Among the questions that research might answer regards Hodges' model I have in mind:
- At what age can Hodges' model be introduced in the general curriculum?
- Is there consistency in how people view/interpret and apply Hodges' model?
- How simple is it (or complex)?
- Is it a meta-model?
- How can Hodges' model relate to the spiritual?
My B.A.(Joint Hons) is in Philosophy and Computer Science, so the 'Philosophy of Nursing' is a preoccupation. In January 2022 I discovered:
J. Braga & M. Santiago de Carvalho (Eds.), Philosophy of care: New approaches to vulnerability, otherness therapy. Springer.
I requested a copy but ever distracted did not register any further action beyond acknowledgement and being forwarded. Discovering I'd missed this, I picked it up again. I must admit two years ago I was expecting a book with 'care' in the nursing, medicine, health context. Revisiting the 'blurb' I saw that this is not the full picture. Last year and this however drawn to conferences that combine the environment and religion this book really did fit the bill. Requesting a 'review copy' so late in the publishing cycle presents a challenge.
Hodges' model provides a long-tail, surely a defining property of a lifelong learning resource? This plus a history of cataract surgery brought a print copy and many thanks to Daniela Rohrmann and team. I've now reached Part V, chapter 19 and 'medical care'.
The book's physical quality (printed hardcopy) is up to Springer's usual high quality standard. The fact that much of the contents have, I believe, been translated appears to show at times, in one chapter especially, with missing, or additional words. Perhaps this also reflects proof reading, an important part of production I would have thought (and still best not left to AI)? The font and print size is very readable and the format and design - architecture - of headings and layout are inviting and engage the reader. There are Any problems with grammar, flow were readily overcome.
In meeting this text I oscillated in expectation - philosopher of care, as in the clinical context; and then the spiritual, pastoral. Which is it? The emphasis is on the latter with the final part focussed more on medicine. The book has extended my appreciation of 'care' in the wider sense, it is rewarding and well-worth reading.
"Finally, the fifth part – Care and Therapy – examines issues relevant to medical
care. This volume would be remiss if it did not take therapeutic care into account.
Practical and theoretical knowledge mutually influence each other. This highly specialized
domain imparts a significant amount of the status that care is given in our
daily lives. Thus, in this last part, the previous themes of otherness and ipseity converge
systematically. Through the theoretical emphasis that is placed on the issue of
suffering – whether it concerns physical illnesses or those of the psychological and
psychiatric realm – the authors of these chapters show us the urgency of thinking
about therapeutic care practices in the light of a theory of intersubjectivity, where
the disease itself and its cure are understood within the communication processes
and not only as exclusively technical-scientific processes." p.vii. (Introduction).
Don't worry I'm not going through each chapter, but Chapter 1 is a fascinating read, the title 'Care: A New Arrival in the History of Philosophy?' https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-75478-5_1 presented an immediate challenge. For me, love, compassion, philosophy - as the love of wisdom, knowledge, what it is be, think, exist, the human condition and more all imply 'care' including care of thought and argument. I'm probably begging the question and I realise the Peirron's purpose is more specific, nuanced. I'm reassured though as care is defined by three criteria:
"(a) care is contextual and anti-essentialist... The characterization of care requires a great deal of attention to the precise details of each situation (Tronto, 2012: 35)."
"(b) care is relational and accepts that human beings , other beings, and the environment are interdependent (Tronto, 2012: 32)."
"(c) In human societies which would like to assume the equal value of all human life, care needs to be democratic and inclusive (Tronto, 2012: 36)." p.6.
I must read Tronto - who work has elevated vulnerability as flagship concept of her politics of care (Tronto, 2009) (p.8); 'dialectical' too (p.10). The book is full of many leads, the writing scholarly and authoritative.
With some studies in education and philosophy the pragmatic school of thought quickly surfaces. I see Hodges' model as a pragmatic solution. In addition to the 'pragmatics of care', Peirron opens the door even further in respect of 'care':
"Giving through care involves much more than what is described in the interactional framework of exchanges characteristic of homo economicus (economical animal) paradigm. Giving is not exchanging because care involves so much more than just the provision of a service. Care, as understood as a politically relevant anthropological position, is thus very different from a Hobbes-inspired anthropology which supposes a social epistemology based on a an atomistic approach to individuals. It provides a fundamental interpretation of our social intelligence by thinking it, starting from a relational anthropology within which the concept of vulnerability plays, as we will see, a strategic role. A pathetics of care rethinks the balance between reason and feeling, argument and emotion in the spirit of the tradition of Scottish philosophy, in order to allow a "different voice" to be heard in the analysis, the description, and the support of the human world." p.7.
The pathetic view of care requires a language, methods, aesthetics that can manage 'the singularity of an enduring life history' (p.10). This equates for me with the health career in Hodges' model.
As usual below I've mapped some concepts to the domains of Hodges' model. I will add to this post too.
Individual
|
INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES
HUMANISTIC -------------------------------------- MECHANISTIC
SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL
|
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
