Reciprocity, Exchange, and Indebtedness in Noddings’s Concept of Care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a profession, teaching is commonly understood under the umbrella of "care work," a term used to refer to work directly involved with those in need of "care.""Care work" stretches from those working in healthcare, to childcare, elderly care and of course, teaching.Those who perform the labor of "care" are often pushed aside in conversations on the ethics of this work, leaving the conception of these ethics to those outside caring professions.Work by philosopher of education Nel Noddings, however, has been a major influence on the perception and understanding of teaching as "care work."By grounding her work within relationality and affect, Noddings's framework has appealed to many educators seeking an ethics that reflects the relation-centered environment of the classroom.I turn to examine Noddings's "caring relation" more closely in order to understand how teaching, as a profession, is actively becoming transformed by economic thinking, and how our work as philosophers of education might work to resist this transformation.I begin with a discussion on Noddings's work on "care" and its legacy and influence on the teaching profession.Drawing from the literature of feminist ethics of care, next I turn to look at Nel Noddings's framework of the "caring relation."Rather than conceiving of "care" as a virtue, Noddings's framework locates "care" within the relation between persons, where "care" is exchanged between the "one-caring" and the "cared-for."After outlining Noddings's relation, I turn to consider some possible objections to an "ethics of care" and state my intention to bracket these critiques in order to pose my own.In the following section, I examine how Noddings's insistence on "reciprocity" in the caring relation reveals a transactional underpinning of the caring relation, allowing it to operate within what I call an "economy of exchange."Although Noddings's framework centers the caring relation as an ethical encounter, when caring is transformed into an exchange, I argue, ethical reasoning is replaced by economic thinking shaped specifically by capitalist
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".