Professora Titular Sênior / Senior Professor, Departamento de Sociologia - Universidade de São Paulo, Pesquisadora Associada / Researcher , Cebrap - Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento,
E-mail: nguimaraes@me.com or nadya@usp.br
Understanding the dynamics of care work remains a significant challenge. In recent decades, vigorous research results have been achieved mainly concentrated on individuals in situations of dependency, such as the elderly, young children, and people with disabilities (England 2005). At the same time, since providing care involves establishing work relationships, whether paid or unpaid, analytical attention has been shifted to those who deliver care (Duffy 2011; Folbre 2012). In doing so, sociological studies have taken on the task of exploring the dynamics of interaction between caregivers and recipients, with particular emphasis on this dyad.
Since the nature and progression of this dyadic relationship needed to be contextualized, analysts sought to anchor these interactions within the rules of the socio-institutional framework, emphasizing the meso-level where they unfolded —whether in the home, outside it, or within public, philanthropic, or market-based institutions (Abel and Nelson 1990; Stacey 2011; Avril and Cartier, 2014). This expanded the analytical scope to include other actors, such as ‘relatives’, ‘managers’, ‘colleagues’, and ‘neighbors’. Still, fully grasping these situational rules required looking beyond, keeping a sharp focus on the underlying systems of inequality. This is because it is at the macro-sociological level that the degrees of freedom for producing well-being rely – whether through the availability of resources (such as population dynamics, income distribution, and the nature of markets, especially labor markets), or through state action (regulating rights and designing policies). In short, understanding the dyadic relationship between caregiver and care recipient required looking outside the dyad and providing context (Daly and Lewis 2000; Razavi 2007). However, since the primary goal was to understand this relationship, the analysis always returned to the dyad, though now enriched with contextual information from both the meso- and macro-levels.
However, collective initiatives increasingly emerged to (re)establish well-being and meet collective needs. These forms of care gained prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic, mainly in the so-called Global South (Sanchis 2020). But not only then – they had already drawn attention in contexts challenged by extreme hunger or food insecurity, which impact the lives of impoverished populations (Vega, Martinez and Paredes 2018; Carmo 2022). This exposed the limitations of the caregiver-recipient dyad approach and introduced new challenges for the scholarly agenda.
Understanding these forms of collective care required situating them in territories – whether physical, social, or symbolic – where the need for care arises, giving meaning to the practices (Fraga 2022). Collective action is driven by more than just a shared material need (such as food, for example). Often, it is the shared sense of identity and the need to affirm and defend it that motivates collectives to care for themselves and their own (Faur 2024). This required broadening the scope of analysis to explore the social foundations behind the notion of ‘us’. This identity can stem from ethnic or cultural belonging or from sharing a sexual identity – both of which shape communal interests and define the care agenda. The driving force behind community action can, and often does, transcend economic deprivation, instead manifesting as the deprivation of rights and recognition – both of which are essential for accessing the means or dignified conditions necessary for sustaining life. In this sense, the ‘other,’ in relation to whom needs are identified and expressed, also varies. Therefore, it would be an oversimplification to reduce the production of community care to merely a response to the lack of resources to purchase care in the market or the state's failure to meet basic needs for sustaining life.
However, while community ties are the cornerstone, the resources needed to meet these needs are rarely found within the community itself. As a result, community care is rooted in ‘chains of solidarity’ that connect different points of the care diamond – at least from one of its vertices – linking major philanthropic actors with small, community-based grassroots organizations, while key intermediaries play a crucial role in bridging these two ends (Guimarães, Penati and Mundin 2024).
By introducing the concept of ‘chains of solidarity’ in the context of collective care, we aim to enrich the literature on welfare regimes. While this body of scholarship acknowledges the role of philanthropy in building protective frameworks – alongside the family, the state, and the market – it has predominantly concentrated on the upper levels of the ‘chain’ (Esping-Andersen 1990). Similarly, we also expand the canonical scholarship in the field of care studies, which, even when engaging with the concept of ‘community,’ has often confined it to third-sector organizations, which are highly institutionalized and equally rooted in philanthropy (Razavi 2007). Even when scholars began to consider mutual aid networks for providing care, interpretation shifted to the extreme opposite, narrowing the analysis to the microsocial level of ‘help circuits’ formed between households and/or neighborhoods (Guimarães 2020). By emphasizing ‘chains of solidarity’, we take this a step further, linking different actors and levels. In doing so, we contribute to the theorization of collective care, avoiding the limitation of focusing exclusively on territorially defined communities.
However, it is also crucial to reflect on the notion of ‘solidarity’, the other key component of the concept proposed here, given the remarkable performativity of this category. As a central analytical tool in sociological studies – ranging from classics like Durkheim and Mauss to contemporary scholars such as Paugam (2023) , Caillé (2000), and Steiner (2016) – solidarity has become a pivotal concept in the vocabulary of the actors themselves, especially during the pandemic. Similar arrangements have also been explored through network analysis, a perspective that the care literature has largely overlooked, although innovative studies have examined the intersection of vulnerability, survival strategies, network ties, and care (Desmond, 2012). In short, exploring the complexities of collective care chains opens up pathways that connect themes and ways of thinking about sustaining life.
References:
Abel, Emily K.; Nelson, Margaret K. (1990). Circles of care: work and identities In women’s life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Avril, Christelle; Cartier, Marie (2014). Subordination in Home Service Jobs: Comparing Providers of Home-Based Child Care, Elder Care, and Cleaning in France. Gender & Society, Vol. 28 (4), August 2014, p. 609–630.
Caillé, Alain (2000), Anthropologie du don: le tiers paradigme. Paris, La Découverte.
Carmo, Milena M. (2022). ‘Hunger doesn’t wait’: the struggle of women in the peripheries of São Paulo during the Covid 19 Pandemic. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology , 19, e19908.
Daly, Mary; Lewis, Jane. (2000). The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), p. 281-298.
Desmond, Matthew (2012). ‘Disposable ties and the urban poor’, American Journal of Sociology 117 (5), p. 1295-1335.
Duffy, Mignon (2011). Making Care Count: A Century of Gender, Race, and Paid Care Work. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
England, Paula (2005). Emerging theories of care. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 31, p. 381-399.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Faur, Eleonor (2024). El trabajo de cuidado comunitario. De la invisibilidad al reclamo de derechos. In: Karina Batthyány, Javier Pineda Duque, Valentina Perrotta (eds.). La sociedad del cuidado y políticas de la vida. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, p. 91 - 132
Folbre, Nancy (2012) For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fraga, Cecilia. (2022). Los cuidados comunitarios en América Latina y el Caribe: Uma aproximación a los cuidados en los territórios . Pnud.
Guimarães, Nadya (2020). Circuits of care. Reflections from the Brazilian case. In: Guimarães, Nadya and Hirata, Helena (eds.) Care and Care Workers. A Latin-American Perspective. Cham: Springer, ch. 8, p. 125-147.
Guimarães, Nadya: Penati, Lina; Mundin, Luma (2024). Cadeias de solidariedade e cuidado coletivo. Construindo a reflexão sobre elos horizontais e verticais em cadeias de solidariedade. São Paulo: Cebrap, Unpublished paper, 39 p.
Paugam, Serge (2023). L’Attachement Social. Formes et fondements de la solidarité humaine. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Razavi, Shahra (2007). The Political and Social Economy of Care in a Development Context. Conceptual Issues, Research Questions and Policy Options. Geneva: UNSRID.
Sanchís, Norma (Edit.). (2020). El cuidado comunitario en tiempos de pandemia… y más allá . Asociación Lola Mora, Red de Género y Comercio
Stacey, Clare L. (2011) The Caring Self: The Work Experiences of Home Care Aides. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Steiner, Philippe (2016). Donner… une histoire de l’altruisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Vega, Cristina; Martínez, Raquel; and Paredes, Myriam (2018). Cuidado, comunidad y común. Extracciones, apropiaciones y sostenimiento de la vida . Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños.