最初由 andy 发布
If finally you look realistically at the developing professions, they will all use the word “care”. They will talk about things like Medicare and providing care for the elderly and care for disabled people and health care, that care is the basic symbol for their ministrations and that the reason they use the word “care” is because care is the manifestation of a feeling, and that feeling is love...the highest value i think that we have. But i am arguing that in truth they wear the mask of love because underneath they are in fact nothing but large systems, formal structures designed to provide an economy for the people who are inside the system. Care and love are never produced by a system. It is in relationships of people and communities that care and love occur. And to steal from the community that most basic of all values and relationships, love and care, is really an ignoble activity. You see, one of the real problems, I believe, about our institutions and systems is that they increasingly have the power to so invade community and community life and the relationship of people to each other, that in fact communities grow weak as systems grow strong. So that children won’t take care of their parents because they know a system “cares” for old people better than they. Then it seems to me that the idea of society is lost.
如果最终你从实际性来看那些发展中明言, 他们会都用一个单词 “照顾”. 他们指的是那些像医疗保险提供照顾那些老年和残疾人和WEI生保健, 这种照顾是他们服务的基本像征(宗旨)而他们用”照顾”的原因则是因为照顾是感情的体现, 这种感情则是爱. 这也是我认为它所具有的最高价值. 但是我想说事实上他们戴上了爱的面具因为在这面具下他们其实什么都不是只是一个大的体制, 正规的组织设计出来为那些属于这个体制的人们的一种积蓄. 照顾和爱护从来不应该出自于一个体制. 在有人群和社会共建的关于中才会有照顾和爱护的出现. 从社会中窃取价值和关系的基础---爱护和照顾, 那是一件很不光彩的事. 你可以看出来, 其中一个真正的问题, 我相信是关于我们的公共机构和体制的因为他们增长了权力去侵袭社会和社会生活还有其中的每一个人, 事实上社会发展虚弱而体制则强硬. 以至于孩子们不照顾他们的父母是因为他们知道会有一个机制照顾老年人他们亲力亲为更好. 所以在我看来社会所提及的概念失去了原有的意义.(失败了)
