scholarly journals A Critical Reconstruction of Care-in-Action

Author(s):  
Barbara Korth

This paper uses the findings of a critical ethnography studying the interactions of adult colleagues (Korth, 1998) to propose a critical approach to care theory and research. The argument proceeds from Jaggar's (1995) critique of the scholarship on care. Her criticism voices concerns regarding the lack of attention to the justificatory potential of care research/theory and the over-dependence on particularities. This paper provides one set of responses capable of addressing these concerns and of reformulating the concerns into a more complex conceptualization of care. The resulting analysis implies a theory of care as a pragmatic-communicative construct, one that is more precise, but compatible with the interpersonal rationality to which Noddings (1991) attributes caring. Care emerges as a communicative act with a complex but definitive horizon structure. Care did not reconstruct from on-going interactions as a simple intention, nor a feeling, nor anything extra-rational or non-rational. This approach to understanding caring locates Jaggars concerns within the interpretive life of interactants. The papers specific contributions include exemplifying a refined analysis of care-in-action, articulating a meta-theory useful for the theory and study of care, introducing a typology of caring acts, demonstrating the critical potential of care research, and illustrating the connection between critique and justification.

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Engelkamp ◽  
Katharina Glaab ◽  
Judith Renner

AbstractIn their response to our article »Office Hours«, Nicole Deitelhoff and Lisbeth Zimmermann issue three major points of critique towards our proposal of a critical approach to norm research: They criticize, firstly, our discussion of constructivist norm research, secondly, our use of the concepts of local and Western and, thirdly, the overall critical potential of our proposed approach, which they criticize as going merely beyond an unmasking gesture. We take our response to our critics, firstly, as an opportunity to clarify some of the arguments made in our article. Secondly, we confront the points of criticism outlined above and show that Deitelhoff’s and Zimmermann’s critique can only be maintained if one accepts their specific reading of our article. Moreover, it gets tangled up in three major contradictions and is built upon a problematic understanding of the relation between empirical facticity and normative evaluation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-518
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Fritz

Abstract Whereas the spectacle is traditionally regarded in contrast to socio-political engagement, this contribution examines how recent activist art projects tend to challenge this opposition. Building on a historical and theoretical reconstruction of the actual tensions between concepts of social and aesthetic critique, the article proposes a more neutral, descriptive usage of the term ‘spectacle’ and analyzes the critical potential of spectacular strategies in contemporary art based on case studies (Alfredo Jaar, Center for Political Beauty, Yvon Chabrowski). In this context the creation of normatively ambivalent situations as well as a self-reflective move that scrutinizes the idea of political critique in art per se, are described as central characteristics of a critical approach.


1999 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 512-514
Author(s):  
Brian Corby
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document