Case management is generally seen as a way to provide efficient, cost-saving personcentred care for people with dementia by connecting together fragmented services, but the available evidence in favour of its merits is often considered inconclusive, unclear and sketchy. This discussion paper investigates the evidence of the benefit of case management for people with dementia, and explores the complexity of the concept and the experiences of

Critique is one of the social sciences' most respectable tasks, espe cially when its aim is to emancipate people oppressed for their otherness. However, there is also a critique of critique as a disabling tool, replacing the obvious actors revealed as 'fictitious' with synthetic objects that the critic herself deems more 'factual'. This article understands the critical gesture as a pragmatic resource for reorganising the field of dis/abilities. In the first part of the article, we make three critical gestures together with José, a person identified as mentally ill. A paranoid vision of a secret conspiracy, a naturalis ing concept of disease, and the critique of stigma all seek to radically redraw the dis/ability coordinates, but their emancipatory potential is thwarted by the complex interconnectedness of their objects. José's recovery thus ultimate ly hinges on a delicate balancing act combining critique and composing. In this sense, his effort resembles the careful treading of lay and professional critics in the last part of our text, in which we try to solve problems of living with dementia together with the Hanuš family. While the critical gesture has an essential role to play here as well, close ethnographic encounters are rather about jointly articulating the critical matters of care, wherein the problematic agencies of both obvious and notsoobvious actors are acknowledged.

While many evaluations of the response from residential social services to the COVID-19 pandemic have pointed to high mortality rates and human rights violations, some have given a positive assessment of their performance. Whatever the verdict, it is a fact that the clients of residential social services were subject to stricter and longer lockdown measures than the rest of the population. Our ethnographic research describes the lockdown technologies used at Home F, a residential institution for people identified as disabled. Setting out from the assumption that freedom is not the antithesis of some united regulatory regime but is the result of the intersection of various repertoires and logics of influence, the research analyses the 'passages' that regulate relations between the clients and their surroundings before and during the pandemic. It shows that the regulatory mechanisms that were put in place to facilitate an effective pandemic response do not constitute a new apparatus but only an intensification of technologies already in place. With the aim of mitigating risk, they delegitimise the needs of clients, render relations dependent on obedience, and pass moralised judgements on behaviour. Such 'pedagogical arrangements' cause emotional suffering and do not leave much space for freedom. In the discussion in the article we link our findings to the current debates about the productivity of power and (post)critical pedagogy, concluding that while pedagogy necessarily accompanies the management of risks, a critical gesture that delegitimises the interests and opinions of the objects of pedagogy may not be the most appropriate pedagogical method available.