The way I sees it*:
Worry - can be seen as internally focussed - if I worry about something, by attention and intent revolves around a specific set of concerns and fears I hold within me. When I worry, I find myself projecting future possibilities, current procedures that are distant, and past events which I can no longer change. I can see how you might describe worry as essentially apolitical - in acting in a projected sense, I am 'holding myself away in fear' from that about which I worry. It seems to be a internal event based upon our own collected reactions to events about which we:
Care - is how we relate to the world - the aiming of one's own involvement, desire and projects into the world we situate ourselves in. That which we care for is that which we value, that for which things matter. Care is how we interact with our surrounding life and how we find ourselves in this life.
If we, for the purpose of this play, assume the above to be roughly true, then care would be something that is prior to our ego. This is not to say that the ego cannot find itself invested in the game of appearing Morally Good (as caring for that which others care for in order to receive/attract their care). This kind of 'token care' is more a play of the motions we associate with care, as Zippy says.
Engagement - Seems to be formulated solely in terms of what we actually do. It is more easily defined in an 'objective sense'. Janine can be described as engaged because she teaches skills to poor kids. I suppose our consideration of 'engagement' as used in the current context would be further validated if Janine spoke of her dislike of the current class system and her desire to 'make a change'. Engagement as a political term seems to be infused with a action set to further the goals of one's political views. Janine might not be considered 'engaged' if she helped out the kids because it payed her wages and she likes children.
So it seems that worry is a certain mode of our care - care combined with a desire for difference, but with a lack of ability (or an assumed lack of ability) to change the things about which we care. As an action informed by care, I'm not sure it can really be opposed to care, as the title of this thread might suggest.(1)
I'd also question the role of engagement in this triangle - it seems to be a historically informed concept of a politically authentic mode of action, specifically that kind of action advocated by those frequently defined as of 'the left' (critique of power, destruction/devolution of this power etc.)
As a concept that requires...
a. an assumption of the possibility of an authentic mode of action/being, which carries within it...
-aa. an assumption that this authentic action can be...
--aaa. recognised for what it is...
---aaaa. can we properly differentiate between the authentic and the inauthentic?
---aaab. can we show the value of this action?
----aaaba. is it of such value that it is preferable?
--aab. understood in how it can be brought about...
---aaba. by what process does an understanding of outer action deemed authentic translate to an opportunity for my own authentic action?
----aaabaa. how do i learn/become aware of this process?
--aac. reproduced effectively by those who do aaa. and aab.
---aaca. in attempting to act authentically, how can i avoid the simple repetition of other action which has previously been deemed authentic?
-ab. an assumption that this mode of action is validly applicable to life...
--aba. does an authentic mode have repercussions?
---abaa. does authentic action act causally upon the world, creating further authentic action?
---abab. does the authentic remain largely contained within myself?
--abb. is the authentic universal?
---abba**. is the authentic for me the authentic for you?
----abbaa. if yes, does this mean a teleology?
----abbab. if no, how can mutually understand the authentic?
---abbb. is the authentic given to me as dictate?
----abbba. how could this be authentic?
---abbc. is the authentic created?
----abbca. how could this be understood
---abbd. is the authentic beyond abbb, abbbc?
----abbda. how could this be spoken of?
-ac. an assumption that authentic action is preferable...
--aca. what frame of moral reference to we choose to validate the authentic?
---acaa. does it validate itself?
----acaaa. is this not mysticism?
---acab. do we validate it perspectivaly (personally)?
----acaba. does this allow for a political (as group) authenticism?
---acac. is it validated transcendentally?
----acaca. can this be removed from a religious context?
--acb. what would authentic action be preferable to?
---acba. how do we think the inauthentic?
----acbaa. does the inauthentic become 'bad'?
-----acbaaa. does the 'bad' run the risk of becoming 'evil' (demonised?)
b. an assumption of politics as...
-ba. a mode of action that is chosen...
--baa. can we will the direction of society?
---baaa. can we do so consciously?
---baab. are societal processes structurally informed?
--bab. can we understand our action in the politic?
---baba. can we understand our consequences?
----babaa. can we understand them prior to their play-out?
---babb. can we understand the influence the politic bears on the individual?
----babba. how does 'I' come from 'we'?
----babbb. how does 'we' come from 'I'?
-bb. a process towards some telos.
--bba. politics is seen as an action-towards..
---bbab. what is the goal of this action?
----bbaba. are there many goals?
--bbb. how are competing telos to be viewed?
---bbba. what is the frame of reference for choosing a telos?
-bc. the right politics
-bca. is our understanding of 'the authentic' informed by our political desires?
... along with numerous other 'conceptual dependencies'.***
It seems like there is a lot of baggage piles into the idea of 'engagement' - we are led to assume that there is a 'correct political path' which is basically a rehash of:
- Socrate's idea that people will only ever do Good if they have the informed choice (Our politics if obviously correct because it is very rational/obvious/good to the right people.)
- Christian(ish) ideas of 'Good will' (will the man who does Good, but who does not recognise Christ-As-Saviour go to heaven?)
- Neo-moralist (i'm tired and can't think of the real word) ideals of authentic/inauthentic action which can only really be justified (i think) in a transcendental or a mystical sense. The transcendental sense may be a possible way for politics to work, but has consistently come across sticky spikes in theoretical terms. The mystical is fine (as far as i'm concerned), but we cannot expect to account for it in linguistic-political-critical terms.
...
All of which is to say, 'I don't see a necessary opposition between worry and care, and I don't think engagement is necessarily connected to either of them unless we make it a personal relationship to one's own actions, in which case it cannot really be discussed in respect to Another'
(1.) in a vague way, worry could be seen as 'care caring for its own action of caring in a way that tries to actuate its concern through no way other than its own caring'.
* Petunia is currently writing an essay on Heidegger, thus his influence on P's thought of care...
** Yes, the only reason i have used this shitty notation system is so that i could write 'ABBA'....
*** Yes, this is the theory version of 'and then they woke up.. the end...' I'm tired. Sorry. |
