Care of the body: spaces of practice

Abstract

Care -concept, emotion, practice, politics, moral exhortation -is a starting point for critical geographies that cut across diverse fields of interest. Whilst, conventionally, care remains predominantly associated with systems of social support and health care, intellectual engagements with feminist theory, moral geographies, post-colonial theory and reflections on academic practice have all mobilised explorations of care as a central focus. Care, it seems, affords geographers a richness of possibilities through which to critically engage with a range of politically charged discourses. The papers in this special issue focus on critically engaging the trajectory of public discourse which increasingly privileges embodied individuals as primary sites for agency, responsibility and wellbeing as expressed through a logic of autonomy and choice (Mol, 2006). This trajectory is often exclusively attributed to the emergence of a dominant neoliberal politics (Miller and Rose, 2008) but it has diverse roots, some of much longer duration, including classical liberalism and conservative politics (Staeheli and Brown, 2003), but also in working class solidarity and resistance in the face of imposed values (Fox and Smith, 2011). Within this trajectory, new technologies, whether biomedical or discursive, appear to afford new possibilities for self-actualisation but must also intersect with the histories of existing material, moral and ideological landscapes. This intersection of landscapes, which allows for inequality and exclusion coupled with a trajectory that privileges a logic of individual autonomy and choice, may erode even the most limited and bounded spaces for care.Several special issues in geography focussed on care precede this collection. The first two came out in 2003 and were both situated within debates on health and social welfare politics (Conradson, 2003a;Staeheli and Brown, 2003). Three recent collections demonstrate growing interest in care, published in rapid succession over the last three years. Two couple the practices and values of care with responsibility in a globalised and postcolonial geography and reflect an expansion of concerns with care into domains beyond conventional spaces of welfare policy (Raghuram et al., 2009;McEwan and Goodman, 2010). The most recent collection revisits health care to engage with new sites and debates, particularly those related to the production of health (Boyer, 2011).Geographical research on care has been characterised as constituting two strands distinguished by scale. First, care of bodies, premised on proximity, emotional attachment or practical need (Conradson, 2003a;Milligan and Wiles, 2010), reflects Conradson's definition of care as 'physical and emotional labour ' (2003a: 451). Secondly, researchers question why and how we might care about embodied experiences and destinies unfolding beyond the immediate spaces and times of our daily lives

Towards a relational geography of disability

“…We recognize that this is not the only way to critically approach issues of in/dependence. Feminist scholarship on ethics of care has conceived of care not only as a set of practical acts, but also as a set of relations between people (e.g., Popke, 2006;Lawson, 2007;Cox, 2010;Atkinson et al, 2011). Yet Atkinson et al (2011: 570) caution that even within a feminist ethic of care that values interdependency, 'dependency and vulnerability 2 Jonasson (2014) characterizes the AKKA-board as a mobility device that is formerly classified as an electric wheelchair but one that is primarily used by persons with more significant disabilities who require a control system that is different from the traditional wheelchair.…”

Grandfathering as spatio-temporal practice: conceptualizing performances of ageing masculinities in contemporary familial carescapes

“…As a result of existing material, institutional and discursive framings, alongside a privileging of focus on gender over other dimensions of identity, care has come to be understood as private and feminized (Atkinson, Lawson and Wiles 2011) and the central role of mothers in relationships with children (Barker 2011). Other than consideration of geographies of fathering (Aitken 2000;), men's situated practices of care in the family have received 1 much less attention (Barker 2011).…”

对就地养老的反思——“人”与“地方”关系视角①

“…For example, Milligan et al(2010) argue that physical proximity is not a prerequisite for care to happen and offer the example of adult children who live overseas from their ageing parent(s) but maintain daily contact and are involved in arranging, and monitoring, formal caregiving from afar. Atkinson et al (2011) also conceptualise care as having a greater impact beyond individuals themselves through their ability to influence not only emotions and personal resource flows but also as an economic resource which flows from the local to the global level affecting the movement of people, labour and capital. The spatialities associated with the emotional work of care for older adults has cumulatively led to a re-examining of the spaces and places where care locates itself in the dynamics of ageing in place with'the neighbourhood'being a significant setting.…”

“…Instead we propose working towards understanding the different interdependencies associated with ageing (Power, 2010;Wiles, 2011). Perhaps a more constructive frame through which to interpret the purpose of caregiving relationships in older age might be a shift to supported interdependence (Power, 2010;Atkinson et al, 2011).…”

“…安 排 的 必 要 性 (Milligan, 2003;Wiles 2003a;Bowlby, 2012)； 亲属和非亲属关系在家庭中该如何(重 新) 协 调 (Lapierre et al, 2013;Pickard, 2015;Wiles, 2003b)； 对公共和私人边界的侵犯 (Parr, 2003) (Peace et al, 2006)。对家庭和邻里 的开放性解释在环境老年学得到公认， 并且开始获 得学者们广泛的关注 (Lawton, 1985;Rowles, 1978;Wahl et al, 2003)。 例 如 ，Hillcoat-Nallétamby 等 (2014)发现， 就地养老的综合方法应由家庭和社区 共同实施； 还应从整体上考虑家-社区两者相互作 用形成的心理-社会环境对老年人生活质量产生 的影响。他们发现， 老年人留在原居所或搬迁的决 心， "可能更多地是由其对 "人" ， 而不是对 "地方" 的 依恋所决定的" (Hillcoat-Nallétamby et al, 2014 (Kearns et al, 2005)。因此在有关老龄化的官方话语中， 充斥着 "要用有限的资源来充分支撑巨大的社会和保健需 求 及 其 产 生 的 相 关 费 用 "的 假 设 )。在此背景下， 虽然社区或居家养老的理念 值得称道， 但这种地理上分散的照护模式下要实现 标 准 统 一 的 照 护 可 能 会 非 常 昂 贵 (Andrews et al, 2002;Milligan, 2000 (Power, 2010;Wiles, 2011)。也许， 一个可用于解释老年人 之间的相互依存关系而不是照护供给关系的模式 将更具建设性 (Power, 2010;Atkinson et al, 2011)。 走向衰老的身体始终处于照护关系组成的网 络中， 而不是表征公共健康政策合理性和责任感的 由一系列事件组成的线性链上 (Evans et al, 2011)。 大多数有关照护的地理学研究(尤其是有关老龄化) 文献， 都将 "照护" 视为一种 "关心" 的感觉， 和 "照 顾 " 的 相 关 行 动 (Conradson, 2003;England et al, 2011;Bowlby, 2012) (Wiles, 2003a;Dyck et al, 2005;Barrett et al, 2012)。同样地， 家庭也不应该被 视为对老年人进行照护的所谓 "新" 地点， 因为在家 庭里各种照护是一直存在的。在家庭中已存在的 照护关系在其形式和意义上存在差异： 既有终生都 要维持的长期关系， 比如配偶之间或父母与子女之 间的关系； 也有即时的日常身体保健照护关系； 以 及人与非人类生命如宠物， 或者无生命的物体如房 屋等的关系 (Twigg, 1999(Twigg, , 2000Bowlby, 2012)。即 使在家庭变成了照护地点之后， 这些业已存在的关 系也不会消失， 而是在该家庭既有空间格局的基础 上进行重新安排 (Wiles, 2003a)。因此， 照护是基于 特定的关系和背景的， 而且 "这些照护关系的性质、 程度以及形式都会受其所在地点的影响" 。对地理 学家来说， 照护不仅仅涉及人际关系， 而且还有人 与地方关系 (Milligan et al, 2010) (Milligan, 2003;Wiles et a...…”