‘You Don’t Need Santa Monica!’ The Objectification of Elderly Care Receivers in Russia

Abstract

The article presents the case of non-governmental elderly care provision in St Petersburg, Russia. In an attempt to fill the gap in existing care research, it discusses the objectification of care receivers and the inequalities between caregivers and care receivers in the case of caregiving under circumstances of non-governmental sector professionalisation. The empirical part of the article is based on fieldwork carried out in 2014-2015 in St Petersburg, consisting of 48 interviews, numerous observations and document analysis.OBJECTIFICATION-THE CREATION OF 'DEPENDENCE UPON OTHERS FOR care and [the loss of] autonomy over areas of life where one had previously been in control' (MacQuarrie 2005)-and depersonalisation (of a patient) (Timmermans & Almeling 2009) are crucial concepts in the sociology of medicine. Feminist scholars have often criticised the process of objectification, seeing it as the source of inefficiency and moral dilemmas in care work (Gilligan 1982;Tronto 1993), and have proposed a philosophical concept of care as an alternative to the 'cold' and 'professionalised' labour associated with objectification (Hochschild 1995;Moser & Pols 2009). Care theorists have largely seen dependency as resulting from economic and societal gender inequalities that female caregivers face in their work (Kittay & Feder 2003, pp. 257-77). The central figure of these studies was usually a socially disadvantaged female caregiver (Sevenhuijsen 2000;Chernova 2011;Lewis & West 2014). At the same time, the vulnerabilities of those receiving care were often overlooked.I find this interpretation to be problematic for several reasons. Firstly, intersectionality theory has shown the importance of examining various dimensions of inequalities, such as race (Lykke 2010) and age (Calasanti & Slevin 2013), rather than focusing solely on gender. Secondly, the female caregiver still typically holds the power in the relationship with the care receiver, who often has even less capacity for agency (Tronto 2002, p. 40). After all, care, being an umbrella term for a wide variety of social services and other interactions aimed at improving the lives of 'socially disadvantaged' citizens, presumes a receiver as being in need (Barnes et al. 2012, p. 151). Thirdly, the few studies that problematise care receiver vulnerabilities (Bruckner 2012;Park & Schumacher 2014;

Active Ageing and Social Services: The Paradox of Empowerment in Russia

“…The same dilemmas are reflected at the regional level, with documents and specific active ageing programmes navigating between the proclaimed intent to change perceptions of ageing in general and the specific limitations, boundaries and perceived needs of their target group. According to our earlier research projects in northwest Russia (Holavins 2020b) and analysis of regional-level documents in Moscow and Saratov, 10 regional programmes are largely in line with the federal-level policy documents regarding active ageing. Government, third sector and private organisations that provide social services are generally supportive of active ageing.…”

“…Previous studies have shown that this empowerment paradox-the contradiction between the inclusive rhetoric of active ageing and paternalistically objectifying neoliberal policy implementation-exists in Russia (Sinyavskaya 2015;Holavins 2020c). However, so far, little has been said on how active ageing is seen by older people themselves and how they construct ideas about ageing (Boudiny 2013;Mendes 2013).…”

“…Despite the long tradition of thinking about elderly people's economic and social productivity, 'active ageing' as defined by the Madrid Plan came to Russia at a time of growing social exclusion, economic hardship and short healthy life expectancy. Thus, the idea 'that persons, as they age, should enjoy a life of fulfilment, health, security and active participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of their societies' (UN 2002) was viewed critically by many actors involved in care provision at all levels (Holavins 2020b). It was only from the early 2010s that social service providers, governmental bodies and other policy-implementing actors began supporting active ageing as 'the only viable' solution to issues the elderly face in Russia (Holavins 2020b, p. 47).…”

“…Notably, such criticism is a grassroots reaction against imposed values of empowerment programmes (Eliasoph 2011). In this sense, the 'traditional' social services preferred by the elderly are in fact genuine examples of active ageing, while 'intellectual' and 'innovative' 'anti-ageing' practices imposed from above objectify the elderly and do not take into account their actual needs and interests (Holavins 2020c).…”

Values and Experience of Neoliberal Reforms in Russian Regions: Dilemmas of Social Management

“…Опираясь на концепцию заботы, историческую социологию и политэкономический анализ, М. Файн и Б. Дэвидсон раскрывают противоречия в уходе за престарелыми в условиях маркетизации социальной заботы в Австралии [Fine, Davidson, 2018]. Исследования формальной и неформальной заботы показывают, как с переходом на проектную деятельность меняются форматы отношений: неолиберальные ценности и инструменты превращают отношения в духе Gemeinschaft, характерные для низовых организаций самопомощи, в рационализированные стили руководства и увеличивают разрыв между менеджерами и работниками, специалистами и клиентами, поощряют иерархию и снижают уровень участия исполнителей и получателей услуг в принятии решений [Holavin, 2020]. А благодаря методологической оптике гендерных исследований с учетом концепции разнообразия удается не только обнажить возрастающее давление неолиберального порядка на семейные ресурсы [Критическая социология заботы…, 2019], но и выстроить программу интерсекционального подхода в изучении новых социальных отношений [Choo, Ferree, 2010].…”