Residence Rights for Carers of Union Citizen Children before the Court of Justice of the European Union

Residence Rights for Carers of Union Citizen Children before the Court of Justice of the European Union: Some Reflections on the Pending Case of Chavez-Vilchez and Others

by Dr. Fulvia Staiano
Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Law, UCC Cork
fulvia.staiano@ucc.ie

In the currently pending case of Chavez-Vilchez and Others [1] , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was presented with two questions on the limits and scope of the principles established in its landmark Zambrano [2] judgment. These question, in particular, aimed to ascertain the scope of the principle established in Zambrano (and subsequently clarified in Dereci [3] ), whereby a third-country national parent of a child who is a citizen of a Member State enjoys a right of residence on its territory only when it can be said that the child would be forced to leave the Union in case of expulsion of the parent.

The Chavez-Vilchez case concerns a group of third-country national mothers who are the primary carers of their Dutch citizen children. The involved women opposed the Dutch authorities’ refusal to grant them with residence rights, motivated by the view that in case of their expulsion, the Dutch fathers of their children could still provide them with the necessary care. They submitted that they have sole parental authority and custody over their children, while the respective fathers are unwilling or unable to take care of them. In this light, the referring court has asked the CJEU to assess two main issues, both related to the interpretation of Art. 20 TFEU. First, it seeks to determine whether a Member State must grant the right to reside on its territory to a third-country national parent who carries out the primary care of his or her minor child, when the latter is a citizen of that Member State. Second, it asks whether for this purpose it is relevant that the legal, financial and/or emotional burdens do not weigh entirely on the primary carer, and whether it must be proved that the other parent is unable to assume responsibility for the care of the child.

These questions offer the CJEU with an opportunity to provide important insights into its understanding of care, particularly in relation to the quality and intensity of the carers’ involvement in their children’s upbringing for the purpose of qualifying them as indispensable. As is known, the CJEU has consistently granted residence rights to third-country national parents of Union citizen children on the grounds of the care provided by the former to the latter. In a first group of cases, this recognition was linked to the possibility for Union citizen family members to exercise their freedom of movement within the territory of the Union . Starting from the Zambrano judgment, residence rights for carers were also detached from the exercise of free movement and linked to the enjoyment of the substance of the rights attached to EU citizenship.

With the sole exception of its Carpenter judgment, in this case law the CJEU has so far consistently used the expression “primary carer” in respect to third-country national women involved. It was precisely this role of primary carer that prompted the conclusion that such care was essential for their children’s enjoyment of the rights either connected to their own Union citizenship or stemming from their father’s Union citizenship. The CJEU has not so far clarified the meaning of the notion of primary carer . However, this expression has arguably been used to refer to the essential and indispensable character of the care provided by a parent, and to the consequent dependence of Union citizen children from said parent.

On the other hand, in more recent judgments concerning third-country national fathers, i.e. in Zambrano and Dereci, the expression “primary carer” cannot be found. In the case of Zambrano, the dependence of the involved children from their father’s right to reside in Belgium was not assessed in terms of care at all, but rather inferred from the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. Zambrano – being irregularly resident third-country nationals – would be forced to leave the Union territory in case of denial of residence rights. In Dereci, the CJEU also overlooked the degree of involvement of Mr. Dereci in his children’s care, since his wife’s Austrian citizenship – and related right to reside in Austria – meant that their children would not be forced to leave the Union territory in case of his expulsion.

In this light, parental care does not appear to play a crucial role in the test carried out by the CJEU concerning the possibility for Union citizen children to fully enjoy the substance of the rights recognised by virtue of their status. The citizenship of both of their parents, in particular, can play an overriding role in this assessment.

Precisely for this reason, the outcome of the Chavez-Vilchez case will deserve specific attention. The presence of Union citizen fathers in the present case may indeed not be considered as a decisive factor to determine that the involved children would still be able to enjoy the substance of rights related to their Union citizenship in case of expulsion of their mothers. The lack of involvement of such fathers in their children’s care and upbringing, and their unwillingness or inability to ensure such an involvement in the future, will necessarily play a role in the CJEU’s assessment. This case, therefore, has the potential to foster key judicial clarifications on the meaning of primary care, on the degree and type of involvement necessary to consider parental care as indispensable and irreplaceable, as well as on the type and degree of fatherly involvement in childcare that may be reasonably expected and required in this context. A finding of the CJEU in the sense of recognising third-country national parents with residence rights on the grounds of the primary character of the care provided to their children would constitute a crucial development, bringing reproductive work to the fore and opening new perspectives for those devoted to it.

[1] C-133/15, Chavez-Vilchez and Others v. Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb) and Others, lodged on 18 march 2015 [pending]. For an account of the factual grounds of the case, see Anouk Biesteker, Lukasz Dziedzic, Lorena Navia-Rodriguez, Gareth T. Davies and Janneke De Lange, Expert Opinion on Issues arising from the Pending Case of Chavez-Vilchez and Others (C-133/15), 30 June 2015, summary in English available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2641773 [last accessed on 28 October 2015].

[2] C-34/09, Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office National de l’Emploi, judgment of 8 March 2011.

[3] C-256/11, Murat Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium für Inneres, judgment of15 November 2011.

Care Paid and Unpaid: Social, Economic and Human Rights Concerns

by Dr Joan Garvanwww.maternalhealthandwellbeing.com

Attempts to achieve gender equity have reached a new high water mark and the recognition and redistribution of care, both paid and unpaid, stands at the centre of this arena. The Australian secretariat – Economic Security 4 Women – have produced landmark reports, both scoping and quantifying the value of the ‘care economy’ and, more recently, Professor Marilyn Waring addressed the topic of care and dignity in the annual Pamela Denoon Lecture Series. Here below are key points from these papers and central messages made by Waring.

Two significant Australian reports on the care economy have been produced over recent years: Scoping the Australian Care Economy A Gender Perspective (2010) and Counting on Care Work in Australia (2012). These projects are concerned with the lifelong economic well-being of women. Though they are particular to Australia and reference local government policies, programs and strategies, they draw from an international body of research and deal with common concerns.

The first report references the importance of data collection and brings attention to landmark work in the Massachusetts case study that used United States Census and Time Use data to measure both paid and unpaid care work [1]. The author Valerie Adams notes tensions between unpaid work, voluntary work and paid work. She draws attention to the ‘relational’ nature of care work, and references the concept of ‘provisioning’ for human need. The report used the notion of ‘care work’ to depict both the paid and unpaid sectors. Adams considers definitions and current issues in the Australian care economy. She surveys relevant government policy and makes numerous recommendations for further research and data collection.

Counting on Care Work in Australia (2012) further develops this arena by quantifying the value of the paid and unpaid care sectors to the Australian economy. In 2009-10 twenty per cent of all paid employment in Australia was in the care sector. Care workers receive 96 cents for every dollar earned by the average Australian worker, and female workers earn on average 84 cents in the dollar to male care workers. The report valued the unpaid care sector at $650 billion with sixty per cent of this contribution being made by women aged 25 to 64. The report furthermore outlined and quantified government investment in the care sector. The authors make recommendations for further work in light of: demographic change; inter-generational concerns; and the continuing economic and life course implications for women.

Marilyn Waring prefaced her recent lecture Care and Dignity: Major challenges to economics and human rights (transcript and video available online: http://pameladenoonlecture.net/) with the proposition that over millennia care has been the primary responsibility of women. She has changed her emphasis since the publication of Counting for Nothing: What men value and what women are worth (1988) [2] and now frames these concerns within a Human Rights perspective.

Waring raised problems for the use of ‘care’ as an analytical category, arguing that most often carers are responsible for a myriad of associated tasks that could be lost through a continuing association with unpaid work. Nevertheless, drawing from studies from British Colombia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the United Kingdom, she sets out a strident case whereby the human rights of care givers are being flouted. She and others set up a questionnaire for a Commonwealth report drawing from Amartya Sen’s capability approach to human rights which references choice, rest, health, meals, work and political involvement, and found multiple breeches.

With governments around the world withdrawing from social and welfare programs these kind of arguments are critical if we aren’t going to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Care, both paid and unpaid, are clearly significant to the health and well-being of the community, but further to this gender equality will remain allusive if we don’t see transformational change. Unfortunately the issues are complex and though there is increasing reference to the work of unpaid care in terms of achieving gender equity, there is a need to bolster and popularize the debates.

References

[1] Albelda, R., Duffy, M., Folbre, N. (2009), Counting on Care Work: Human Infrastructure in Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts, MA, Massachusetts

[2] In a recent anthology, Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjornholt and Ailsa McKay, 31 authors from nine countries outline the wide ranging impact and resonance of Professor Waring’s work as well as the current frontiers of feminist economics.

 

 

Happy New Year – Welcome to 2015 and introduction to Ceri Durham our new administrator

It is perhaps too late to wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR given that we are now almost at the end of January, but as the beginning of 2015 is marking a new involvement for me as the administrator for the Revaluing Care Network, I feel it is appropriate to wish everyone a healthy and peaceful 2015 full of lively debate and interesting conversations. I look forward to being in touch with many of you as the year progresses. Particular thanks go to Sue Westwood from whom I am taking over the role, and who I already know will be of assistance in helping me build on her excellent work to date.

I was lucky enough to meet some of you at the ‘Cycles of Care‘ seminar at the end of November, but for those of you who I didn’t, I will tell you a little about me. I am Ceri Durham, a mother of three young children, living in Bow in London’s East End. I am currently undertaking my LLM (Masters in Law) in Medical Law at Queen Mary, University of London. Until October, I was working as a solicitor predominantly doing commercial and private client work for so-called “ultra-high-net worth individuals”. However, in October I took the plunge and left my (paid) work to follow the passion of my voluntary work role as a campaigner for improvements in maternity services (and to do my LLM, of course).

As a maternity rights campaigner, my role splits into two – the complaining activist and the compassionate supporter. I spend much of my time telling anyone who will listen about the perilous issue of women’s choice and birth autonomy in the UK today. I also have the joy of running various birth-groups supporting women as they make their choices and plans for their birth, in particular assisting women who are contemplating giving birth at home and who are finding it difficult to access the information and advice they need to make the decision that is right for them. In my view, even where autonomy and human rights are protected in theory, the women I support tell a different story. Thankfully, even where there have been difficulties, surgery or undesired outcomes, the wonderful birth stories I hear full of joy and laughter from women who have had empowering and life-affirming births, make me know that this is a campaign worth fighting for.

Whilst I believe – and am very grateful – that maternity services in this country are ‘safe’ and will usually result in a mother and baby who are both alive at the end of birth, I feel the emphasis that this is ‘all that matters’ manifests by denying women real choice about their body and the care of their children. Too often there seems to be a tension between consultant (clinical) care and genuine woman-centred midwifery care, and whilst some advances have been made in this area, the fact that an event as natural and as every-day as birth should result in thousands of women each year suffering from avoidable post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and social exclusion is something which I feel the need to keep speaking about. That this is all taking place in the midst of NHS cuts and increasing privatisation of the NHS adds further issues to the mix, especially because we know that the models of maternity care which most benefit women, especially those who may be described as ‘vulnerable’, bear little relation to what is offered in practice. Needless to say, if you know anyone who is pregnant or if you would like further information on the campaigns I am involved in, please get in touch. I would love to hear from you.

Ceri.

Condemned as a ‘Typical’ Man?

By Robin Hadley

A few moths ago, I attended a seminar on infertility treatment. The audience included those involved in infertility treatment, academics, practitioners, and interested others. The complexities surrounding infertility treatment are vast and range from the very intimate and personal to legalities at national and international level. Conducting research in such a sensitive area is fraught with difficulties and the speakers were all very aware of the ethical implications of their research and practice. I was particularly interested in the researchers’ experience of accessing and interviewing men. The general view in infertility studies has been that men are not interested in participating in research, and many studies are heavily weighted with female respondents. As one researcher described her many efforts to interview the male partner of a couple, a ripple of sympathetic recognition of her struggle arose from the audience. ‘Typical man’ seemed to be the collective verdict, mine included. As I reflected back on the day I returned to that incident. The audience reaction was one of sympathy for the researcher and I wondered if that man did not also deserve some empathy. I know from my own research that many men assume that they will be fathers and that that knowledge is so embedded that it is not discussed. The assumption expressed has been that one would leave school, get a job/go to university/ get a job, find a partner, find accommodation, have children. That being the case I tried to put myself in that man’s position: the assumed ‘natural’ event had not happened. How would I feel? Shocked to the very core? I think so. Perhaps I had been brought up not to show feelings and instead, to show control – ‘mastery’ – through actions and/or rationality. In which case my reactions may include striving to balance things up by working and playing harder, or not becoming involved. Being raised in an environment where I am not expected to express emotions, I possibly, do not have the confidence or vocabulary to verbalise my emotional state. Here are my musings on what may have been ‘going on’ if I was that unwilling participant, “So, here I am, not fulfilling the role I expected to – and that others seem to achieve with ease – and I cannot make it right. There is only one person I can talk to and that is my partner but it is worse for her and the one thing I can be is strong for her. Then there is this University researcher who wants to have a talk. She’s talked to my partner, and wants to talk to us both. My partner thinks it will do me good. I don’t know how to express these feelings inside without bursting. I want to support my partner, part of me thinks it would be good to release the emotions but I can’t risk overwhelming her in the way I am sometimes overwhelmed. I’ll say I’ll do it and then see.”
If the participant’s thoughts and feelings were similar to the above then it is understandable why he was ambivalent about being interviewed.

Infertility has been seen as a form of complex bereavement consisting of multiple loses (Adler, 1991; Lechner et al., 2007) with levels of distress in women recorded as high as those suffering from serious medical conditions (Domar et al., 1992; Domar et al., 1993). However, recent research shows that, post infertility treatment, men who did not become fathers suffered poorer mental health than those who had become fathers (Fisher et al., 2010). In their conclusions Fisher et al (p.6) state ‘…that stereotypes that infertile men conflate fertility and masculinity, are less distressed than women about potential loss of parenthood, and adjust more readily to childlessness appear inaccurate.’ Men may or may not be ‘typical’ by choice but there are many social factors that influence their behavior and how their behavior is perceived. The belief that men are not interested in taking part in research, and their absence ‘condemned to be meaningful’ (Lloyd, 1996: p.451), reflects a lack of insight by the research community. I feel I must stress here these are my own reflections based on my research on involuntarily childless men and not a particular person or persons.

Useful websites
Infertility Network UK: http://www.infertilitynetworkuk.com
The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/index.html
Mensfe: http://www.mensfe.net

References
Adler, N. E. (1991). Forward. In Stanton, A. L. & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (Eds.), Infertility: Perspectives from Stress and Coping Research (pp. vii-ix). Plenum Press: New York.
Domar, A., Broome, A., Zuttermeister, P. C., Seibel, M. & Friedman, R. (1992). The prevalence and predictability of depression in infertile women. Fertility and Sterility, 58, 1158-1163.
Domar, A. D., Zuttermeister, P. C. & Friedman, R. (1993). The psychological impact of infertility: a comparison with patients with other medical conditions. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 14(Special issue), 45-52.
Fisher, J. R. W., Baker, G. H. W. & Hammarberg, K. (2010). Long-term health, well-being, life satisfaction, and attitudes toward parenthood in men diagnosed as infertile: challenges to gender stereotypes and implications for practice. Fertility and Sterility, 94(2), 574-580.
Lechner, L., Bolman, C. & Van Dalen, A. (2007). Definite involuntary childlessness: associations between coping, social support and psychological distress. Hum. Reprod., 22(1), 288-294.
Lloyd, M. (1996). Condemned to be meaningful: Non-response in studies of men and infertility. Sociology of Health & Illness, 18(4), 433-454.

Paid Housework? Wages for, Wages Against.

Lawyer and ex parliamentarian Giulia Bongiorno is proposing the introduction of a salary for women who do housework as a way of “changing the direction” of the domestic violence debate in Italy. The original impetus behind the initiative is the acknowledgement that for many women lack of economic independence remains an important factor affecting their decision to leave an abusive relationship. “Obviously”, the proposal adds, “the salary cannot be guaranteed to women only as victims of domestic violence… The issue is another one: it is necessary to rethink the housewife’s role tout court: it is necessary to gratify and not humiliate the woman who chooses to be one”.[1] Hence the proposal for a salary to be provided either by the state or, in the case of very affluent households, by the well-off partner. Beyond domestic violence, Bongiorno’s hope is that the economic and social recognition bestowed on housework will in time enable it to be become “gender-free”.

There is much to be said about the link made here between domestic violence and women’s “invisible” labour but I’d like to briefly reflect on another aspect of the proposal, that is the fact that while referring to the normative, jurisprudential and administrative recognition that housework has received in Italy in the past three decades, the proposal is silent about an apparently similar initiative. This is the Wages for Housework campaign of the 1970s, which Italian feminists promoted for over a decade and was in turn linked to similar campaigns in Britain and the United States. I said apparently because these are very different initiatives in terms of both the premise on which they are based and the arguments they make. The common point is the recognition of domestic labour as work but this is where the similarity ends.

For the Wages for Housework campaigners, this work was certainly not a woman’s “choice”: it corresponded to a particular division of labour under capitalism which separated the sphere of production from that of reproduction, assigning (capitalist) value to the former while considering the latter unproductive. Hence, the point was to make domestic labour visible and show how crucial it was to capitalist accumulation rather than celebrating it as a woman’s choice. As Federici (1975) put it

“To say that we want wages for housework is to expose the fact that housework is already money for capital, that capital has made and makes money out of our cooking, smiling, fucking. At the same time, it shows that we have cooked, smiled, fucked throughout the years not because it was easier for us than for anybody else, but because we did not have any other choice”.

The title of her essay, Wages Against Housework, conveyed the struggle that recognising this labour as work comported, that is the need to valorise it while subverting the processes that made it “work”, thus starting to address the separation between production and reproduction. Examples of such provocations included, in addition to the demand of wages for housework, the demand that social services be organised at community level while paid by the state so to retain control and autonomy over their nature and quality (Dalla Costa and James, 1972). One such demand in England took the form of community-run nurseries, the same communities which are currently been dismantled under austerity (Barbagallo and Beuret, 2012).

Thirty years later both Dalla Costa and Federici have reflected on the limits of the wage struggle as conducive to “women’s liberation”, while also dispelling the myth that “due to increased women’s employment, unpaid domestic work and gender based hierarchies have vanished”, pointing instead to the need for self-valorization initiatives outside the logic of the market and capital (Federici and Barbagallo, 2012). This is not to say that domestic and care labour should no longer be considered work. Indeed, as Selma James has recently pointed out ‘The refusal of feminists toˇacknowledge that work enabled Tony Blair to call mothers “workless” and made way for welfare reform’s definition of aˇgoodˇmother: she goes out to a job, even below the minimum wage, with whatever childcare she can afford’ (The Guardian, 7 March 2014). The point is rather to show how problematic it is to argue for wages for housework without a political perspective that sees it as part of a system of capital accumulation which is based on the separation between the productive and reproductive spheres.

At a very basic level, providing wages without confronting the isolation, repetition and relentlessness this labour comports (and therefore without affecting the underlying social relations) is likely to reinforce the view of housework as women’s work. And the suggestion in the proposal that the wealthy spouse pays for the housework carried out by the less well-off certainly points in this direction, not in that of housework becoming “gender free”. But at a time when austerity is squeezing the costs of social reproduction to the bare minimum, it is even more important we look at the ways in which the social reproductive field is being re-configured, particularly at the new division of reproductive labour worldwide and its relationship to the productive sphere. To argue that domestic and care labour is work means to acknowledge and trace the multifarious ways in which it contributes to making (capitalist) value. Arguing for the remuneration of such labour without challenging the basis on which it contributes to capitalist processes of valorisation is a very different kind of politics from that envisaged and practiced by Wages for Housework activists.

1 http://www.doppiadifesa.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Proposta-_Stipendio-antiviolenza_.pdf

Psychiatric institutionalization, femininity, and women’s care giving in Poland

by Agnieszka Doll

Mental illness is often associated with notions of irrationality, unpredictability, and the imaginary threat of violence or possible negligence. For women who have been institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals, the stigma placed upon them takes on a polymorphous status as “mad” and “bad,” directly interfering with normative regimes of femininity. Particularly in societies like Poland with a traditional patriarchal gender order, these women may be seen as “unfit” mothers and “troublesome” wives, disruptive to the “normal” functioning of their families. The cultural script of Polish women as mothers and the primary care-givers cuts across class, profession, and place (Czerwinska, A., Lapniewska, Z., and Piotrowska, J., 2010) .Yet, for women with histories of psychiatric hospitalization, those care giving roles are denied. The Polish Public Opinion Research Center (CBOS) in 2008 and 2012 conducted surveys which show constant agreement among respondents that women with mental illness and previous hospitalization – regardless of the details of their individual prognoses – should be excluded from care taking duties for minors. This impacts both their private and professional lives as, for example, they may be denied employment as nannies or teachers. Even though the survey did not ask whether respondents perceived previously hospitalized women to be “fit” mothers, it illuminated the extent to which stigma of mental illness and institutionalization bears on women’s ability to fulfil societally assigned gender roles. Given that, women with histories of psychiatric hospitalization may experience difficulties in winning custody of their children in family law cases, for instance. When they manage to gain or uphold custody in such cases, to resist future hospitalization and to uphold their care-giving responsibilities they may need to drastically change their daily lives in an attempt to provide “proof” of their sanity (interpreted as orthodox compliance with gender norms) to state agencies, professionals or broader society. Thus, psychiatric examination and classification, particularly when imposed on women who are committed unwillingly, can function as a form of societal and institutional surveillance.

In spite of these serious implications, the process of admission to psychiatric facilities remains under-analysed. Current scholarship generally revolves around the need to find a balance between respect for personal liberties and the state’s right to protect the public from “dangerous” and “mentally ill” individuals. As well, it focuses on the negotiation of treatment needs and legal standards of due process within the context of admission. My doctoral research, designed as an institutional ethnographic study (D. Smith, 2006), aims to explore the procedure of involuntary psychiatric institutionalization of women in Poland, particularly its social organization. This is to gain a broader understanding of how knowledge about women as “pathological” subjects is produced within the process of psychiatric admission, and how this knowledge production occurring in local sites is organized and coordinated by ideological discourses, texts, and the features of organizational contexts. One of the project’s aims is to disrupt the mega-narrative of the official and “authoritative” accounts of psychiatric and legal professionals produced in involuntary admission processes that silence women’s voices and experiences. It is hoped that by illuminating how accounts of “pathological” women are produced within everyday institutional practices the notion of institutionalized women as “mad” and “bad” would be problematized.

References:

Czerwinska, A., Lapniewska, Z., & Piotrowska, J. (2010). Kobiety na “zielonej wyspie”: Kryzys w Polsce z perspektywy gender. Warszawa: Fundacja Feminoteka.

Omyla-Rudzka, M. (2012). Stosunek do chorych psychicznie. Warszawa: Fundacja Centrum Badania Opinii Spolecznej.

Smith, D. (2006). Institutional ethnography as practice. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &n Littlefield.

Wciorka, B., & Wciorka, J. (2008). Osoby chore psychicznie w spolecznstwie: Komunikat z badan. Warszawa: Fundacja Centrum Badania Opinii Spolecznej.

Agnieszka Doll is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Law, University of Victoria in Canada. Currently she is a Visiting Doctoral Fellow at the Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, University of Bielefled in Germany.

‘Care and Technology’ by Helen Carr

Last month I attended the 4S conference in San Diego, (the Society for Social Studies of Science in case you were wondering) along with about 1000 others.  Whilst I heard some good papers – I particularly enjoyed the panel on Calculating City Life: A Socio-Material Perspective to Low-Budget Urbanity which included papers on ride sharing and ecosan communities – I was struck, and disappointed, by the very limited focus on gender, sexuality and caring. The title (and what a great title) No Space for Old Women: Transformations in Healthcare Work was promising, but the presentation concerned women who had become nurses in the 70’s and who now felt edged out of the profession by the increasingly technological nature of their work. Interesting stuff, but, as far as I could tell, the feminism that was promised in the introduction to the paper, lay in the fact that the research subjects were women. This is perhaps unfair; when I read the full paper (and I promise I will) it may be more developed. I was amused though, when I asked the presenter to expand upon her feminist perspective, I was answered by a young man in the audience who told me it was self evident.  Women who entered work in the 1970s were all feminist pioneers apparently, since most women stayed at home and looked after their families.  It was hard to restrain myself from replying, ‘young man, I don’t think you are in a position to lecture me about feminism in the 1970s’ but I just about managed!

Many papers were concerned with surveillance, and the consequences of technology on our freedoms. Whilst these are important and topical concerns, there was a tendency to rehearse traditional liberal arguments, treating the state as one homogenous entity and technology as irredeemably bad. There was little deviation from this perspective, and I got the feeling that if someone said, well perhaps some communities want more surveillance, or technology can be a force for good, they would have been shouted down.  Moreover the panels were very gendered.  Young men, strutting their stuff, and congratulating themselves and each other on their (very similar) insights.  What a pleasure it was to hear Evelyn Ruppert from Goldsmiths introduce her empirical work on statisticians in the European Union and explain how people and institutions deploy ‘technologies of trust’ to give legitimacy to unstable and contested political projects such as the notion of Europe. Her ideas felt very productive to me.

Of course this is just a snap shot of the panels I went to.  It could just be that I made really poor choices (although I did comb the programme for references to care).  And I should probably have gone to ‘Feminist Postcolonial Science Studies: What are the Issues?’, chaired by Sandra Harding and Banu Subramaniam, but how could I resist a paper on baboons apparently making pets out of kidnapped feral dogs (for those of you interested here is the Youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho – one million hits and rising!) which was on at the same time.  Just in case there is any doubt, as a result of that choice, as to my academic engagement, I would point out that I chose the paper on no-flush toilets over and above ‘Scotch Malt Whisky Tasting and Subjectivity Science in the Making: A Participatory Experiment’ where apparently the first 60 delegates got a whisky sample!

I reached two conclusions following the conference.  First, and this is a bit self-congratulatory, how much more productive was our workshop in Adelaide, when a wide range of papers were delivered, across our themes, and where the discussion was critical, constructive and engaged.  The workshop format really seems to work to develop shared intellectual capital in a positive and enjoyable way.

The second is to reflect on the contemporary importance of the relationship between care and technology which seems to be undertheorised.  I would suggest that once we start thinking about technology from the perspective of care, then the ambivalence of technology becomes apparent. Whilst I was in Adelaide, I had dinner with a woman who was originally from London. Her father was in a home in London and had a tendency to wander.  He was given a walking stick with a GPS tracing device, and she was able to follow his wanderings round London on her computer. Is technology in this instance increasing or decreasing her father’s autonomy, well being, dignity and privacy? What does it do to our understanding of family, and of rights and obligations? The invention of super-absorbent sheeting can be liberating, but can also be undignified and lead to a life isolated from human contact. Is it caring to be able to provide them to someone who is functionally, although not medically incontinent? Is technology absolving us of our responsibility to care? There is a huge amount to think about so it may be that the 4S conference would be a great place for our Revaluing Care network to squat, or at least to make its presence felt. So is anyone up for a panel or two in Buenos Aires August next year? Or perhaps more realistically at the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology in Torun Poland in September 2014?

Helen Carr, Reader in Law,

Kent Law School: http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/academic/Carr,_Helen.html