xbn .

If theorizations of care are to more directly address the current “crisis of care,” we need not only to prioritize the kinds of embodied, particularized care that care ethics has highlighted in the past, but to explore a wider range of caring relationships and their diverse structures.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the ways in which “care” is both essential to and devalued in American society. The early months of the pandemic saw healthcare workers using garbage bags as surgical gowns, parents forced to choose between childcare and their own professional and personal needs, and those who provide homecare for people with chronic illnesses and disabilities continuing to struggle to earn a living wage.

This crisis of care is marked by deep gender and racial disparities: Women do the lion’s share of unpaid household labor in the United States and around the world. Around 88 percent of homecare workers are women; 18 percent are women of color. During the early months of the pandemic, one in three jobs held by women was deemed essential, and 80 percent of women with young children reported that they did more work associated with virtual schooling than their spouse. In the same survey, 45 percent of men reported that they did the majority of work to facilitate their children’s online education.

As the last statistic makes clear, this crisis of care is not simply a failure to reward care economically or prioritize it politically. It is a failure to recognize when care work is happening at all. Beginning in the 1980s scholars working in a variety of disciplines, including psychology, education, and philosophy began to work to understand the causes of care’s erasure, and to imagine new philosophical, political, and ethical approaches to care. Especially in the 1990s, this work had an optimistic tone – many working in the new field of “care ethics” argued that getting the philosophy right would address the persistent social and economic undervaluing of care work.

Religion has historically played a significant role in defining—and thereby helping people recognize or fail to recognize—care. On the one hand, religious traditions develop their own discourses of what care is and its significance. Though care ethics presents itself as a secular tradition, it is deeply informed by Christian accounts of care as personalized, emotionally-driven, and antithetical law. In turn, religious traditions’ own discourse about care has shaped political discussions about what care is and who should provide it. Especially on the right, one proposed solution to America’s crisis of care has been to ask religious institutions to provide forms of care that other institutions cannot or simply will not provide. The work that these institutions do also structures how and when we see care. In this way, the project of bringing care into view, both philosophically and politically, is shaped by religious traditions and their role in the public sphere. 

The development of care ethics is often said to begin with the 1982 publication of Carol Gilligan’s book In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Gilligan argued that women and men address problems differently; men use the “voice” of justice to decide what a person is owed or is obligated to do, while women tend to use the “voice” of care to evaluate and then address a person’s needs. While the psychology community has identified significant problems with Gilligan’s methodology, her basic paradigm launched a robust tradition of philosophical inquiry. Following Gilligan, Nel Noddings’s book Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education explores the possibilities of taking on the voice of care more fully. Noddings, along with those who follow her, argue that part of the reason that care has not been taken seriously as a resource for ethical thinking is that existing ethical frameworks rely on abstractions. These abstractions make it harder for us to see when care is happening.

This critique takes two main forms: first, Noddings argues that moral philosophy has long relied on an abstract, and implausible, philosophical picture of the human being – this philosophical anthropology treated embodiment as an accident, or even an annoyance, rather than a basic feature of human experience. Second, Noddings argues that existing moral philosophies, especially those that focus on moral “laws,” “principles,” or “obligations,” rely on a kind of abstract reasoning that is antithetical to care. In contrast, she proposes a less analytical approach “rooted in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness” which she takes to be distinctly feminine (23).[1] For Noddings, care is what we do when we attend to another person’s needs without thinking (though some care ethicists later critiqued this opposition between thinking and care). Standard ethical categories miss this kind of “receptivity” because they locate the ethical in purportedly “impartial” modes of thought and deliberation.

Later theorists sought to integrate care ethics into contemporary debates in political theory and moral philosophy. In her book, Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Post-Modernism in Contemporary Ethics, Seyla Benhabib distinguishes between a “sovereign self,” which has been the dominant philosophical anthropology in political theory, and a “situated self.” “The world inhabited by the sovereign self is a strange world,” Benhabib writes, “it is one in which individuals are grown up before they have been born; in which boys are men before they have been children; a world where neither mother, nor sister, nor wife exist” (157). The sovereign self is, in other words, a self who neither provides nor needs care. This conception of the self constructs a public sphere dominated by men; because one has to be a “sovereign self” to enter public political life, and women do the vast majority of care work, women are de facto excluded from the public sphere.

While Benhabib sought to use care as a tool to reshape our conception of the public, other theorists treated care ethics as a broad ethical theory, which could address the same range of questions as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Eva Feder Kittay highlights the challenges of treating care, especially care for those with intellectual disabilities, as a central category in an anglophone moral philosophical tradition that locates the value of the human person in rationality and utility.

Despite these profound challenges, some philosophers were optimistic about care ethics’ potential to effect significant change both inside and beyond the discipline. In her 2005 book, The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global, Virginia Held suggests that adopting a care-ethical approach to policymaking has the potential to significantly shift the economic and social structure of care. While Held leaves the precise political mechanism by which this change is to come about unstated, her optimism is grounded in a progressive historical narrative. For Held, “The history of the development of the contemporary ethics of care is the history of recent feminist progress” (21). The contemporary backlash against reproductive rights (i.e. the right to reproductive care) as well as the crisis of care during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that this progress has been both less linear and less substantial than Held has argued. Held’s narrative of “recent feminist progress” is in many ways a white feminist narrative. Intersectional feminists have demonstrated the ways that white feminism has failed to adequately account for the structural challenges facing women of color. Care ethics is not immune from these problems, and, notably, virtually all of the key figures in care ethics’ initial stages were white.

Though they are often presented as secular narratives (both Held and Noddings embrace some version of this label, and Noddings explicitly eschews religion as antithetical to care), theorizations of care are often deeply rooted in religious discourse. The critique of law as antithetical to caring has its roots in anti-Jewish polemics which see Judaism’s emphasis on law as unfeeling and as undermining the “receptivity” Held and Noddings use to characterize care.

Recent scholarship in Jewish thought has inverted this dynamic, turning to care as a tool for elucidating, rather than critiquing, Jewish concepts of law and obligation. In her book, The Obligated Self: Maternal Subjectivity in Jewish Thought, Mara Benjamin argues that analyzing maternal obligation can help us better understand rabbinic notions of obligation. Benjamin argues that “the rabbinic notion of obligation comes into felt experience most viscerally in caring for young children” (14). Far from being antithetical to obligation, then, Benjamin uses care as a paradigm through which we can better understand what it means to be obligated, and, conversely, obligation is a lens through which we can better understand the experience of caring for others.

Even as theoretical engagements with care have helped us unlearn the habits of mind that so often make care invisible, some important forms of care remain hard to see. For Held, Noddings, and Benjamin, care is distinctly embodied and particular. But care can come in other, less obviously embodied forms as well. A person mourning a loved one is caring for them and their memory – indeed, classical Jewish sources mark caring for a dead body as hesed shel-emet, “the truest form of lovingkindness.”[2] A person pursuing fertility treatments to conceive a child might be caring for a future, as yet-non-embodied child. Relationships of caring obligation might also be differently constructed. As recent work in Queer theory has highlighted, “family” can be chosen as well as born, though chosen family remains shaped by racial, economic, and other social forces. Relationships of care might, as Stacy Holman Jones has written, be characterized more by waiting than by “responsiveness” or “receptivity.” Perhaps then, if theorizations of care are to more directly address the current “crisis of care,” we need not only to prioritize the kinds of embodied, particularized care that care ethics has highlighted in the past, but to explore this wider range of caring relationships and their diverse structures.

Annotated Bibliography

Benjamin, Mara. The Obligated Self: Maternal Subjectivity in Jewish Thought. (Indiana University Press, 2018).

This path-breaking work in Jewish thought argues that maternal experience can help us better understand classical Jewish notions of obligation. Benjamin also explores the role that “thirds” —including non-parental caregivers, neighbors, teachers, and other community members—play in caring for young children. Crucially, Benjamin also offers a set of tools for critiquing and moving beyond the subfield of modern Jewish thought’s narrow and male-dominated canon.

Benhabib, Seyla. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. (Routledge, 1992).

This crucial text in feminist political theory offers a corrective to social contract theories which assume a “sovereign self” who is unrealistically detached from familial relationships of dependency. Benhabib proposes that recognizing the ways that selves are in fact always “situated” can restructure the public sphere, making it more hospitable to women’s full participation.

Held, Virginia. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. (Oxford University Press, 2005).

In this foundational work, Held articulates a version of care ethics that can function as a stand-alone ethical theory, alongside philosophical frameworks like Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Held argues that care ethics can reach beyond parent/child or care-giver/cared-for relationships to address questions of global justice.

Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, 2nd Edition (University of California Press, 2013).

This crucial text in the early development of care ethics explores the phenomenological experience of doing care work and the distinctive forms of “responsiveness” that characterize it. Noddings also explores how religious practices and texts have marginalized care.

[1] The kind of gender essentialism on which Noddings relies here has been justifiably rejected by many theorists. For approaches to this issue, drawn from critical theory and analytic philosophy respectively, see: Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1st Edition. New York: Routledge, 2006. Dembroff, Robin. “Real Talk on the Metaphysics of Gender.” Philosophical Topics 46, no. 2 (Fall 2018).

[2] Jason Rubenstein explores the potential of treating hesed shel-emet as a resource for care ethics in Jewish thought in Jason Rubenstein, “To Shelter an Egyptian Firstborn: The Revelatory Potential of Care Ethics in Jewish Thought,” in Care Ethics, Religion, and Spiritual Traditions, ed. I. Van Nistelrooij, M. Hamington, and M. Sander-Staudt (Peeters, 2022).


Native survivance, in [Gerald] Vizenor’s parlance, is a combination of the words “survival” and “resistance,” and it “creates a sense of presence.” According to him, “The suffix -ance designates a condition, a nature, or a quality that is more than a mere description of survival.”


Where relationality is most productive in critical projects is where it transcends its projects of critique and explores the possibilities—ethical, political, and theological—of its account of subjectivity and community.


Facing the violence of contemporary terror, many intellectuals have spoken in our present times about a return of political theology and religion in its violent forms. Attention to the concept of martyrdom has reappeared due to an increasing interest in religious conflicts.


In autopoiesis, there is no separation between what we do and the particular way in which the world appears to us.


Where state sovereignty as theology would have subjected groups accept their condition with its attending violence and suffering, the micro sovereignty I propose here – not merely as a futuristic idea, but more as a reflection on how subjected groups have dealt with subjection – invites us not to accept that violence and suffering, but to find creative ways out of it through the cracks of Empire.


Abolition is a process of imagining alternatives to the settler colonial, carceral present; it requires modes of kinship and care to replace prisons and policing.

Gratuitous Violence

Signifying a critical homology between the fields of Black studies and political theology, gratuitous violence is an important keyword for interrogating how religio-political concepts can afford unique insights into issues of slavery, race, and the human which continue to inform our world today.  


Asian American literary criticism’s analysis of contemporary orientalisms centered around the figuration of Asian subjectivities reminds political theologians that unconscious (white) fear and fascination with the Orient still guides political and theoretical engagement with the Asian “other.”


Thing as concept can be helpful to elucidate the specific yet ambiguous interaction of the religious and the political. Using recent thingly theoretical work within these two spheres, with an emphasis on body and shape, I will suggest ways through which thing (and things and thingness) both clarifies and challenges that interaction.


Diaspora might be a problem for political progressives for the very reason that it is so alluring. Diaspora promises both freedom and connection: freedom from national borders or the essentialisms of race and language, connection between people who affirm shared memory and heritage.
But heritage is never really free.


If there is one thing that can be said about blackness, it is this: blackness is unruly.

Black Reason

Black reason is propelled by a fantastic imaginary, a changeling animus that aggregates and transmogrifies the desires and fears of whiteness.

Racial Capitalism

The historical and theoretical relationships between race and capitalism are internally contested and in need of further exploration from theologians and scholars of religion.


Sometimes referred to as “population control,” other times “better breeding,” eugenics has been seen as a religious solution to social ills, and sometimes a new religion unto itself.


Gilroy’s “planetary humanism” contributes to political theology by offering more than a critique: in his work, humanism is a starting point, a concept to guide multicultural political projects today.


Official responses to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have encouraged us to understand risk in individual terms. They’re wrong: risk is all about interdependence.

Food Sovereignty

Food sovereignty represents a refusal of a globally commodified food system in favor of systems and institutions that support self-sufficient communities.


Doxa is a term used in sociology to contend with belief and orthodoxy without reducing either to behavior or cognition. It explores disposition and embodied belief—the gut sense of the world which is acquired through practice rather than discourse.

Settler Colonialism

I propose Decolonial Settler Theology as a contextual political theology that is uniquely the task of the settler, who must face their own complicity in narratives of ongoing colonization and aim at their undoing.


In an era during which police institutions and ideology are so fundamental to our cultural common-sense, how can theologians and critical theorists challenge this form of power?


This essay takes taboo as a critical term to trace the history of our modern present and as a conceptual companion with which to think through the complex entanglement of the ethical, the theological, and the political.


What is still nascent… is an explicit conversation between political theology and critical theories of affect, particularly in a way that might contribute to constructive projects. The sort of political theology that might emerge from such collaboration would consider how affective regimes intersect with theological constructions or religious performances.


While kinship has traditionally held a vibrant conceptual life in anthropological inquiry, more recent studies on kinship as a form of spiritual relationality have opened up a new space of interdisciplinary exploration for political theology.


The modern state form itself is inextricable from the commandement, not just as an emblem for sovereignty in Schmitt’s sense, but also because the exemplary political form of modernity, the nation-state, has racist and exclusionary tendencies that can be understood as political-theological transfers of monotheistic principles.


That structural violence is always also relational, proximate, and personal is, perhaps, one of the core insights that the concept of mourning brings to the fore for political theology.


The conversation about nature’s personhood and rights is always political, often legal, and sometimes theological. Most importantly, it is a localized conversation about the boundaries of a given community – who is part of the community and who isn’t.


For political theology, we might find ourselves compelled by practices that seek to connect us with our ecologies, our communities, and our relations with ourselves – in ways that are more about humility and provisionality than finding cures or solutions.


Queer, I think, should remain different, differing, dissonant, and plural. It shouldn’t contract or calcify into anything singular or solid.


If theorizations of care are to more directly address the current “crisis of care,” we need not only to prioritize the kinds of embodied, particularized care that care ethics has highlighted in the past, but to explore a wider range of caring relationships and their diverse structures.


A preliminary question for political theology is how to understand the meaning and significance of matter. The response to this question shapes how a political theology does or doesn’t engage political economy and theological tradition.


The triangulation of money, sovereignty, and divinity is a good point of entry to study the mutual constitution of theological and political concepts and the questions about ultimate value and social form that they raise.


Refusal is a strong current resisting the structure of settler colonialism. It crashes, churns, and erodes the death-dealing dams of settler knowing. Its path turns away from the settler’s gaze.


Seva lends itself to easy appropriation across political and religious contexts, while also furnishing mutually intelligible tropes of service, welfare, and social betterment.


Political theology intimately understands that given reality teems with forms of life that remain opaque to us.


Spillers, Cheng, and Halberstam provide us with tools to approach the histories of violence, economics, relationships, desires, and contestation that infuse our experiences with flesh in its multiplicity. Flesh is never neutral.


It is not always possible (or advisable) to separate the “political” from the “religious” or “cultural” in Indigenous contexts. Indeed, all of these are concepts developed by outsiders to describe Indigenous life. Instead, Indigeneity invites scholars of political theology and related fields to consider the relationships between these threads of cultural life.


As we watch the illusion that was Man fall apart, we also see these more-than-human worlds that Man called “animal” disrupting and revealing the cracks and fractures in his own divine intentions.

Temporality I: History

William Apess, like Walter Benjamin a century later, sought to shift the paradigms of society with history and theology as orienting poles for colonial critique. Anticipating Benjamin, Apess looked to those who had been wrecked by the advance of colonialism as the grounding site for historical and political theological inquiry.

Temporality II: Futurity

Both Benjamin and Apess discern that historical narratives are imbricated with notions of futurity, that is, which bodies and polities are allowed to inhabit and thrive within the temporality in which the “not yet” and the “always already” co-constitute each other.


In this short essay, written from my perspective as a Jewish feminist, I draw together a plurality of engagements with natality to engender new conversations in political theology.

Critical Race Theory

CRT is a framework or an approach to understanding the way racism is foundational to systems of judicial, political, social, cultural, religious, and theological power.


[S]ituating demonology more fully in its religious and theological contexts furnishes resources that not only nuance understandings of movements for whom demonization is central, but also recontextualize discussions of core political theological concepts, including sovereignty, power, economy, subjectivity, and freedom.


From Myanmar to Mariupol, from the streets of Memphis to the waves and winds of the Mediterranean Sea: resistance to violence takes many forms. So does political protest against precarity. At which point does the unavoidable vulnerability of the living condition come to expression as political agency? Can such precarious politics constitute or configure an alternative community?

Hunger Strike

“Instead of neatly separating the forms of resistance to biosovereignty into life-affirming struggles and necroresistance and mapping them (and life and death) onto the reform/revolt dichotomy, I suggest that we conceive life and death as relational rather than oppositional categories. For every differentiation and intensification of death creates new possibilities of life; and every differentiation and intensification of life entails experiences of “death” that cannot be reduced to the power of one’s death.”

Like what you're reading?

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This

Share this post with your friends!