Revolutionary Care: Commitment and Ethos. M.Hamington, 2024. New York and London, Routledge. xiii +223 pp, $144.00 (hb) $39.99 (pb)

Amongst 21st-century insecurity, divisiveness, and violence, the need for care has become more visible as protests erupt globally and scholars critique a number of politically induced crises. Social support systems have been gradually diminished for years, and citizens struggle to embrace communal life as they compete for basic necessities and status. Maurice Hamington is no stranger to these conversations, as shown by prior publications on social justice and oppression along with his recent co-edited volume (Maurice Hamington and Michael Flower, eds, Care Ethics in the Age of Precarity, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2021). His work reveals how plentiful care endures even in the face of widespread uncertainty, conflict, and erasure. Revolutionary Care is a more systematic exploration of transformative movements as they align with a care ethos. It uses a revived reading of the term ‘radical’ to argue for a subversion of society that ‘returns us to our core humanity’ (p. 5). His inference in this respect is that care lies at the ‘roots’ of our existence and is ubiquitous; however, it has been rejected as a categorical moral commitment and central organizing principle of societies. Care as revolutionary is thus not a matter of extremism but is, as his thesis affirms, a co-created spirit of change that takes seriously the need to tend to others and ourselves. The book is methodologically separated into two sections: the first on the analytic implications of care as a process morality and the second on a series of provocations that test its radical possibilities. Together, they maintain a non-ideal philosophical approach meant to highlight the fluidity of care under demanding circumstances rather than stipulate principles that transcend the contextual relations where care appears. This is consistent with the tradition of care ethics as a critical feminist orientation which is resistant to homogenization. The chapters are hence well-served by introductory vignettes that embody this non-ideal strategy while connecting readers to discussions such as racism, socialism, veganism, and masculinity. Hamington has regularly declared himself an advocate of care literature, and the book can be interpreted as a labor of love toward these works. This is apparent from his original attempt to define care, which remains a contested notion because of the distinction between everyday practice and critical political/moral theory, and as he navigates concepts such as empathy and gender roles. Early chapters embrace disputes between authors, like the ambiguity between care and paternalism (pp. 57–60), but do not get bogged down in the semantic novelties of those questions. Rather, each contribution is celebrated as a part of his review, particularly those that feature the multiplicity of the field. Significant time is devoted to Latinx feminism, Trans care, Ubuntu traditions, decolonial theory, and non-Cartesian epistemology, to name a few, while also praising narratives existing long before the development of care ethics. His manner of interlocution with them is largely deferential, though his explanations are a meticulous part of an interdisciplinary project that unites them. Hamington favors an evaluative view of care as a ‘process morality’ marked by perpetual change: ‘whereby one seeks to improve care through iterative mind-body habits of humble inquiry, inclusive connection, and responsive actions’ (p. 54). The elements of attentiveness, participation, and responsiveness are not new but his use of ‘emergent normativity’ as a descriptor might prove novel. In lieu of social norms that dictate what we ought to do before an instance, norms will take shape as knowledge of another and their context improves; revolutions in this sense do not reinvent rules but relations. That said, the emergent process is possible because of its categorical orientation toward particular goods, qualified by needs. While I agree with this position, the use of teleological referents and absolutist implications creates a problem of regress on how exactly care is understood as central behind concepts like justice, virtue, utility, and so on (p. 77). In other words, better explanation is needed in distinguishing how care orients toward the good (p. 8), is itself the most fundamental good, and grounds other prized goods. The use of commitments is certainly preferable over duties or imperatives, but it is difficult to declare prima facie responsibility toward an ideal so capricious in expression and indefinite in achievement. The book's political ambitions are also pleasantly appealing, with some expected limitations given its inclusive scope. The ‘psychosocial momentum’ of a care ethos (p. 107) is put into practice in later chapters through a blend of poetry, anecdotes, and policy measures that largely supplement each other. The last chapter on veganism is likely the most confrontational; Hamington takes issue not only with cultural justifications of animal slaughter/abuse (pleasure, commercialization, habit, and so forth) but also with the speciesism of philosophers, who are predominantly committed more to their consequentialist evaluations than the value of the animals themselves. Yet his defense of standpoint empathy for animals relies on a broad obligation to practice better attentiveness, without much detail outside of language barriers, and on his own consequential appraisal of environmental strain. Relationships with animals do demand more effort than previously accepted and are plagued by psychic distancing – his reflection on the ‘wonder pig’ (pp. 194–5) admittedly strikes my own autoethnographic expertise as one who lives with a pig – but more can be done in this chapter to specify the skills and consciousness Hamington wishes to disseminate. The chapter on socialism is similarly contentious, but is grounded by more familiar claims regarding the discrepancies between growth and subsistence. The integration of socialism and care here though is analytically hasty. He wishes to move beyond a simple sharing of society's resources definition to add ‘a physical and a spiritual component’ (p. 140), but in doing so remakes socialism to meet the goal of the book: it ‘includes a spirit of wanting the members of our society to be cared for’ (p. 135). This normative addition is redundant, in my view, and can merely be called something else – care-oriented socialism may be sufficient. The chapters on toxic masculinity and humanism, though, more smoothly address anxieties about who is responsible for caring tasks. Mainstreaming care within the modern feminist movement is obvious but the book's level of clarification is much appreciated, particularly because greater attention is given to behaviors over abstractions. The path toward adoption is simplified as, for example, practice-based caring (p. 129) can actually engage existing masculinities. The discussion on religion is a bit unnecessary, since much of the overview operates as an introduction to truly controversial issues like abortion, charity, and moral pluralism which are handled well. Overall, Revolutionary Care is a welcome addition to care literature that offers more range and creativity than usual. It is aided by a practical goal, ‘more and better care wherever possible’ (p. 210), that is minimalistic yet sensible. The book's theoretical contributions are not as innovative as its widespread applications but it sufficiently answers the question of whether care is essentially and can today be considered radical. Whether readers are genuinely convinced to adopt veganism, posthumanism, or socialism is unclear given the contingency of acquiescing to a caring ethos; still, Hamington outlines the appeal of this ethos in the face of crisis. If anything, ‘care theory can help bridge differences to find workable understanding between peoples and perhaps point the way to social amelioration in a cosmopolitan world’ (p. 5).