Justice as care

C. D. Marshall
{"title":"Justice as care","authors":"C. D. Marshall","doi":"10.5553/ijrj/258908912019002002001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Late last year, I was asked to contribute to an interdisciplinary seminar on the theme of care. Speakers were drawn from a variety of fields, ranging from nursing to geology to plant sciences to, in my case, restorative justice. Each was asked to reflect briefly on how care featured in their personal work or their academic disci‐ pline. That was probably an easier task for the social scientists on the panel, though even the physical scientists spoke eloquently of how much they cared about their research and its impact. In pondering what I could say on the topic, my thoughts went to a book I had read recently entitled, Caring and the law, in which the author, legal scholar Jona‐ than Herring, proposes that the West is facing a ‘crisis of care’, and one that mod‐ ern law is ill-equipped to deal with. This crisis has been occasioned by a range of demographic and societal changes that mean that more people are now spending longer periods of their life, either dependent on the care of others or responsible for providing care to others. Yet while the burdens of care are increasing, the resources to deliver it are diminishing. It is not care itself that is the burden. Care is a basic human need and a funda‐ mental social right. None of us could survive at birth or in infancy without receiv‐ ing altruistic care from others in the form of food, nurture and protection, and we cannot develop or thrive thereafter as persons without the constant giving and receiving of care. Care is essential to human existence; we literally cannot live without it. But that is not something properly recognised by the modern liberal legal order or by the competitive market economy. Care is also a fundamentally relational reality. That is to say, it necessarily takes place in the context of personal relationships that involve attachment, vul‐ nerability, compassion, interdependence, self-giving and mutual obligation. But, Herring argues, the law prizes a different – and perhaps more stereotypically mas‐ culine – set of values to do with personal rights, autonomy, rationality, equality and freedom of choice. The law’s assumed subject is the solitary, unattached, selfsufficient, individual adult male, and its chief concern is to protect his sovereign rights and freedoms from the interference of others. As Herring (2013: 46) explains:","PeriodicalId":430026,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of\n Restorative Justice","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of\n Restorative Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5553/ijrj/258908912019002002001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Late last year, I was asked to contribute to an interdisciplinary seminar on the theme of care. Speakers were drawn from a variety of fields, ranging from nursing to geology to plant sciences to, in my case, restorative justice. Each was asked to reflect briefly on how care featured in their personal work or their academic disci‐ pline. That was probably an easier task for the social scientists on the panel, though even the physical scientists spoke eloquently of how much they cared about their research and its impact. In pondering what I could say on the topic, my thoughts went to a book I had read recently entitled, Caring and the law, in which the author, legal scholar Jona‐ than Herring, proposes that the West is facing a ‘crisis of care’, and one that mod‐ ern law is ill-equipped to deal with. This crisis has been occasioned by a range of demographic and societal changes that mean that more people are now spending longer periods of their life, either dependent on the care of others or responsible for providing care to others. Yet while the burdens of care are increasing, the resources to deliver it are diminishing. It is not care itself that is the burden. Care is a basic human need and a funda‐ mental social right. None of us could survive at birth or in infancy without receiv‐ ing altruistic care from others in the form of food, nurture and protection, and we cannot develop or thrive thereafter as persons without the constant giving and receiving of care. Care is essential to human existence; we literally cannot live without it. But that is not something properly recognised by the modern liberal legal order or by the competitive market economy. Care is also a fundamentally relational reality. That is to say, it necessarily takes place in the context of personal relationships that involve attachment, vul‐ nerability, compassion, interdependence, self-giving and mutual obligation. But, Herring argues, the law prizes a different – and perhaps more stereotypically mas‐ culine – set of values to do with personal rights, autonomy, rationality, equality and freedom of choice. The law’s assumed subject is the solitary, unattached, selfsufficient, individual adult male, and its chief concern is to protect his sovereign rights and freedoms from the interference of others. As Herring (2013: 46) explains:
公正如关怀
去年年底,我应邀参加了一个以护理为主题的跨学科研讨会。演讲者来自各个领域,从护理学到地质学到植物科学,再到我的恢复性司法。每个人都被要求简要地反映他们的个人工作或学术学科是如何体现关怀的。对于小组中的社会科学家来说,这可能是一个更容易的任务,尽管即使是物理科学家也雄辩地表达了他们多么关心自己的研究及其影响。在思考关于这个话题我能说些什么时,我想到了我最近读过的一本名为《关怀与法律》的书,在这本书中,法律学者乔纳森·赫林提出,西方正面临着一场“关怀危机”,而现代法律却无力应对这场危机。这一危机是由一系列人口和社会变化引起的,这些变化意味着越来越多的人现在的生命周期更长,要么依赖他人的照顾,要么负责为他人提供照顾。然而,尽管护理负担在增加,提供护理的资源却在减少。忧虑本身并不是负担。关怀是人类的一项基本需求,也是一项基本的社会权利。如果没有他人以食物、养育和保护的形式给予的无私关怀,我们都无法在出生或婴儿期生存下来,如果没有不断的给予和接受关怀,我们就无法作为一个人发展或茁壮成长。关怀是人类生存的必要条件;我们真的不能没有它。但现代自由主义法律秩序或竞争性市场经济并未正确认识到这一点。关心也是一种基本的关系现实。也就是说,它必然发生在涉及依恋、脆弱、同情、相互依赖、自我奉献和相互义务的个人关系的背景下。但是,赫林认为,法律奖励的是一套不同的——也许是更为刻板的——与个人权利、自主、理性、平等和选择自由有关的价值观。法律假定的主体是孤独的、独立的、自给自足的成年男性,它的主要关注点是保护他的主权权利和自由不受他人的干涉。正如赫林(2013:46)解释的那样:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信