Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Importance of Work in an Age of UncertaintyThe Eroding Work Experience in America$

David L. Blustein

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780190213701

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: June 2019

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190213701.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 25 January 2022

Being Able to Care

Being Able to Care

Chapter:
(p.113) 6 Being Able to Care
Source:
The Importance of Work in an Age of Uncertainty
Author(s):

David L. Blustein

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190213701.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter reviews the ways in which caregiving and care work relate to work and well-being in the United States. Beginning with a discussion of how care work has been gendered and marginalized within discussions of working, the chapter reviews the foundation of how caregiving functions both psychologically and socially. The contributions of the participants from the Boston College Working Project enrich and deepen the perspective about caregiving and work. The chapter discusses new contributions on caring motivation and the relationships between care work and marketplace work, culminating in a call for a serious examination of how caregiving can be supported both financially and socially to ensure that all have opportunities to care for others in a dignified and nurturing fashion.

Keywords:   care work, caregiving, market work, caring motivation, family–work balance

Roberto entered my therapy office about 6 years ago, looking exhausted, depressed, and somewhat embarrassed. (Roberto is a fictional case based on an amalgam of clients I have seen since the start of the Great Recession in 2008.) As a well-educated 58-year-old Latino man with a master’s degree in business administration, Roberto had worked in human resources in the private sector consistently for the first 25 years of his career. At 53, Roberto was laid off by a global company that manufactured pharmaceuticals at the outset of the financial downturn in 2008. He was out of work for 2 years and then got another job in human resources for a small software startup. This job lasted 18 months and ended when the company was bought out by a larger organization that took over all of the human resources functions.

When Roberto sought me out, he was unemployed for 3 years and was becoming increasingly depressed, despite a very strong marriage to Rosa for over 25 years. Roberto was interested in reinvigorating his job search; he also was struggling with depression and was hoping to work on his diminished mood and energy level. Interestingly, Roberto was quite engaged during his unemployment periods in caring for his daughter, Isabella, with Down syndrome. Throughout the therapy process, which lasted for 3 years, Roberto struggled considerably with his self-esteem and with often-intense feelings of shame because he was not able to obtain a decent job. The profound sense of loss and pain that he felt was palpable.

An interesting theme emerged in my work with Roberto that provides an illuminating overture to this chapter about the tension between marketplace work and caregiving work. (As I noted in Chapter 1, I view work as encompassing the activities that we do both in the paid marketplace and in our personal and community contexts, where the efforts are often directed to caring for others, ourselves, and our communities and do not result in remuneration.) Roberto devoted a great deal of time, effort, creativity, and passion in caring for his daughter, Isabella, who was between the ages of 17 and 20 during the time span of the therapy process. Roberto also was caring for another daughter, Maria, who was 2 years younger than Isabella and did not have any developmental delays or other significant concerns. Throughout Roberto’s therapy (p.114) sessions, he recounted how important it was for him to be a good father and caregiver. Yet, at the same time, he described how he preferred to obtain a job in human resources in the marketplace (where he would be paid for his efforts), which he felt was his true love and passion.

One of the core conflicts in the therapy process was Roberto’s deep ambivalence about the meaning that he attached to his caregiving during the period when he was unemployed. While I worked on helping Roberto to create an affirming narrative that would support a more realistic and compassionate view of his caregiving efforts, he struggled in accepting this reframing. In a sense, Roberto became stuck in the more widely accepted narrative that work for money is all that matters, and that the caregiving that he was doing was something that just had to be done. While Roberto stated that he did not derive much overt satisfaction from his care work, he clearly felt attached to both of his daughters and felt comforted in knowing that he was so engaged with them. The prevailing internalized view that caregiving was not that essential for his sense of identity overshadowed the actual experience, as if the true nature of the meaningfulness of his work could not rise above the forces of the powerful social messages that valued marketplace work above nearly everything else.

As I mulled over this case and others throughout the years, I certainly understood that people struggle to balance work and family, a well-known issue that is part of our public conversation about contemporary life. However, I discerned a deeper sense of conflict about how to understand the ways in which people relate to their caregiving efforts. In many ways, the question of how people engage in caring for others and its relationship to work has taken shape as a major dilemma in considerations of work. I also began to read deeply about the role of caregiving as a gendered activity that is very often done by women throughout many cultures around the globe.1 In my reading and reflection, I began to understand a deeper meaning about caregiving and learned about the highly contentious debate about the social and economic impact of caregiving. In short, a fundamental question that has been debated for many decades regards the extent that caring is part of our working lives.2 Despite the challenges that are present when caring for others and despite the marginalization of care work, I sensed from Roberto and other clients that it is a core aspect of being alive in the world, albeit one that is often not affirmed by others or by our social and economic systems.

In this chapter, I explore caregiving in depth and in relation to marketplace work, identifying some of the complexities that are integral to these two essential aspects of human experience. To gain a broad and deep perspective on this issue, I explore this terrain initially from a historical lens and then move to some of the core assumptions about caregiving within psychology. The participants from the Boston College Working Project give further insights that (p.115) are followed by new advances in the psychology of care and working. At the conclusion of the chapter, I develop a position based on a vision of caregiving that is economically rewarded, socially affirmed, and dignified, which befits this core aspect of being alive in the world.

Being Able to Care: An Introductory Journey

Considerations about caregiving and work have been part of the dialogue about labor, psychology, well-being, and gender for nearly two centuries.3 While caregiving and care work have been central responsibilities and functions in human history for eons, the relationship among caring, gender, and work are beset with challenges that are becoming even more pronounced as work in the marketplace becomes more precarious. In addition, the role of gender is the “elephant in the room” of caregiving and work, in that women are most often expected to manage care work in their households and are also encouraged to pursue care work in the marketplace; both of these sets of expectations markedly limit the autonomy of women as they navigate their lives.4 These processes result in a loss of earning power, lack of access to positions of control and empowerment in their lives, and very real constraints in being able to implement their dreams.5 In this section, I review the terrain of caring and work, beginning with an examination of the nature of care as a fundamental human attribute, followed by an exploration of the relationship between caregiving and work.

The concept of care has been considered both a form of work and a form of love and connection.6 Scholars from psychology, economics, sociology, and feminist studies have all explored the nature of caring and care work.7 From an economics perspective, care is generally thought to encompass a subset of work that entails caring for people, either within one’s relational orbit (such as parents taking care of children) or within the marketplace (such as nursing aides working with the elderly).8 From a psychological perspective, caring is viewed as a bond that encompasses giving emotional support or instrumental assistance (such as bathing a child), typically to someone who is close to the caregiver.9 Other scholars view caring as taking place with people who are less intimately connected to the caregiver, such as volunteer work and community work; moreover, self-care is increasingly understood as a critical aspect of caregiving.10 Furthermore, caring is viewed as part of an intimate relationship that involves giving as opposed to receiving kindness and care. (That said, many scholars do believe that caregivers experience deep satisfaction and connection in caring for others.) When considered collectively, the psychological view of caring is complex, multifaceted, and deeply rooted in our natural tendency to connect and contribute to the welfare of others.11

(p.116) The Nature of Caring

Caring has been integral to human evolution and development. Indeed, scholars who examine the nature of humanity often describe caring as a core function that has been instrumental to the survival of our species. Perhaps the most notable contributor to this perspective is John Bowlby, a well-known British psychologist, psychoanalyst, and scholar who has revolutionized our thinking about attachment and caring.12 Bowlby, who was introduced in Chapter 3, developed the comprehensive perspective known as attachment theory, which has explored how people develop emotional bonds to each other, particularly within the child–parent dyad. As discussed in Chapter 3, attachment theory helped to fuel the relational revolution, with significant implications for our understanding of people within their work lives.

A key feature of Bowlby’s thinking is his expansive theoretical perspective that encompassed psychology, psychoanalytic theory, ethology, cognitive sciences, and evolutionary theory. While the attachment bond of children to their caregivers has received most of the attention in psychology, a corollary ingredient of the attachment process is an internalized desire for people to care for others. Bowlby argued persuasively that adults have a strong caring motivation that is manifested in a wide array of ways.

Consistent with Bowlby’s broad-ranging thinking about attachment, caring is thought to occur based on genetic predispositions, learning, and cultural expectations. Naturally, one of the most obvious ways in which the caring tendency is expressed is in the behavior of parents with their own children. However, caring is also revealed in the intense emotions that are evoked during periods of separation when adults miss their children or others who they are taking care of, such as elderly parents or an infirmed family member. I am continually reminded of the caring motivation when I see adults gravitate to infants who are not in their family or relational orbit, even strangers, just to comment on their cuteness or to interact. This process has always underscored for me how integral the caring motivation is in our lived experience.

According to Bowlby’s research and the input of subsequent scholars, caregiving is an essential aspect of the attachment process.13 Without a natural tendency to care for others, it is hard to imagine how humanity would survive, especially when faced with the daunting task of taking care of infants who are dependent on adults for many years. Consider how difficult it must have been for humans to survive in the wild while caring for their young, who could not even walk on their own or feed themselves.

The core of Bowlby’s contributions have centered on the parenting dyad; however, more recent innovations have identified the attachment–caregiving bond within romantic relationships, friendships, and less intense relationships, (p.117) such as with members of our communities.14 As discussed further in this chapter, considerations of the fundamental nature of the caring motivation represent a new and exciting development in psychology that has implications for our thinking about caregiving and work and indeed for the future of work.

Caregiving and Work

Caring and caregiving, as core aspects of human experience, naturally have broad implications in our work lives. From a definitional perspective, Mary Sue Richardson, a highly innovative counseling psychologist who has helped to put caregiving on the “work and career map” within psychology, has provided a very thoughtful taxonomy of caregiving and work. She initially proposed that work can occur within two contexts: market work and personal care work.15 Market work is defined by the signature feature that people are paid for their efforts. In contrast, personal care work refers to caring for others without financial remuneration. Personal care work can include caring for children, family members, and others within our communities. Richardson expands this view to encompass caring for oneself, nurturing one’s relationships, and contributing to one’s community; in effect, personal care work contributes to the broader social good.

Richardson also developed a similar definition of relationships, which she viewed as integral to understanding how people engage in contemporary life.16 (Indeed, her perspective in counseling psychology is known as counseling for work and relationships, which underscores her compelling position of establishing relationships and dignified work as equal partners in our overall understanding of how people engage, and create meaning, in their lives.) For Richardson, relationships also have two specific contexts: the personal care domain and the marketplace.17 Richardson’s agenda in advocating for these equal, but distinct, definitional boundaries is rooted in her concern about the marginalization of caregiving and personal care work within psychology and, indeed, throughout nearly every aspect of life. I resonate deeply with this position, which has formed one of the core pillars of my contributions within the Psychology of Working Theory and that informs my thinking in this book.

Concerns about the treatment of caregiving within the marketplace have been central in early feminist critiques of the labor market.18 In short, caregiving within both the personal care and the market spaces has been highly gendered in the United States and in many other nations and communities.19 Women assume the majority of caregiving in their households, even when they are working in the marketplace at levels of intensity that are as high or higher than their partners. The impact of women carrying the burden of care (p.118) work has been profound and pervasive, particularly among poor and working-class women. In the points that follow, I summarize some of the trends about caregiving and gender that continue to plague families and communities that struggle to create equitable relationship and working conditions20:

  1. 1. From a broad anthropological vantage point, caregiving work has been and continues to be primarily conducted by women across many cultures around the globe.21

  2. 2. Women who pursue careers in the marketplace are often encouraged (either covertly or overtly) to consider work that involves considerable caregiving, such as teaching, nursing, counseling).22 These career decisions are one of the reasons (although not the only reason; see Chapter 7) that contributes to women earning less than men who are able to consider a wider array of careers.23

  3. 3. A consistently challenging issue is that women who take time out of the marketplace to engage in personal care work experience broad and substantial negative impacts on their subsequent marketplace work. As reflected in an incisive analysis by Suzanne Bianchi and her colleagues, women who engage in personal care work in lieu of marketplace work face the following consequences:24

    1. a. A loss of income, often due to being out of the marketplace and facing what is known as a “motherhood penalty”;

    2. b. Discrimination in the marketplace in terms of hiring and advancement opportunities;

    3. c. Loss of leisure activities due to the intense demands of caregiving; and

    4. d. Reduction of retirement savings.

  4. 4. These various forces collude to marginalize caregiving in social, economic, and psychological spaces. In short, caregiving is not often considered to be work by many in that it does not produce wages, retirement benefits, or other economic resources for people.

In addition to the gendered nature of caregiving, race, social class, and sexual orientation create an intersecting set of influences that can have devastating impacts on people navigating both work and family. Low-income families tend to have fewer financial resources to support caregiving tasks, such as funds for cleaning their homes, caring for the elderly, and childcare.25 In addition, poverty creates a crescendo of negative factors that reduce opportunities for more training and education, thereby limiting work opportunities, often circumscribing their option to marketplace care work, which is generally not well paid. Individuals who care for others for pay and then need to care for their (p.119) families face significant challenges, including burnout, which is a common outcome for intensive and long-term care work.26

While the picture that is being painted here certainly seems dismal, it is important to note that care work for some is a calling and an intentional and planned lifestyle or career choice. People who enter caregiving professions and occupations often feel deeply committed to their work and spend considerable time and effort in training for their marketplace roles. (In fact, I consider myself to have experienced a calling for care work, having served as a provider of counseling and psychological services for over three decades.) Indeed, this same experience ensues for parents who choose to stay at home with their children and serve as their primary caregivers; indeed, for many people (both men and women), it represents the culmination of a meaningful and purposeful dream. Financial and social costs, however, are associated with this decision and reach far into a caregiver’s life span, as reflected in the points mentioned previously. The reality is that care work in the personal care context and marketplace is often, but not always, done by people who likely did not select this trajectory and often feel that it was all that life offered them.27

Although research has revealed that men within the United States are doing more personal care work than at any time in the past two centuries, John Budd, a labor relations scholar, argued that a “cult of domesticity” exists for women that continues to weave a controlling thread throughout their lives.28 Budd’s argument is that the inaccurate belief that women are somehow biologically and psychologically oriented to caring for others has created a set of false dichotomies that function to support the status quo. These dichotomies include the tension between production and consumption, competition and caring, and the public marketplace forum versus the private household. According to Budd, these dichotomies represent belief systems that are ultimately false and that serve to sustain the cult of domesticity.

One of the fundamental dichotomies in this discussion is the question whether people engage in care work for love or money.29 One of the major threads of this debate is essentially an extension of the cult of domesticity. If women are inherently more satisfied and more capable of providing care, why should society or our economic systems figure out ways to provide economic benefits, social rewards, and enhanced sources of purpose and meaning for care work? As explored in the next section, the participants from the Boston College Working Project reflected deeply on this question and related concerns, providing some insightful perspectives that enrich the contributions of scholars and policy analysts who are exploring these complex questions.

(p.120) Being Able to Care: Lived Experiences

To examine the relationship between caring and work, we intentionally asked the participants to reflect on their experiences and impressions about these essential aspects of life. The responses to this question and to other queries in the interview process were illuminating and provided some useful ideas that inform our understanding of the role of care work in this age of uncertainty.

Nature of Caregiving

The participants shared feelings and insights about their caring, both in their households and in the marketplace. Betsy, a 43-year-old African American woman who had worked as a dental hygienist before being laid off, described her intense feelings in caring for her mother and her aunt. Betsy’s mother passed away in a hospital, but her aunt had a more extended illness that allowed for direct caregiving, as described in the following passage:

It [caregiving] was a gift. My mother was in the hospital and I wasn’t able to take care of her hands on. My aunt was able to go home [prior to passing away]; she wanted to live in her home. She was so powerful at the end; she wanted to be in her home. I was with her and singing to her when she left. We were holding hands. It was a gift to take care of her in a way that I couldn’t take care of my mom, hands on. My girlfriend who was a nurse, she showed me how to wash her and how to take care of her. That was the best gift ever.

Betsy’s moving discussion of caregiving provided a counterpoint in her interview that focused on so many sad events in her life, which had recently been characterized by long-term unemployment.

Rich, the teacher, described a touching narrative where he experienced a horrific layoff (described further in Chapter 8) and then contracted a deadly form of blood cancer a few years later as soon as he became established as a tenured high school teacher. During his illness, Rich took on the leadership of a support group of fellow survivors of this particular type of cancer. When asked about the relationship between caregiving and work, he replied with the following comments:

I think [that caregiving is] very important. I can’t really say [that running the support group has] saved any lives, but certainly I’ve saved people a lot of money by researching. . . . When I was first diagnosed and realized that this could be an expensive proposition, I was brought right into the local (p.121) oncologist’s financial advisor and she told me a number of ways that patients could get financial assistance. And I took those ways, and I told every member of our support group about them, and. . . . And I know for a fact that I’ve saved people a lot of money. But in other ways too, I think. In our group we’re about to put people in contact with doctors, nurses, and the like, that deal with this disease, and I think we’ve been able to accomplish a lot. . . . It is engaging, and I think it’s the most important work I’ve ever done in my life.

Rich’s full interview was infused with his disappointments in work. However, his contributions to this support group were a bright spot for him, one that gave him considerable meaning and fulfillment.

Meanwhile, Kerri, a 23 year-old unemployed African American woman, who had become the primary caregiver to her grandmother, described the complications of intensive caregiving work:

[My grandmother] is still sick; she’s in a nursing home now. So it was like, I wasted . . . not to be mean . . . but like I wasted the whole time I got out of high school taking care of my grandmother when I could have went to college, and got what I needed to do.

The challenge for Kerri, and for so many who devote extensive time to care for people in their families, is the opportunity cost. When Kerri was interviewed, she was homeless and using the services of an urban One-Stop Career Center to figure out how to enter the labor market. Her skill set was not readily viable in an increasingly high-tech marketplace; in effect, her interview conveyed a sense of her being catapulted out of her home when her grandmother could no longer manage herself and had to enter a nursing home. At that point, Kerri became homeless and was faced with a world that was unforgiving to her about her lack of marketable skills.

For many, caregiving feels like an obligation, a form of service to children, parents, relatives, and community. Yet, the stories described by the participants were, for the most part, complex, revealing a capacity to tolerate ambivalence and nuance about the often-unexpected challenges that emerge in taking care of one’s loved ones. Caregiving was rarely all good or all bad; it was presented as a part of life, a textured exemplar of life with all of its joys and hardships.

The Relationship Between Caregiving and Work

The participants seemed to struggle to understand the relationship between caregiving and work. Indeed, the challenges that exist in the academic (p.122) community about how to make sense of how caregiving and work intersect were mirrored within the lived experiences of many of the participants in our interviews. In the first passage, Bob, a 70-year-old White small business owner, recounted the struggle he faced in taking care of his wife, who was very ill for 10 years. This story about his care for his wife was generated as he reflected on the question of whether caregiving should be considered work:

Well, with my wife being sick for 10 years . . . at times, it was work, yes, because I think it was over 10 years, the grueling gets to you after a while . . . not only monetarily, because it cost a lot of money to care for someone at home or in a home. In my particular case, my wife was at home all the time, either at home or in the hospital. I don’t know if I considered it work, but at times it was quite grueling and upsetting. There were times when I would be working out of town. . . . There was a time I worked for a company on the road for many years and I would have to stay over at hotels. I would take off if my wife was at Yale hospital, I would take off and spend a few minutes with her, go to the job in Danbury, work there and then come back and stay at Yale ’til late. . . .That was quite challenging. The ride home at night was quite a long ride, trying to keep your eyes open coming home and then starting all over again the next day. Like I said it’s a thin line between work and just a lot of pressure, I never considered it work I guess, I just considered it something that you do. That is an extraordinary situation, 10 years is a long time for someone to be sick.

Bob’s mixed views on this issue reflect his deep emotional pain of managing the primary caregiving of his wife while taking care of his business. This narrative speaks volumes about the intensity of caregiving, which, at times, morphs into personal care work, often with substantial emotional and physical consequences. In the next story, we hear from Clark, a 34-year-old White stagehand, who reflected thoughtfully on the question of whether caregiving is a form of work:

I can see it [caregiving being a form of work]. But it also depends on what it is. If you have an elderly relative and you have to bathe them because maybe you’re not ready to get an aid, or you can’t afford an aid, so you have to be the aid, then I can see that as work. But if it’s your child, like changing diapers and making food or part of normal, everyday life, you have to do it for yourself, so what’s a little bit more. But I can see it from both aspects. I guess you could say from yes and no.

A similarly nuanced perspective was offered by Talih, the physician, who shared the following observation:

(p.123)

I actually think [caregiving is] the way I refresh myself and how I charge my batteries. I mean doing housework is work, like laundry and I really think that I don’t like it, but you know cooking with my son or playing with him or going to the park with him, it’s not work. And it’s like I try to call my mother every day when I’m going to work; it’s just a way to relax and to hear her voice and talk to her about things, and it’s just something enjoyable, I don’t see it as a work.

Other participants had more unequivocal views on the question of whether caregiving should be considered a form of work. Dick, a 55-year-old White instructional aid and artist, recounted an increasingly common story that reflects a challenge for many people as older people live longer, often with considerable health and cognitive challenges:

Oh, yeah, absolutely [work is a form of caregiving\. What I’m going through with my mother, and being her health proxy, coming to see her and making sure she gets the right care—that is definitely a job. Especially with aging, as people get older, they are less and less able to take care of themselves. . . . Well, especially now because my mother has dementia and I am her guardian; it’s important for her to have family, and I seem to be the only family member who’s making the effort to go and interact with her. People in wheelchairs and stuff need a lot of attention. Yeah, it’s another job. . . . I’m actually feeling I have a very rich life and even though it’s challenging.

Dick’s situation certainly was hard and seemed to inform his position that caregiving is a form of work. The four examples presented here reflect the tip of the iceberg of an extensive set of narratives about caregiving and work; it seemed clear that people had a lot to say about this issue. Interestingly, while the question was worded in a way that would have created dichotomous responses, a number of the participants, including Clark and Bob, provided more nuanced answers, reflecting the inherent complexity of managing the tasks of caregiving in a society that so clearly values marketplace work.

Work–Family Relationships

Deeply embedded in considerations about caregiving and work is the very hotly contested issue of work–family balance and conflict. Many pages of journal and magazine articles as well as self-help books have been devoted to helping people find a balance between work and family. The participants in our interviews also (p.124) had a lot to say about this, as reflected in this first passage from Loretta, a 44-year-old paralegal who provided the following description of her struggle to balance work and family:

So it’s difficult for me to work an 8–5 job because I am used to being home with my kids all of the time, so that is kind of frustrating I guess. I think that when I’m at work and I’m not really engaged because I’m thinking more about what I’d rather be doing or who needs me at home because my kids are used to having me there all the time, or whenever they need me. I’m used to being there all the time, and now I can’t do that. So I struggle with that when I’m at work, and I think my work product probably suffers a little bit because of that and also in my personal life, it’s the same. I am used to making my own hours and working whenever I want to work so it has changed my own personal life because I was able to do whatever I wanted during the day and take care of things.

From Mary, a 64-year-old White social worker, we see a retrospective view of work–family struggles as she mulls over her past in light of having grown children and a father with dementia who lives some distance away.

In the past, some of the obstacles have been a lack of time in my personal life. I spent a lot of time on my career and in some ways I am a little regretful of that. I could have spent more time with family, especially when my kids were younger; however, they seemed to come out okay. But, it would have been nice to be at home a little bit more with them when they were younger. You do have to sacrifice some for a career. And that was part of my sacrifice.

Mary’s description attests to the psychological consequences of making decisions about work and family, choices that often have deep resonance and reach well beyond the years when the conflicts are most overt. Framing these decisions are factors such as the potential for satisfaction that one has at work, as well as an equally important appraisal of one’s relational life, which Mary alluded to in other parts of her interview.

The complexity of managing work and family was further elaborated by Vicente, the 51-year-old former banker who was currently a career coach:

In the beginning, it was work–life balance, and it wasn’t that I didn’t like working ’cause I loved what I did and so my work became 24–7. I would get out of work and I would be going to an event where I would be teaching people how to apply for a mortgage or I would be doing a (p.125) seminar on how to build or rebuild credit because I happened to speak the language. Work–life balance was a challenge and I sacrificed my life, my family per se—my relationships because of work. My message now is around a holistic approach to personal well-being where work is part of it, but it’s not everything. And the second thing is redefining success ’cause in the environment which we live, success has been defined as how much more money you can make, and the reality is that I came to a point to where money is not what defines me. So how can I manage myself in such a way that will allow me to work, do what I love still and still have the lifestyle that I enjoy and still spend quality time with my family. . . . So, in Colombia, people work hard, but at the same time, they make family a priority and it doesn’t matter—family comes first.

Vicente’s passage attests to the complexity of balancing work and family, particularly during the years when one’s children are young. Like Mary, Vicente reflected on his life history, charting the different ways in which he managed work and family. His final comment about his Colombian heritage speaks to the role of culture, which often helps people connect to broader sources of support and guidelines about how to manage work and family.30

Taken together, the participants spoke eloquently about caregiving and work, underscoring that this is indeed a major concern for people as they manage their lives. The vignettes that were selected convey some of the richness and ambivalence that exists around the questions of how we make meaning of caregiving and work. What does seem clear from these interviews is that this issue was emotionally evocative and that people were struggling to balance their lives, particularly during the times of the most intense demands, such as taking care of ill loved ones, managing early childhood responsibilities, and caregiving elderly family members. While there were not many detailed comments on care work in the marketplace, some of the participants, especially women from impoverished backgrounds, often described how their options centered on providing care for others, typically at very low wages.

Being Able to Care: The Psychological View

A number of new contributions on caregiving and work have been developed that have the potential to respond to some of the concerns raised by the Boston College Working Project participants and optimally inform public policies that are clearly needed to support people in both caring and marketplace work contexts. In this section, we highlight two of these new perspectives; the first is the caring motivation, a new perspective offered by Ofra Mayseless, and the (p.126) second contribution is Mary Sue Richardson’s analysis of caregiving and work. These perspectives, coupled with the insightful vignettes presented in the previous section, inform recommendations about caregiving that conclude the chapter.

The Caring Motivation

In a bold and innovative book, The Caring Motivation, Ofra Mayseless, a very creative Israeli psychologist, makes a compelling case that human beings have an inherent motivation to care for others.31 This motivation is thought to be a fundamental and central organizing component of our motivational states that informs our attitudes and drives our behaviors. Mayseless presented compelling evidence that we do not simply care for others because “it has to be done.” Rather, she proposed that the desire to care is part of our “true spirit.” Mayseless took an aspect of human behavior that has been marginalized in many aspects of life (including our lived experience, work, and relationships) and elevated it to the same level of importance as other inherent human motivations, such as our desire for affiliations and achievements.

In effect, Mayseless has deeply mined the relational revolution (presented in Chapter 3) and elaborated on the full dyadic relationship processes that occur in our connections with others. In considering the caring motivation, we can now understand relationships not only as a desire for love and connection (i.e., being on the receiving end of a caring relationship), but also the complementary need to care for others. In contrast to the prevailing notions of human motivation as governed by self-interest or selfishness, Mayseless presented very compelling evidence that people are hardwired and socialized to want to care for others. Although many scholars and clinicians have described caregiving, including, of course, John Bowlby in his classic work on attachment, the exhaustive treatment by Mayseless, in my view, has yielded a new paradigm about caring.

A full description of Mayseless’s contribution is beyond the scope of this book. However, I focus on its applications to our understanding of people as they manage caring in general as well as caring in both the personal care and marketplace spaces. An ongoing debate in psychology and the social sciences is how caring roles and responsibilities are distributed to men and women and how we reward caregiving. Mayseless affirmed the gendered nature of caring in that women are more often expected to engage in nurturing types of caregiving in dyadic contexts, and that men are more likely to express their caring motivation in larger social groups. For example, research in psychology indicated that women are likely to prefer caring for children or aging parents, while men may (p.127) manifest their caring via community contributions, such as volunteering as a board member at a church.32 The controversy that is drawing out much discussion is the extent to which these differences are biological or genetic in nature. Like many developmental psychologists, Mayseless suggested that both socialization and biological factors are at play, and that these influences are mutually impactful. Other scholars (including myself) would view the impact of family experiences (particularly in one’s family of origin), culture, and social expectations as serving as the prevailing factor in defining how one’s caring motivation is experienced and expressed.33

Another question that emerges in thinking about the caring motivation is the issue of how realistic this rather positive appraisal of humanity is in the face of many acts of selfishness and cruelty, both in interpersonal relationships and in broader social contexts. This is an important issue, one that Mayseless addressed directly and thoughtfully.34 Although she argued that the caring motivation is a fundamental aspect of our makeup, it is also characterized by individual differences (i.e., people vary across all sorts of dimensions) and diverse social and cultural expectations (i.e., societies vary in what they expect from people and how they teach people to manage their lives). It is notoriously difficult in psychology to develop theories that will be truly universal. And, as many people know from their lived experiences, people vary greatly in so many ways, including, of course, their relationship behaviors and responses. In this context, Mayseless has raised a good point about individual and social differences. She also indicated, for example, that not all caring behavior is kind and gentle. Taking care of children or an elderly parent with dementia may involve setting limits in a way that may hurt the feelings of the person who is being cared for. In addition, caring for one’s own community or social group may involve being unkind or aggressive to other groups, for example, by creating forceful consequences for people who threaten one’s community. Despite the obvious limitations of considering that all people are kind and caring at all times, the caring motivation notion, in many ways, may be foreshadowing a caring revolution in psychology, and a caring revolution in the workplace, which I believe can help to inform needed policy changes with respect to the work in the marketplace.

So, how does the caring motivation affect our thinking about working during this very dramatic period of transformations in the workplace? The caring motivation, in my view, has powerful implications for our discussion, much as the relational motivation has transformed our views of human behavior and working. As indicated previously in the chapter, many jobs involve caregiving, such as nursing, teaching, and providing direct care to children, the elderly, and individuals with disabling conditions. In addition, caregiving provides work opportunities for many poor and working-class adults, particularly women (p.128) of color and immigrants in the United States, who often toil in very difficult circumstances with inadequate wages.35 Regrettably, the infusion of caregiving into an occupation seems to be associated with the feminization of that field and an associated reduction of wages, benefits, and advancement opportunities.

A question that emerges in considering the Mayseless contribution and other bodies of work on caring is to what extent social expectations can be shifted so that policy changes will result in improved working conditions for those whose primary role in the marketplace is in caregiving. Optimistically, I have witnessed the relational revolution result in major changes not only in psychology, but also in the world of the helping professions and other sectors of society.36 One dramatic way to change the conditions of personal care workers is to reduce the inherent sexism that exists in relation to the distribution and affirmation of caring roles. (This point is elaborated in the conclusion of this chapter.)

Another powerful implication of the caring revolution is the potential loss of the relationships that exist at work when work is not available; as reflected in previous chapters, working often (although not always) provides people with opportunities not only for social connections, but also caring and nurturing others. If we follow the logic of Mayseless’s position, having opportunities to care for others is central to our meaning and purpose in life. A close look at many workplaces reveals that the occupational world provides multiple opportunities to mentor others, care for people in times of distress, and provide instrumental assistance to both customers and fellow employees. Of course, one viable possibility of a society in which automation and artificial intelligence result in diminished requirements for marketplace work is the very real option of people having more time to do caregiving. As I highlight further in this chapter, this provides both an opportunity for society and a risk.

The caring motivation contribution also has important implications for a psychologically enriched discussion of the relationship between work and family. As some of the participants noted previously in the chapter, the issue of work–life balance is a major dilemma for people and often eludes easy answers. Considering the caring motivation in relation to the struggle for people to navigate meaningful connections between family and work provides some important insights that may be useful for people struggling with work–family conflict. One application of the caring motivation is that it affirms our need to care for others and places this motivation at the same level as many other motivational states, such as the needs for achievement and self-determination, that define many marketplace roles. Given the centrality of caring, work–family dilemmas may be responsive to broad policy levers that would provide financial and social support for care work in one’s family. While this will not solve all of the work–family problems that exist, reducing the marginalization of caregiving (p.129) would go a long way to creating an equally affirming playing field for life in both family and marketplace work contexts.37

Caregiving and Work–Family Relationships

One of the greatest challenges in truly being able to care is to find the time and space to engage productively and fully in caregiving. Balancing work–family responsibilities clearly transcends the caregiving part of life given that people also strive to develop and sustain relationships, engage in leisure, exercise, hobbies, and household tasks. However, the struggle to engage in caring is a central theme that pervades both the academic literature and lived experiences of people when considering balancing work and family. A fascinating and highly influential chapter written by Mary Sue Richardson and Charles Schaeffer provides important grist for the mill in thinking about how to understand the work–family nexus in light of shifting work demands and changing gender norms.38 Richardson and Schaeffer began their discussion by reviewing the evolving nature of the work–family balance, highlighting the following noteworthy trends:

  1. 1. Two ever-widening groups characterize the United States now, with vastly different experiences in their work and family lives. Affluent and well-educated adults are faced with too much work to do, but often have resources to outsource some of their care work, generally to underpaid women of color or immigrants. In contrast, the poor experience not enough stable work opportunities, with growing precariousness in their work lives and inadequate resources and support to manage their personal care work. As such, work–family balance issues are dramatically different in these two communities.

  2. 2. Studies of time use and unpaid care work have revealed interesting trends in family–work relationships. Over the past four decades, research has revealed that married women are spending about the same amount of time with their children that they did before the major shift of women into the marketplace. This finding suggests some sort of statistical glitch in that there are only 24 hours in a day. What emerges from a close examination of this body of research is that married women are spending less time on personal care and on household chores.

  3. 3. These time use studies also revealed that men and women spend about the same amount of time on work, considering both market work and personal care work. The difference is that men devote more time to marketplace work and women are more engaged in personal care work.

  4. (p.130) 4. A promising finding is that men are in fact doing more caregiving work, primarily in feeding and bathing their children.

  5. 5. The time use results for single mothers were very disheartening. The burdens of developing a sustainable livelihood coupled with personal care work are daunting, and the social safety net in the United States has made survival questionable without considerable support from family and kin.

  6. 6. The major conclusion from these analyses by Richardson and Schaeffer is revealing: Families have changed far more than the labor market to accommodate shifting opportunities, resources, and barriers.

In the face of these trends, Richardson and Schaeffer developed a dual working model as a way of framing work and family intersections in contemporary American culture. The dual working model is based on an acceptance of the current reality in which women are increasingly taking on roles in marketplace work. According to Richardson and Schaeffer, the dual working model is based on the expectation that men and women will engage in marketplace work and in unpaid care work. Underlying the reality of caring and work currently in the United States is the affirmation of the importance of economic productivity, which also functions to diminish the value of care work. As an example, the welfare reform of the mid-1990s in the United States sent a message to women that they had to engage in market work, even though the social and economic supports for market work were (and remain) inadequate. While on the surface, having women enter the marketplace makes eminent sense, as so compellingly argued by feminist scholars and vocational psychologists for decades, the question remains about how we manage our caregiving tasks. Of course, one solution is for men to carry more of the burden of care work; fortunately, we are witnessing some modest progress in this area.39 However, the marginalization of personal care work and marketplace care work continues unabated.

The solution, according to Richardson and Schaeffer, is to create major policy changes in how we understand and reward care work. Care work is clearly not consistent with the current focus in our neoliberal economic context on maximizing profits and enhancing productivity.40 A number of scholars of work, feminist studies, and psychology are now arguing that we need to create a culture that affirms the need to care and to be cared for as a human right, much as we increasingly view access to decent work in the marketplace as a human right.41 As Richardson and Schaeffer noted, caregiving work is a form of work, but it does not translate into the sort of productivity indices that are affirmed by leading economists and policy leaders. What Richardson and Schaeffer proposed is that caregiving feeds society’s need for social productivity; in effect, (p.131) caregiving provides the social glue that is needed to create cohering and kind communities.

The dual working model does provide a counterbalance to models that differentiated work roles based on gender. The current discourse about work, family, and caregiving is based on the need to unpack gender stereotypes that have long fostered a culture of domesticity for women and market work for men. While changing this dynamic is not easy, shifts in the psychological conversation can impact the public dialogue to optimally create a case for affirming care work in ways that are both economically feasible yet not degrading or detracting from the efforts that we make in caring for others into strictly economic terms. Another critical issue raised by Richardson and Schaeffer is the need to elevate paid care work to a status that befits its importance in society as a critical means by which we take care of those who need our better angels in order to survive and thrive.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided an important perspective on an issue that is very much on the margins of current conversations and debates about the nature of work in our lives and in our broader social and economic interactions. Caring, caregiving, and care work are all central parts of the human experience, much as they have been since we evolved out of the savannah of Africa. The literature in psychology, social sciences, and the detailed and evocative vignettes from the participants conveys that issues around caring and working are never far from the lived experience of people. So, what are the takeaways from this chapter? A number of ideas emerge that merit closer attention.

First, the question of whether caring is a form of work is probably best answered in a complex and nuanced fashion. As the participants from the Boston College Working project suggested, the answer to this question really depends on the situation and the demands that people face in a given context. Second, the gendered nature of caregiving has been and remains a major cause of concern. Clearly, scholars who have informed this work (such as Mary Sue Richardson and Nancy Folbre, among others) have made very compelling arguments in favor of reducing the impact of sexism and marginalization in how we manage caring and care work. However, the hard reality is that, at least within the United States, the deep commitment to the free market economy and its highly questionable capacity to equalize the playing field has resulted in a harsh and inadequate social safety net for women, particularly for poor and working-class women, who also carry the burden for many well-off families who easily outsource their care work.

(p.132) In short, government policies, such as unfunded preschools, lack of mandated financial support for family leaves, and very low wages for marketplace care work, collude to create a culture that continues to reify market work at the expense of care work. The failure to reduce the impact of sexism and gender role socialization has created a significant barrier in any concerted attempts to provide reasonable supports for women, families, and communities who are seeking meaning and dignity in both their care work and their marketplace work.

A number of scholars, most notably Guy Standing, an inspiring British social scientist, have argued that we need to provide some ways of compensating care work.42 As I have read these suggestions, I come away with some hope that major shifts may occur in our economic systems that will function to affirm care work. One of the major drivers of these changes may be the growth in precarious work and the increased role of automation in the workplace. As many experts predict (as summarized in the first chapter and again in Chapter 8), stable and decent work may be increasingly less available, especially for individuals without very high levels of marketable skills. Into this mix will soon emerge a renewed debate about the universal basic income. The universal basic income (UBI) is a proposal (emerging now from the left and right in the United States, and indeed, globally) to provide a foundational set of resources to all citizens that may be detached from marketplace work. One of the driving forces of this movement is certainly based on justice and equity, ensuring that people have access to the basic necessities of life. However, another objective is to reduce the potential for social and economic disruption. (Further details on basic income guarantees will be provided in Chapter 9.) An option of enhancing the viability of work in an era of declining options in the marketplace may be to reward and affirm care work via payments that are guaranteed to people who are in need of financial support. Many complications exist in this sort of plan, which are probably best summarized by economists (see Standing, for example).43 However, there may be ways of economically validating care work, without necessarily making it part of the marketplace system, which will clearly require careful planning and consideration of various intended and unintended consequences.

In closing, I propose that we may need to think outside the box about caregiving in relation to marketplace work and concerns about the future of work. Caring is an essential part of life, and in many important ways, it is an important part of our work lives, resulting in what Richardson and others call social reproduction. In contrast to economic production, which is the coin of the realm in the United States, and many Western societies, caring feeds our needs to be connected and to nurture others and ourselves with a very human capacity to be kind and gentle with others who need our services and support. My (p.133) vision of a society that fully rewards and values caregiving may not be that far off—as I propose in the conclusion of this book, the changes in the labor market may provide us with opportunities to create more humane systems of support and care as well as more nurturing workplaces. The bottom line, for me, is that these decisions will require a deep critique of existing assumptions about work and an equally deep openness to new ideas and paradigms. The time is right for a caring revolution that can remake our work lives and our relational lives. (p.134)

Notes:

(1.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks; Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(2.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452

(3.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks; Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge; Tronto, J. C. (2006). Vicious circles of unequal care. In M. (p.237) Hamington (Ed.), Socializing care (pp. 3–26). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; Noonan, M. C. (2001). The impact of domestic work on men’s and women’s wages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1134–1145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01134.x; Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2006). The interface of work and family life. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 334–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.4.334

(4.) Hochschild, A. R. (2000). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130–146). London: Cape; Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work. Berkeley: University of California Press; Whiston, S. C., & Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The work–family interface: Integrating research and career counseling practice. Career Development Quarterly, 63, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00094.x

(5.) Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 63, 252–268. doi:10.1037/0003-006X.63.4.252; Kantamneni, N. (2013). Gender and the psychology of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 85–102). New York: Oxford University Press.

(6.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press; Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452; Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(7.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks; Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

(8.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(9.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(10.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(11.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(12.) Bowbly, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge; Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(13.) Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709; Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

(14.) Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709; Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

(15.) Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452; Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(16.) Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452; Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(17.) Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452; Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(18.) Betz, N., & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 63, 252–268. doi:10.1037/0003-006X.63.4.252; Friedan, B. (2001). The feminine mystique. New York: Norton.

(19.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks.

(20.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks; Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(21.) Murdock, G. P., & Provost, C. (1973). Measurement of cultural competency. Ethnology, 12, 379–392. doi:10.2307/3773367

(22.) Betz, N., & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 63, 252–268. doi:10.1037/0003-006X.63.4.252

(23.) Betz, N. E. (2005). Women’s career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 253–277). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; Kantamneni, N. (2013). Gender and the psychology of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 85–102). New York: Oxford University Press.

(24.) Bianchi, S., Folbre, N., & Wolf, D. (2012). Unpaid care work. In N. Folbre (Ed.), For love and money: Care provision in the United States (pp. 40–64). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(25.) Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(26.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(27.) Bianchi, S., Folbre, N., & Wolf, D. (2012). Unpaid care work. In N. Folbre (Ed.), For love and money: Care provision in the United States (pp. 40–64). New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Osterman, P. (2017). Who will care for us: Long-term care and the long-term workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(28.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks.

(29.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(30.) O’Brien, K. M., Ganginis Del Pino, H. V., Yoo, S. K., Cinamon, R. G., & Han, Y. J. (2014). Work, family, support, and depression: Employed mothers in Israel, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 461–472. doi:10.1037/a0036339

(31.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(32.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(33.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press; Tronto, J. C. (2006). Vicious circles of unequal care. In M. Hamington (Ed.), Socializing care (pp. 3–26). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

(34.) Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(35.) Osterman, P. (2017). Who will care for us: Long-term care and the long-term workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(36.) Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press; Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Jordan, J. M. (2009). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Jordan, J., Kaplan, A., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I., & Surrey, J. (1991). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press; Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

(37.) Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The synergy project: A group career counseling intervention to enhance work-family management. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of career interventions, Volume 2: Applications (pp. 413–425). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work. Berkeley: University of California Press; Richardson, M. S. (2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011406452; Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2009). To mother or matter: Can women do both? Journal of Career Development, 36, 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309340795; Whiston, S. C., & Cinamon, R. G. (2015). The work–family (p.240) interface: Integrating research and career counseling practice. Career Development Quarterly, 63, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00094.x

(38.) Richardson, M. S., & Schaefer, C. (2013). From work and family to a dual model of working. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 141–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

(39.) Folbre, N. (Ed.). (2012). For love and money: Care provision in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

(40.) Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York: Norton.; Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). The great divide: Unequal societies and what we can do about them. New York: Norton.

(41.) Budd, J. W. (2011). The thought of work. Ithaca, NY: ILR-Cornell Paperbacks; Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Mayseless, O. (2016). The caring motivation: An integrated theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

(42.) Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

(43.) Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.