Theorizing Elderly Care



In theorizations of care the question posed traditionally is: What is care? This is the wrong question to ask on the wrong theoretical terrain. Instead, I want to pose a different question: How are the changing conditions of care and an attention to power and struggles reframing our theorizing of care? The answer is a new vocabulary: to see care as an assemblage involving strangers traversed by different logics and part of emotional regimes. Uncertainty and fragmentation of care create new realities, and instead of seeing the elderly as involved in relations of care, we need to think in terms of relatedness. To theorize care is a controversial question. It has been argued that it is difficult to say anything in general about care so this chapter returns hesitantly to the question of how to theorize care with a broader, more specific notion of power.


Reframing the question of care Relatedness Assemblage Strangers Different logics Emotional regimes 


  1. Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, K. (2007). Omsorg under förhandling—Om tid, behov och kön i en föränderlig hemtjänstverksamhet. Umeå: Institutionen för social arbete.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, K. (2012). Paradoxes of gender in elderly care: The case of men as care workers in Sweden. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(3), 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arendt, H. (1986). Communicative power. In S. Lukes (Ed.), Power. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, M. (2012). Care in everyday life—An ethic of care in practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beasley, C., & Bacchi, C. (2007). Envisaging a new politics for an ethical future. Beyond trust, care and generosity—Towards an ethic of ‘social flesh’. Feminist Theory, 8(3), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bubeck, D. (1995). Care, gender and justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 5(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, D. (2007). ‘Well, you go there to get off’: Visiting feminist care ethics through a women’s bath house. Feminist Theory, 8(3), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl, H. M. (1997). Mellem kærlighed og arbejde—Omsorgsteori: Traditioner og centrale temaer. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 6(2), 56–65.Google Scholar
  12. Dahl, H. M. (2000). A perceptive and reflective state? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(4), 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl, H. M., & Rasmussen, B. (2012). Paradoxes in elder care—The Nordic model. In A. Kamp & H. Hvid (Eds.), Elderly care in transition—Management, meaning and identity at work. A Scandinavian perspective (pp. 29–49). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dahl, H. M., Eskelinen, L., & Hansen, E. B. (2015). Co-existing principles and logics of elder care: Help to self-help and consumer-oriented service. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24(3), 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  16. Emmet, D. (1953–1954). The concept of power. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 54, 1–26.Google Scholar
  17. Ferguson, K. (1987). Male-ordered politics: Feminism and political science. In T. Ball (Ed.), Idioms of inquiry and renewal in political science (pp. 209–229). Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  18. Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Fineman, M. A. (2008). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect—Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1997). What is critique? In S. Lotringer & S. Hochroth (Eds.), The politics of truth (pp. 23–82). New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  24. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice—Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, H. (1991). The concept of caring in feminist research. Sociology, 25(1), 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hankivsky, O. (2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 252–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardt, M. (1999). Affective labor. Boundary 2, 26(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
  31. Hartsock, N. (1985). Money, sex and power. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hekman, S. J. (1995). Moral voices—Moral selves—Carol Gilligan and feminist moral theory. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hemmings, C. (2011). Why stories matter—The political grammar of feminist theory. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hochschild, A. R. (2001). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130–146). London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  36. Hochschild, A. (2003). Love and gold. In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids and sex workers in the new economy. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
  37. Hockey, J., & James, A. (1993). Growing up and growing old—Ageing and dependency in the life course. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  38. Hoppania, H., & Vaittinen, T. (2015). A household full of bodies: Neoliberalism, care and ‘the political’. Global Society, 29(1), 70–88.Google Scholar
  39. Isaksen, L. W. (2007). Gender, care work and globalization: Local problems and transnational solutions in the Norwegian welfare state. In M. G. Cohen & J. Brodie (Eds.), Remapping gender in the new global order. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Isaksen, L. W., Devi, S. U., & Hochschild, A. R. (2008). Global care crisis: A problem of capital, care chain, or commons? American Behavioral Scientist, 52(3), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kittay, E. F., Jennings, B., & Wasunna, A. A. (2005). Dependency, difference and the global ethics of long-term care. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(4), 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Latimer, J. (2012). Home care and frail older people: Relational extension and the art of dwelling. In C. Ceci, K. Björnsdottir, & M. E. Purkis (Eds.), Perspectives on care for older people (pp. 35–61). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Legg, S. (2006). Assemblage/apparatus: Using Deleuze and Foucault. Area, 43(2), 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leira, A. (1994). The concept of caring: Loving, thinking and doing. Social Service Review, 68(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mahon, R., & Robinson, F. (2011). Introduction. In R. Mahon & F. Robinson (Eds.), Feminist ethics and social policy (pp. 1–17). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  47. Marcus, G. E., & Saka, E. (2006). Assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martinsen, K. (1994). Fra Marx til Løgstrup: om etik og sanselighed i sygeplejen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  49. Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care—Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Parrenas, R. S. (2001). Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies, 27(2), 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robinson, F. (1999). Globalizing care – Ethics, Feminist theory and international relations. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rogers, A. C. (1997). Vulnerability, health and health care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarvasy, W., & Longo, P. (2004). The globalization of care—Kant’s world citizenship and Filipina migrant domestic workers. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6(3), 392–415.Google Scholar
  55. Socialstyrelsen. (1977). Undervisningsvejledning—overgangskursus (2 ugers grundkursus) for hjemmehjælpere. København: Socialstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  56. Spanger, M., & Dahl, H. M. (2010). ‘Sex-workers’ transnational and local motherhood: Presence and/or absence? In L. W. Isaksen (Ed.), Global care work—Gender and migration in Nordic countries (pp. 117–136). Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Spanger, M., Dahl, H. M., & Petterson, E. (manuscript). How do states condition care chains? Discursive framings, heterogeneous states and multi-level governance.Google Scholar
  58. Stone, D. (2000). Caring by the book. In M. H. Meyer (Ed.), Care work, gender, labour and the welfare state (pp. 89–111). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Thomas, C. (1993). De-constructing concepts of care. Sociology, 27(4), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Tronto, J. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality and purpose. Ethics & Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tronto, J. (2011). Privatizing neo-colonialism; migrant domestic care workers, partial citizenship and responsibility. In H. M. Dahl, M. Keränen, & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Europeanization, care and gender—Global complexities (pp. 165–181). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tronto, J. (2013). Caring democracy—Markets, equality and justice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tufte, P., & Dahl, H. M. (2016). Navigating the field of temporally framed care: Time logics, temporal dilemmas and processes of navigation in the Danish home care sector. Sociology of Health and Illness, 38(1), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wærness, K. (1980). Omsorgen som lönarbete. Kvinnovetenskaplig tidsskrift, 1, 6–17.Google Scholar
  66. Wærness, K. (1982). Kvinneperspektiver på socialpolitikken. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  67. Wærness, K. (1987). On the rationality of caring. In A. S. Sassoon (Ed.), Women and the state (pp. 207–234). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  68. Weber, M. (1921). Wirtschaft und gesellschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  69. Widerberg, K. (2007). Køn og samfund. In H. Andersen & L. B. Kaspersen (Eds.), Klassiske og moderne samfundsteori (pp. 597–624). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Williams, F. (2010). Claiming and framing in the making of care policies: The recognition and redistribution of care. Paper presented at 5th International Careers Conference, 8–11th of July, Royal Armouries, Leeds.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, F. (2011). Care, migration and citizenship: Migration and home-based care in Europe. In H. M. Dahl, M. Keränen, & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Europeanization, care and gender—Global complexities (pp. 41–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wittgenstein, L. (1989). Om vished. Århus: Philosophia.Google Scholar
  73. Yeates, N. (2009). Globalizing care economies and migrant Workers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  74. Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging—Intersectional contestations. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences and BusinessRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations