Care as a relationship › Motivational displacement

Michael BrenndoerferUpdated November 1, 20262 min read
PhilosophyAll chapters
Reading tools Notes & comments
Notes & comments
Part 2 of 12Moral Reasons
Chapter 26Care as a relationship › Motivational displacement
Reading section 4 of 9 · Motivational displacement · 2 minSection 4 of 9 · 2 min

Section 4 of 9 · 2 min read

Care as a relationship › Motivational displacementSection view · Sections in this chapter4 / 9 ↓

Noddings's second central term is motivational displacement. The one-caring's motivational attention moves toward the cared-for and the cared-for's situation. The other's concern becomes something the caregiver is moved to address. Attention alone would leave the person watching; motivational displacement helps explain the movement toward a response.

Suppose a neighbor asks for help carrying groceries upstairs. You stop concentrating on reaching your own door and attend to the difficulty the neighbor faces. If you respond, the neighbor's immediate project now helps direct your action. The example is modest, but it separates caring motivation from the pursuit of praise for being helpful. The reason for the response concerns the neighbor, rather than only an image of yourself.

Noddings connects caring with commitment to act over the appropriate period. Caring is not exhausted by a passing feeling. A person may need an immediate action, continued attention, or restraint from an action that would interfere. The form of commitment depends on the relation and the need; a brief encounter does not necessarily call for a permanent obligation.

Motivational displacement also needs to be distinguished from surrendering all judgment. A teacher who wants a student to flourish might refuse to complete the student's work for them. The student's immediate request and the response that supports the student need not coincide. In this hypothetical case, the teacher still needs to understand the difficulty and explain the refusal; invoking care does not make the refusal automatically justified.

The difficult cases arise when our interpretation of someone's welfare conflicts with what they say. Noddings's emphasis on receptivity makes this a problem for deliberation within the relation. It cannot be solved by announcing that the caregiver knows best. Attention to the other's subjectivity must remain part of the response, including when the response involves disagreement.

Comments

Add to the conversation

A question, a correction, or an example from your own work.

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!

Newsletter

Stay up to date

Get new articles, book updates, and notes on AI and technology.

Unsubscribe at any time. Privacy policy