Since 2018 my mother has been an oncological patient. After her diagnosis, I was no longer the autonomous daughter of an independent mother. I had become the caregiver of a dependent mother, who became a chronic patient, requiring long treatments and support. In Brazil, public support for elderly people is almost non-existent, which is pretty much the same regarding infantile support. Whereas childhood policy assists children to bloom as independent citizens, elderly policy backs the elders in their possible and probable autonomy loss. In both cases, the responsibility is mostly left to their families. Those with means can always hire support services from the market, as professional “caregivers”.  

Although my mother has an extended family, I took on the role of searching for recommended doctors, defining where to undergo chemotherapy and other treatments, and organizing and accompanying her in the complex medical schedule, between appointments with different specialists, different medical tests and medication application sessions. Caring for her health also imposed the mental burden of this organization, beyond my own personal and professional life. In addition to being her daughter, the fact that I am single without children certainly contributed to this responsibility’s designation and my “availability”. 

My mother’s illness was simultaneous to my introduction to care and socio-reproductive work as subjects of study. This synchronicity resulted in my doctoral research project on the access of paid domestic workers to public policies in Brazil, where I study state public action against structural inequalities. 

My experience alongside my mother, during her illness and medical treatments, made me think of care as a gift. The gift, according to Marcel Mauss’ classic essay (2016[1925]), is a total social fact, structuring social relations based on a system of reciprocal exchanges – giving, receiving, and reciprocating –, in which social dynamics apparently free and voluntary are governed by a moral economy, and therefore implicitly by obligation and bond. In our case, caring for the little ones – giving – would be recognized by them – receiving – and would return as care for those in need of support when necessary – reciprocating. If the gift is not a debt, it is a moral obligation, not bonding on a direct personal level, but socially, that can occur at different levels, relations, and configurations. However, the reciprocity is central.

Thinking of care as a gift places all human beings as caretakers and caregivers, in a dynamic in which the autonomy and independence of our existence are directly and necessarily connected to the moments in which we were not and will not be autonomous. In this sense, care is at the centrality of human existence, not just available for those who are not autonomous in a given moment. Moreover, care as a gift brings reciprocity at its core, acknowledging, whenever possible, the importance of listening to and validating the voice of both caretakers and caregivers. Reciprocity implies, then, into horizontal or non-hierarchical relationships.

Understanding care as a gift suggests the impossibility of its delegation and commodification, as it would immediately break the logic of reciprocity. Furthermore, scholarly research on paid domestic work abounds examples in which people, mostly women who are poor and part of historically excluded social groups, are hired to provide part of their employers’ reproductive work in relationships that are anything but reciprocal. The meager recognition of the social relevance of their work is reflected in the very low salaries. Another illustrative fact is the domestic workers limited social protection coverage, which is only 27% in Brazil.

The deficit of decent work present in the workers’ accounts often reveals unapologetic exploitation and violence, such as violation of labor rights, moral and sexual harassment, racism, psychological violence, with daily humiliations and threats, exploitation of child labor, and slave labor, beyond the hierarchy and inequality implicit in this type of contract. In this sense, what is called care work seems to consider only one side – the employers’ or the one who is cared for; the other side – the one who cares for – is veiled. If we effectively consider both ends, care work seems to be a euphemism for a contract to delegate a family socio-reproductive work, or for the delegation care giving/returning as a gift, very often based on exploitation and extractivist logic. 

Care and socio-reproductive labor as scholarly notions seem to refer to similar social phenomena but within contrasting theoretical frameworks. On one hand, care as a concept refers broadly to every activity needed for human existence and well-being, whereas scholarly research emphasizes care work ambiguities in its activities and practices, such as affection (emotional work) and inequalities (gender, race, class, migration status). On the other hand, the socio-reproduction theory is part of a Marxian perspective, which reading focuses on capitalist exploitation, and its patriarchal and racist constitution, principles, and practices. According to this approach, the family structure is a labor unity, which is a gear of the capitalistic system. With this theoretical controversy in mind, I understand that care cannot be limited to the logic of capitalist exploitation, as it is part of the human experience.

The entanglement between my personal experience, empirical analysis, and theoretical insights makes me believe that analyzing care as a gift can urge us to understand care’s moral economy. This perspective contributes to understanding intergenerational relationships and their social dynamics and intersectional inequalities of race, gender, class, and territory. Finally, if a gift is based on reciprocal human relationships – giving, receiving, and reciprocating –, and considering paid domestic workers’ experience, care work hardly can denominate their professional activity, which is permeated by inequalities, violence, and exploitation.  

Ana Julieta Teodoro Cleaver, Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology (Université Paris Cité/France and Universidade de São Paulo/Brazil)

e-mail: teodorocleaver@gmail.com  

The cover image is in CC4 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International)