Abstract
AbstractCare ethics has been advanced as a suitable framework for evaluating the ethical significance of assistive robotics. One of the most prominent care ethical contributions to the ethical assessment of assistive robots comes through the work of Aimee Van Wynsberghe, who has developed the Care-Centred Value-Sensitive Design framework (CCVSD) in order to incorporate care values into the design of assistive robots. Building upon the care ethics work of Joan Tronto, CCVSD has been able to highlight a number of ways in which care practices can undergo significant ethical transformations upon the introduction of assistive robots. In this paper, we too build upon the work of Tronto in an effort to enrich the CCVSD framework. Combining insights from Tronto’s work with the sociological concept of emotional labor, we argue that CCVSD remains underdeveloped with respect to the impact robots may have on the emotional labor required by paid care workers. Emotional labor consists of the managing of emotions and of emotional bonding, both of which signify a demanding yet potentially fulfilling dimension of paid care work. Because of the conditions in which care labor is performed nowadays, emotional labor is also susceptible to exploitation. While CCVSD can acknowledge some manifestations of unrecognized emotional labor in care delivery, it remains limited in capturing the structural conditions that fuel this vulnerability to exploitation. We propose that the idea of privileged irresponsibility, coined by Tronto, helps to understand how the exploitation of emotional labor can be prone to happen in roboticized care practices.
Funder
Ministerio de Universidades
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference47 articles.
1. Aronson, J., & Neysmith, S. M. (1996). “You’re not just in there to do the work”. Depersonalizing policies and the exploitation of home care workers’ labor. Gender & Society, 10(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124396010001005
2. Berdes, C., & Eckert, J. M. (2007). The language of caring: Nurse’s aides’ use of family metaphors conveys affective care. The Gerontologist, 47(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/47.3.340
3. Bolton, S. C. (2000). Who cares? Offering emotion work as a ‘gift’ in the nursing labour process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(3), 80–586. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01516.x
4. Bolton, S. C. (2001). Changing faces: Nurses as emotional jugglers. Sociology of Health & Illness, 23(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00242
5. Bourgeault, I. (2015). Double isolation. Immigrants and older adult care work in Canada. In M. Duffy, A. Armenia, & C. L. Stacey (Eds.), Caring on the clock. Complexities and contradictions of paid care work (pp. 117–126). Rutgers University Press.