The Twilight of Care

The elimination of care is a corollary of the elimination of ethics, and is therefore part of the project of the neoliberal right.

In a profoundly stupid way, the elimination of care makes markets real. Flattening the concept of care to eliminate all nuance and reduce it to a category, then eliminating the possibility of care as a category from acceptable discourse forces the creation, from fully-realized subjects with desires and inner lives who recognize the individuality of the others with whom they consort, of simplified, self-interested actors. It does this, or it kills them. See the recently defeated health care bill’s elimination of the regulation of rates insurance companies can charge for preexisting health conditions. Such fundamentalist commitment to the tailoring of reality to fit the model of the market leaves no room for confusion as to why zealots would sacrifice the poor or the vulnerable by, without pretenses to doing otherwise, pricing 90% of society out of access to their own health. Care is concomitant with the acknowledgment of difference in others upon which ethics is based. Interest in the welfare of others contradicts the absolute claim to authority over the truth of human behavior that the market would claim. If people will not be convinced through baseless argument that we should agree categorically with the essential goodness of a selfish alienation from one another, then a famine must be engineered to categorically reshape the reality in which people live. This guarantees that, within the flattened category of market-directed kitsch—kitsch because this cultural reality is manufactured and foisted onto people without regards to how people actually form unions and live their lives in greater togetherness— want ensures we become self-interested actors by simple result of having been orphaned and left to the wolves with nothing save our injuries.

Succinctly, taking simple security from people creates an easily perpetuated hell where those interested in maintaining control of material wealth and power remain entrenched in their wealth. Meanwhile, society is gaslighted with the notion that society naturally and preferably tends to organize itself into markets, the role of the market-idealogues in perpetuating this idea having vanished from sight in the desperate scrum below the castle.