Tracing the contours of care in South Asia: collective care, feminist entanglements and inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding that ‘care’ as a specific term has not been indexed often in writings by South Asian feminists, this article traces the idea of care within existing scholarship and our own research and field notes in India. We forward collective care as an emergent theme and theoretical road forward for feminist scholarship. Collective care entails relational and affective labour for and with humans and more-than-humans, allowing for an imagination of the self that exceeds liberal human subjectivity, advancing visions of social justice. We begin with an engagement of governance through care or caring for individuals and collectives, and the propping up of self-care and reliance as witnessed in colonial and postcolonial regimes to varying effects. In contrast, collective care emerges through common spatial struggles in contemporary cities, which are marked by collective subjectivities and labour, rather than notions of individualistic self-care emphasized in neoliberal policy. The ontological bounds of the liberal human subject are further troubled in imaginations of collectivity that include the more-than-human. Finally, we conclude with a consideration of whether feminist ethnographic inquiry itself can be a care-filled process centering relationality, accountability and social justice, and engage with the politics of knowledge production. Inspired by Parvati Raghuram’s (Citation2016) call to theorize care from a scaled and emplaced position, we forward that these considerations of care from India can broaden epistemic and ontological understandings of the concept, while also highlighting the generative possibility of engaging with care for scholars thinking about the political economy of the region.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".