All living creatures in this world need care, whether it’s emotional, physical or sexual. Similarly, humans intrinsically have the need to be cared for and to care for others. Therefore, all social structures should provide space for this kind of intimacy to grow. Unfortunately, the present social structures threaten this mutual care.
Intimacy in friendships or families is supposed to happen inside the home. And this is considered outside the realm of political narrative; something that happens inside the home, something private. What happens inside home also has an effect outside, thereby we start demanding a better world for ourselves as well as for the people we love and care for.
The predominant ideology in the present time is capitalism. It shapes our world through processes that emphasise on collecting wealth, power and resources among other things. By doing so, it creates scarcity and lack in its subject; taking away space and time to pursue one’s deepest desires and interests, time with friends and family members, access to medical facility, housing, food etc.
As Stimili in her book, ‘The Debt of the Living’ illustrates, ascesis as fundamental not because it is characterized by renunciation, but because the self-discipline it imposes converts the human quality of action without a predetermined goal into a lack, a fault, or a state of guilt, a debt that cannot be settled. This debt or lack, she argues can’t be fulfilling. It should be seen as the basis of hedonistic economy and consumer culture. This creates immense pressure on people’s intimate relationships.
We tend to start expecting and demanding this lack from one person (or several people), mostly from our romantic partner/s or casual sex partner/s. These kinds of expectations and demands reinforce the popular narrative; love is the solution for all problems, it has the potential to fill the emptiness in us and we must give everything to our lover that the world can’t give him/her.
Despite our best efforts, we will not be able to give everything to our lovers, and we will feel the inadequacy of our partner to meet our needs and care for us. This is because of the lack that capitalism generates. It makes our relationships scarce. Intimacy under capitalism is conditioned by forces of the marketplace. It uses the language of the market. We use words like “investing” in a relationship, we try to measure our love as if it can be quantified, or exchanged like money, something of a debt, owned or paid. This creates a sense of scarcity, that makes the relationship competitive and insecure. This makes us see love as limited, something very rare- that has to be earned and consumed.
The system rewards those, who are self-sufficient, practise self-care and keep a check on their needs. We take pride in these qualities. Very few of us expect sufficient emotional and material support from friends, families or co-workers unless it is a crisis. Care feels like a precarious, scarce, vaguely understood and somewhat shameful notion.
Care should be understood as something that is invisible and unspeakable. It lacks the language to be understood. This is precisely because the language to understand care is given to us by the predominate exploitative capitalist structure. We need to construct a language that we haven’t learnt yet, to subvert the language given to us for radical intimacy to thrive. We need to make sure that when the act of care is not being commodified, it does not disappear from the consciousness and language, but helps us understand it better.