyck et al., 2005); and as the basis for developing a more ethical geography (Kearns & Reid-Henry, 2009; Lawson, 2007; Popke, 2006; Raghuram et al., 2009; Smith, 2000). Recently work has expanded beyond the focus on humans as objects of care to consider, for example, entities such as soils (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017) and nonhuman animals (Davies, 2012; Greenhough, 2011; Schuurmana & Franklin, 2018; Srinivasan, 2013), while Power (2019) and Power and Mee (2020) have suggested the ‘capacity to care’is generated and shaped through the intertwining of architectures and systems of governance and discourse in sociomaterial ‘infrastructures of care’.