Choose, judge, and move on

For the last decade, the UK government has followed an agenda of “personalizing care.” Based on ethnographic material from three hostels supporting homeless people with mental health issues in central London, I analyze tensions in the everyday implementation of this policy agenda: on the one hand, using tools such as personal budgets, personalization was practiced by providing people with short-term, concrete choices—between different care workers, activities, and housing options, for instance. On the other hand, the implementation involved developing judgment around longer-term plans, centered on how to “move on” people to independent living. What I describe as personalization’s focus on positive liberty is complicated by the consequences of mental health issues and the after-effects of long-term institutionalization. As a result, choice and judgment were often in tension with each other and more substantially with the residents’ desires for maintaining support and care, linked to a different kind of “freedom in dependence.”

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/734613
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Choose, judge, and move on

Johannes Lenhard
Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory
Political Philosophy and Ethics
article

Choose, judge, and move on

Johannes Lenhard
article en

Abstract

For the last decade, the UK government has followed an agenda of “personalizing care.” Based on ethnographic material from three hostels supporting homeless people with mental health issues in central London, I analyze tensions in the everyday implementation of this policy agenda: on the one hand, using tools such as personal budgets, personalization was practiced by providing people with short-term, concrete choices—between different care workers, activities, and housing options, for instance. On the other hand, the implementation involved developing judgment around longer-term plans, centered on how to “move on” people to independent living. What I describe as personalization’s focus on positive liberty is complicated by the consequences of mental health issues and the after-effects of long-term institutionalization. As a result, choice and judgment were often in tension with each other and more substantially with the residents’ desires for maintaining support and care, linked to a different kind of “freedom in dependence.”

Hau Journal of Ethnographic TheoryVol. 15(1)
University of Cambridge (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.