Care Revolution | For an alliance of care revolution and degrowth - Part I
back

For an alliance of care revolution and degrowth - Part I

Aktuelles – 14. June 2017 – Debate, Debate
Article in the Perspectives series by Sabine Carl and Mike Korsonewski(article as PDF). We would like to thank all the activists and participants of the symposium "A Good Life for All? Postwachstum meets Gender", especially Dieter Schmidt and Mike Laufenberg for this article, as well as the communards and collectivists from Niederkaufungen. We would also like to thank the editorial collective of this site for their editorial help. We look forward to a critical discussion with other interested parties. [caption id="attachment_2861" align="alignnone" width="750"] Logo of the symposium "A Good Life for All? - Postwachstum meets Gender" Source: USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab. Licence: Public Domain Mark 1.0. The original has been graphically reworked.[/caption] Care revolution and degrowth are two responses to a system in crisis. It is strategically important and clever to sound out the connecting lines between the movements, where they differ and how they can show solidarity and, if necessary, join forces in order to work together on the vision of a "good life for all". In doing so, we are following on from a dialogue that has already begun: In March 2014, for example, Jette Hausotter reported on the degrowth blog about the action conference at which the network was founded, and in June 2016 Matthias Neumann and Gabriele Winker answered questions from the degrowth editorial team as part of the Degrowth in Motion(s) series. The troubleeverydaycollective also commented on the topic of care and reproductive labour and post-growth, making reference to the Care Revolution, among other things. In 2017, the Care & Postgrowth conference organised by Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie took place in Leipzig from 17 to 19 November. In July 2016, a symposium was held in Berlin entitled "A Good Life for All - Postgrowth Meets Gender", which was dedicated to the issue of social gender relations in postgrowth. The authors themselves were part of the organising team and speakers on the day. Academics from universities, researchers and multipliers from the field and activists from various anti-growth and/or alternative care structures came together to discuss what we call post-growth practices. Central questions of distributive justice and ecological sustainability were discussed with questions of gender justice. Gender justice is a term chosen by the organisers, which is to be understood as an important structural-political milestone, but also as an intermediate station towards a symbolic-normative reorganisation with the aim of dissolving the heteronormative, binary idealisation of 'female' and 'male'. As an introduction to a series of articles, we turn to possible alternatives in paid care work from the perspective of the Care Revolution and discuss approaches to the collectivisation of care using two examples. These were presented on the first panel of the day: "Care beyond growth - the example of care work" and questioned about their alternative character to care in old age. Following a summary of the panel, we outline examples of how the reorganisation of care work in the care sector can work. The practical implementation of alternative care models should be analysed in the social, local and economic fields of tension in which the projects discussed are located. They are all directly related to the neoliberal restructuring of the welfare state, which strongly influences the areas of tension mentioned. Thinking about the care revolution and growth-critical analyses and demands together seems necessary to us for various reasons: (1) It is important to counter the constant shift of care work to private households, mostly to the detriment of women* with or without citizenship, and also the 'voluntaryisation' of care as a result of the dismantling of generally accessible (public) infrastructures, (2) care work and the social status of care must be upgraded and belong at the centre of needs-oriented, economic action, (3) collective care and welfare models can offer strategies for action to achieve this, (4) but these models are also affected by the relations of domination and must take a stand in order not to be associated with them. must take a stand in order not to help shape them. This discussion will be continued in the second part of the article series in order to formulate concrete requirements for alliances.Transdisciplinary dialogue: Solidarity experiments in professional careMike Korsonewski (Humboldt University Berlin) reported on his interviews with female* employees of the Lossetal day care centre, which were conducted as part of his research project on links between feminist demands for a post-growth society and gender-equitable care and caring practices. The Lossetal day care centre is a collective enterprise of the left-wing political community of Niederkaufungen and also a member of the Care Revolution network. Dieter Schmidt, an employee of Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH and active in the network "Anders Altern", shared his experiences of organising a shared care home in the multi-generational house "Lebensort Vielfalt" on the panel. Both speakers shed light on how aspects of the care revolution and criticism of growth are practically linked in these projects - even without the protagonists necessarily locating themselves in these movements. [caption id="attachment_2872" align="alignnone" width="750"] The Lossetal day care centre. Photo: Niederkaufungen local authority archive. All rights reserved.[/caption] As an example of a self-organised living community, the Niederkaufungen community, which has been in existence for over 30 years and is constantly changing, is particularly interesting for the care revolution and degrowth perspective. The commune is based on a consensually agreed principle which, among other things, criticises the two-gender, patriarchal organisation of work in capitalism. The female* communards interviewed reject a society and economy centred on consumption and competition and the model of the bourgeois nuclear family. The latter serves as a place where the necessary recovery from the stress of wage labour is displaced into the private sphere, where all needs for provision and care are to be satisfied in a model of the happy hetero family. The effects that usually accompany this, namely firstly the exploitation of women's* labour, secondly the individualisation and devaluation of care responsibilities and caring work compared to other forms of work and thirdly the atrophy of deep relationships and connectedness, especially outside the nuclear family, are rejected by commune residents. They counter these one-sided standardisations through a self-organised system of redistribution and revaluation of necessary social reproduction (work). The separation between the public sphere of production and the private sphere of reproduction is largely dissolved. This promotes the self-determined assumption of responsibility, both for all work that arises, for one's own needs and for the upcoming decisions for the entire community. However, experience shows that heteronormative, small-family structures, including the continued feminisation of care work, are not completely dissolved as a result. There is a risk that this could once again lead to the exclusion of women* in particular from plenary sessions and decision-making processes, as well as determining the use of communal spaces. The decision-making processes in the weekly plenums are based on the consensus principle and not on majorities. This requires a broad information base and cooperation. This can be complex and time-consuming. Communicators therefore need communicative skills that go beyond the usual consensus behaviour in everyday life and the necessary time resources to have a say and a say. However, as Mike Korsonewski explains, a culture of abstention has become established in some places, meaning that issues are sometimes not even addressed. The romanticised image of the political community should give way to the realisation that there are also dilemmas and struggles to be overcome, from which everyone can learn. It is therefore important to continue to link functioning and challenging practices to solidary and diverse forms of solidarity, as set out in the community's policy paper. This is evident not only in living together but also in working together. The community runs various collective enterprises, including the Lossetal day care centre, and operates in a shared economy. The collectivists* interviewed told Mike Korsonewski that this virtually eliminates the pressure of having to finance their own livelihood entirely on their own. However, the shared economy is not entirely independent of the market, as the majority of the commune's businesses rely on income from the sale of goods and services outside the commune, which can also lead to strained budgets and discussions about different consumer needs and working behaviour. Nevertheless, the collectivists* in day care report that such a form of economic self-management leads to a feeling of support, a high level of confidence and needs-based care in old age or with higher care requirements - for themselves and for others. In addition, the time budgets change compared to a 40-hour week in a comparable paid job, as decisions about the duty rota are made transparently and as equally as possible in the collective. This also means that people who can work fewer hours or even 'drop out' due to illness, reproductive activities or personal crises are supported financially and psycho-socially. In the commune, for example, there are sponsorships for the more collective organisation of childcare and caring, which means two things: on the one hand, the self-determined choice and completion of all tasks related to the care and maintenance of the grounds and, on the other hand, the supportive and mediating accompaniment of the communards in everyday life by others. Despite the more needs-based work organisation, the work pressure can also be very high in the commune and in the collective, because the degree of self-commitment and the work ethos are kept very high: "So much can be done and everyone relies on each other," as one communard summarises it. The connection between the dimension of time and the collective and local consciousness can be grasped through the everyday life of Lossetal Day Care and arises in a mutual learning process with the communal community. Relationship work and the care of elderly people and people with dementia require deep emotional and trusting empathy with the person being cared for and several levels of time must be negotiated, including the different perceptions of time of the care recipients as a possible consequence of dementia, the time measures for naming and adequately meeting the needs of care recipients, but also for the carers' own recovery, as well as along the time frame to enable a (daily, operational) process, etc.. The aim is to achieve equal interaction between carers and those in need of care, guests as they are referred to in everyday day care, in which the needs of the latter are the focus instead of the tactical care of 'patients'. The quality of care is achieved both through the community's own principles such as consensus, cooperation, self-determination and sustainability of the work, as well as through the learning processes from the interaction with the guests requiring care. They are the bearers of an evolved, valuable "old life", as one communard calls it. Involving the care recipients in the question of how care should be provided is a prerequisite for the kind of humane care that the Care Revolution strives for. This becomes particularly clear when the people being cared for (have) experienced social exclusion and violent discrimination in their lives. Creating non-discriminatory spaces for not only carefree, but also fear-free ageing can therefore be seen as an important goal of the reorganisation of care. The "Lebensort Vielfalt" (Diversity Living Space) of Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH with its integrated shared care home is an example of the implementation of this concern and was the focus of Dieter Schmidt's contribution. The residential building is designed as multi-generational living for a heterogeneous group of residents to live together in a supportive neighbourhood. At present, the residents are mostly gay men* (60% older, 20% younger) and 20% women. Everyday life is complemented by an outpatient care service for the shared flat. [caption id="attachment_2868" align="alignnone" width="750"] The "Lebensort Vielfalt" in Berlin. Photo: Thomas Franz/Robert Bosch Stiftung. All rights reserved.[/caption] As good as the project is now, it also had to overcome hurdles at the beginning, because the bank and credit institutions were very sceptical about the expected profitability. This assessment was based on the presumed, rather low sales prospects due to the initially comparatively few applicants for the flats. The realisation of the project was only possible thanks to a few private donations and extensive funding from the Class Lottery and the Aktion Mensch foundation. Those responsible for the project at Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH, consisting of the board and management, had to bear high economic risks, as private-sector credit institutions also see care work as 'not lucrative' and 'not profitable' in business terms. The network "Anders Altern", which has existed since 2003 and was instrumental in the conception of the house, acts on the one hand as a platform for encounters, exchange and organisation of people active in care policy and pedagogical work with gay seniors and on the other hand accompanies the residents of the first house, which has been in existence since 2012, including the care flat share of Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH. Further projects of this kind are being planned due to the very high demand. By setting the political and economic course right from the start, this place to live can alleviate social injustice. Four flats in the neighbourhood house are available for people on basic income support or Hartz IV. All of the men* currently living in the care flat share also receive basic income support. The rent for the individual flats is redistributed across the entire building on the basis of a voluntary self-assessment depending on income. Dieter Schmidt, who has worked in gay counselling and in the home for many years, emphasises the practice of "culturally sensitive care", which has kept the quality of everyday life and work consistently high since the opening in 2012. This concept means good care and support for all people, taking their individual life stories into account while recognising and acknowledging their diversity. Socially constructed differences are recognised through sensitised and needs-oriented care, instead of reinforcing exclusion and discrimination into old age through inadequate care. Care and nursing staff are consciously selected for this purpose and gay lifestyles and experiences are shared on a peer-to-peer basis. According to this principle, care work can be carried out far away from standardised and tightly timed processes, as is increasingly the case in profit-oriented companies, and is also freed from stereotypical and gender-binary relationships. The social services offered by Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH, which is part of Lebensort Vielfalt, are available to everyone regardless of income - both the clients and the residents of the building. Joint meetings in large groups and various discussion groups in the residential home are intended to promote contact with each other and create a naturalness in dealing with each other and with the men* in need of care or suffering from dementia. The multi-generational concept and the relative proximity of all residents to each other, regardless of the level of care required, contribute greatly to the quality of life and the high level of care. As a result, residents are not confronted with the individualisation and dependency of conventional care services and living situations and the associated exclusion through discrimination in the heteronormative mainstream. Instead of isolation, an everyday life of diversity is created, as described in the project title of the living space. It is a cooperative and caring alternative in dealing with the topic of ageing - a topic that is often considered 'unattractive' in queer scenes as well as in society as a whole. The care service for the shared care home, which consists of female* and - predominantly - male* carers, both heterosexual and homosexual, organises lunch, which is why the care is considered to be shared in a gender-equitable way. In the spirit of "culturally sensitive care", care is also taken to ensure that half of the care team is gay in order to guarantee the greatest possible familiarity with the living environment of the residents. The care manager is also a gay man. The residents* of the shared flat, who should and can help shape their living environment as actively as possible, are free to help cook if they feel like it: "Nobody has to, but everyone can," says Dieter Schmidt. This sounds sensible at first, also with regard to the complex and very different clinical pictures of the residents*. However, it means that many people who previously didn't feel like cooking now don't want to take part and the necessary work is not done by many different people, but mostly by the outpatient carers. Making work free therefore does not necessarily lead to individual change and a critical shift in the gendered organisation of work. Can such an organisation of work be counteracted by the composition of carers and the cross-gender distribution of domestic and care work within the care service? To what extent can an alternative to the traditional feminisation of care and domestic work be identified in shared care homes?Alternative care models - transformative or system-stabilising? Mike Laufenberg (TU Berlin) is involved in the topic of care work both academically and politically. On the panel, he presented an analysis of the field of tension in which post-growth practices and alternative care models operate. With this in mind, he commented: "Projects and practices [such as those outlined, author's note] are important because we are living in times in which the capitalist ideology of growth has lost legitimacy." It is a great opportunity to become active and formulate alternatives. In our opinion, these alternatives are desperately needed in order to counter conservative to nationalist, restorative endeavours. In addition, we believe that the practices and experiences described can help to convince larger sections of the population (not just academic circles) of the feasibility and viability of the ideas of post-growth and care revolution. Mike Laufenberg then emphasises that self-organised care facilities geared towards the needs of communities have emancipatory and transformative potential. However, they can also be criticised as supporting a welfare state strategy in which the burden of care work is (re)transferred to individuals. Alternative and collective projects can have a stabilising effect on the system. For the neoliberal state, according to Laufenberg, there is thus a reliable outsourcing of necessary reproductive work to collective and alternative organisation, which has so far largely absorbed the dramatic effects of the drastic reduction in welfare state benefits. Only projects that (inevitably) follow precisely this credo are subsidised. However, the state is failing to promote a social understanding of good care work. A fundamental change in the gendered division of labour is being missed, but this is essential in order to eliminate the exclusive binary of gender and the associated injustices, which we see as part of the path towards a sustainable, socially just society. We would also like to add that, in addition to the question of who does what work, it is also important to ask who has access to these (collective) arrangements. Who has access to public funding and the subsidised institutions, for example, and who does not? Which neighbourhoods and population groups are left out, left behind and thus driven to the edge of their ability to reproduce? For whom is it not about the good life, but about surviving in the first place? The tensions described by Mike Laufenberg pose challenges for those involved in the care revolution and degrowth. If the transformative potential of collective and alternative practices is to be realised, change must be driven forward on several levels. Democratic social infrastructures and co-operative care practices based on solidarity must go hand in hand with a commitment to a fear-free and non-violent society and the connection of social struggles which are characterised by the loss of vital basics such as physical integrity, self-determination over one's own body, gender and gender-deviant identity, and the loss of the right to a healthy life. And a redistribution (commoning) of goods, money, time and labour is needed, which is directed against inequality along social constructions of sexuality, class, disability and gender-specific, racist and ethnicising structures.
Symposium-Schnecke.jpg
Tagespflege-Lossetal-2014.jpg
Alterspreis_2016_LebensortVielfalt_1.jpg
Sex work is work. Respect! - Campaign launch 14. June 2017
"More and different" - What are the benefits of solidarity-based care practices against the right? 05. June 2017