Joan C. Tronto (Minnesota, 1952) is a professor of political science at her hometown university and a researcher focused on the ethics of care and its relationship to politics and democracy. He has written several books, recently translated into Spanish and Catalan. Democracy and care And Who takes care of it?both published by Raig Verd. He discusses the need to put care back at the center of democracy and the economy in order to live in the best possible way.
An ode to interdependence that Tronto opposes to the ultraliberal excesses which have multiplied in recent years. In fact, the author takes as an example the electoral campaign in the United States, during which we saw how Trump fueled the fear of the lack of protection of citizens to obtain votes.
What is the relationship between care and politics?
Politics is how we organize ourselves to achieve certain goals. Care has generally been seen as something private, outside the political realm. But in reality, politics should organize the world in such a way that we can take good care of it.
What changes would need to be made to move care from private to public life?
Care must be part of both private and public life, because it requires and creates relationships. What politics can do is help us organize these relationships so that they are the best possible.
One example is found in a law promoted by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. [y candidato demócrata a la vicepresidencia]which ensures that all children receive free breakfast and lunch in schools. This gesture can change relationships a lot. There is more equality, freedom between friends, less anxiety, less shame, less stigma…
Monetary interest distorts our values about what we should really care about.
What is the main obstacle to better distribution of care?
The logic of care in market economies is to take care of oneself and that’s it. If there’s something you can’t do, you pay to do it. If you don’t have money, it’s your fault. On many levels, achieving good economic status becomes a form of benevolence. But it shouldn’t be like that.
The economy should intervene as little as possible in care. Monetary interest distorts our values about what we should really care about and how we should take better care of ourselves. If health care costs money, you will be more interested in the money to provide care than in the quality of that care.
Has the 2020 pandemic changed the way people view care? Has this made them more visible on the political agenda?
The pandemic has had a significant impact on care, but this has been temporary. Because many people were terrified of getting sick, they began to realize how much their lives depended on healthcare workers, whether they were health workers, cleaners, drivers buses or supermarket stockists. Suddenly they became visible. In fact, this allowed these groups to demand better working conditions.
For the first time, a health crisis took precedence over the economy. People were spending more time at home and realizing that there was a lot of work going on at home. There has been a big change in perception.
Do you think this learning will last?
In 1919, a global flu epidemic broke out. But people have forgotten it and I think they will forget this one too. The years following this epidemic are known as the Roaring Twenties. The years since COVID-19 have been marked by a “revenge of the holidays,” the phenomenon of traveling non-stop, as if we should be cooped up for the moment. a pandemic would have awakened this desire. People spend money on frivolous things because they can and it’s a reaction to the fact that we’ve had to care more about it for a while.
And taking more free time, in this case traveling, couldn’t we say that it’s also a form of care? More specifically take care of yourself?
Taking care of yourself is selfish. Additionally, we have been encouraged to take increasing care of ourselves, in part because it fuels the economy. More and more people are living more solitary lives. And it’s harmful. Humans are social animals and we need to be able to live and think of others.
This culture of “you do it yourself” [hazlo por ti]of self-care, is a way of tricking people into thinking that they are taking care of themselves, but all they are doing is becoming more individualized and spending more money. And this leads to what I call privileged irresponsibility: there are those who can be irresponsible about their own needs because someone else is taking care of them. For example, many men can afford to stop doing household chores because they think their wife will take care of them.
When a policy is created, there are always people who find ways to enrich themselves in ways that were not intended. Is it bad? Yes. Is this why it must be eliminated? No
A few weeks ago, a study was published showing how Some fathers tend to take advantage of their paternity leave to extend their vacation or to coincide with sporting events such as the Football World Cup.. How can we change this dynamic?
This example is very curious and sad. When a policy is created, there are always people who find ways to enrich themselves in ways that were not intended. Is it bad? Yes. Is this why it must be eliminated? No, because perhaps there are many more men who have used it to devote time to their children.
We need to campaign and try to reach young people to have a public debate. Think about how changing relationships among young people can change those of older people. And for this, it is important that they have models of masculinity from men who participate in care.
In the United States, the presidential elections are approaching. How does care affect voting in a country where there is virtually no welfare state?
Attention may not be on the front page of politics, but it is underneath it. The Republican Party has dedicated itself to asserting that Americans are unprotected. in the book Foreigners in their own country (Captain Swing, 2018), sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild explains that what motivates many people to turn to the far right is that they feel abandoned by the government.
The truth is that this hasn’t been the case, but they think that others are getting more than they are and they are trying to protect what they have. And neoliberal movements feed on this fear. In my books, I call this the protection scam, which is a way of exploiting care. If we speak in these terms, we accept that there is another, an enemy, who not only steals resources from us, but who is not worth dealing with.
The feeling of being neglected motivates these people who demand an America for Americans. It’s a negative, visceral, angry stance that Trump has benefited from over the past decade.
What would a second Trump victory mean for healthcare democracy?
Things would regress. They would dismantle the welfare state and make workers more dependent on their employers. All this would lead to a society which would have less trust, which would have less sense of solidarity. And as we move in this direction, the violence increases. It is really difficult to get out of such a vicious circle.
In this electoral campaign, in what aspects have we been able to observe a politicized use of care?
Republicans have focused on the transgender issue, saying public money is being used to purchase sex change-related products instead of caring for citizens. Republican voters share a conservative view of gender roles. So denying and attacking transgender people is one more way to secure and solidify your base, because nothing scares Trump voters more than not having marked gender categories or not having to cater to men .
