The COVID-19 pandemic has been a watershed moment for modern society; it has revealed the many inefficiencies, fallacies and blind assumptions that exist within and towards the structures that are foundational to our world. Far more than opening an ideological or academic discourse, nor existing merely in the realms of thought-experimentation, these shortcomings have resulted in severe and tangible pain: an abrupt halt to the lives of many, mental health crises, the deaths of millions and the fracturing of communities, the pandemic has wrought a path of devastation across our planet. Over one year on, and with new, more virulent strains spreading, there seems to be no end in sight. But why is this the case? Why is it that the systems in a country as nominally developed as Canada have been so immensely ineffective in controlling the impact of COVID-19? Or in meaningfully meeting the needs of the populations impacted by it? This article will argue that the neoliberal systems and associated frameworks of care and wellness in Western states such as Canada, the US and UK have been a major contributing component in the devastation of our society, and how this limiting factor also explains our struggles in addressing the climate crisis in a meaningful way. It will go on to outline potential solutions – radical or otherwise – to directly address this trend of continuing to support an uncaring society. With the pain, isolation and flawed approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic not only fresh in our minds, but ongoing, now is a better time than ever to revaluate our notions of care and the industries and behavioural structures which have arisen in its name.

Defining Care

Before continuing, it is pertinent to address what is meant by “care” in this article; an admittedly difficult task. Popular usage of the word comes from two distinct definitions: first, to care for – i.e., to provide assistance in someway – and secondly, to care about – i.e., to have a vested interest in something. While both of these definitions remain integral in the discussion of this article’s subject, we will be proposing a third definition of care; a middle position, if you may, which combines these two definitions, rather than juxtaposing them. In this way, we hope to avoid the implicit moral positioning that is often attached to issues of care and approach the issue from one of meaningful, policy action. In other words, care, in the context of this article, encompasses the ability and desire to assist or change one’s situation or environment. What this usage does not entail is the enforcement or desire to incite a paradigm shift of “caring” more about a particular issue, as this implies that we, the authors, are in a position of enlightenment for caring about something others should be (this could not be further from the truth).

We must also look to what is meant by the care and wellness industries. On one hand, there is the more rigidly defined healthcare industry, which according to the UN’s industry classification standards, includes services provisioned by or under the supervision of healthcare professionals (long-term care homes (LTCs), hospitals, etc.) and those related to pharmaceuticals.[1] Additionally, we will be speaking about the wellness industry, which is far more nebulous in definition. For the sake of understanding though, this includes products or services that are intended to improve one’s wellbeing: alternative health practices, gyms, relationship services, fad dieting – anything which is marketed as “improving” your situation, but falls outside the realm of traditional or formalized healthcare.

It should be noted that throughout the two parts of this article, “care and wellness industries” will mostly be amalgamated into “the care industry” for brevity’s sake. While distinct in many ways, particularly in regards to solution-creation, the purpose of this article is to highlight the disconnect between approaches to “caring” and genuine, sustainable care. We will explore this divergence more when we discuss potential policy actions later in Part Two of this article.

With this outlined, we will now look at how care – specifically a lack of it – is a foundational component to the care and wellness industries, and begin elucidating the characteristics which have fed our lackluster approach to care emergencies, such as the pandemic and increasingly, climate change.

An Uncaring Care Industry

To understand just how ludicrous the idea of a care industry is, and how largely incompatible this is with care in of itself, we must first look to its origins: that of a neoliberal socio-economic ecosystem. Approaching this from both the micro and macro levels, this framework positions the individual as an input, one who’s value is directly resultant of perceived productivity while simultaneously creating an environment which defers to the whims and categorical desires of the vehicles of growth: corporate entities. What does this mean? Neoliberalism devalues the “unproductive” components of society – often associated with areas of care, creativity and interpersonal bonds, amongst other things – while concurrently creating an environment which maximizes labour exploitation, mass privatization – and thus, a defunding and diminishing of social services – and dehumanization, all of which are sources of individual and collective pain. In other words, neoliberalism feeds an uncaring environment, while simultaneously deterring innate caring and healing behaviours. This has led to a social climate plagued by neuroticism, desperation and perpetual loneliness. Of course, industry has stepped in to fill these needs, albeit at a cost and through the creation of a power dynamic that would, if existing between two individuals, be deemed manipulative, exploitative and demeaning. Pharmaceuticals (specifically, the encouragement to overprescribe), dating platforms, and so on – the wider wellness industry en masse – exist to “cure” the problems they have, in many situations, created. Anecdotally, the perfect product is one which solves a problem that it also created. The care industry has taken this mantra to new heights.

A key component of the care industry – and through extension, the neoliberal system – is that of independence; whilst on the surface a positive attribute, when viewed through the lens of systemic harm and in opposition to collective action, it is easy to see as a form of institutionalized gaslighting. The independent individual, as molded by the neoliberal system, is one who places one’s own “productivity” in a position of utmost importance; one is a “good” employee for working overtime, at the cost of spending time with family and friends; one is “strong” for pushing past trauma to return to work; one is “diligent” for skipping lunch to eat a protein bar at their desk. Inverse perceptions of those who fail to meet these standards is readily apparent. As an independent unit, the breaking down of barriers which are preventing one from attaining or maintaining this output is thus the responsibility of the individual, regardless of the source of these challenges. While this has severe implications surrounding those facing natural physical or mental barriers – who are often designated as wards of the “unproductive” (think: nurses, LTCs, familial caretakers and the like) – it also places significant pressures on individual members of society to rectify issues that exist on a scale far larger than a single person.

This encouragement does something to reshape how we, as social units, interact with and perceive care; with this emphasis on individualized action and solution-creation transforming care and the provisioning of such, into a sort of currency. It is something that we must dedicate time and energy to and, as the saying goes, time is money. While this perspective has several implications, there are two of note: one of personal responsibility and one of restrictions. Looking first to personal responsibility: if one’s wellbeing is largely a result of the amount of care given to oneself, and one is both directly and solely responsible for providing care, if you become unwell, it is natural to conclude that it is your fault; you did not follow the right wellness program, use the right app or, as we will explore later, budget enough for the right products. Delegating care to the responsibility of the individual thus attaches a unique value system to its practice, subconsciously changing our views on how, when and importantly who care is to be shared with; if this is “costing” me, I must be conservative with whom I give it to. This perspective, being the expected norm, creates a discontinuous system of collective care; with care networks being highly limited to close, personal bonds, restricting access and a willingness to provide. In other words, an individualized approach to care introduces a negative feedback loop, perpetuated by pressures which restrict one’s own ability to care for and receive care from others.

The care industry has exploited these characteristics, utilizing its reach and significant economic position to intensify – and commodify – each factor while introducing products and services to act as both a stand-in for collective care and to dampen efforts to reshape approaches to and perspectives of care. This is not a means of creating more efficient care systems or empowering individuals to provide or care for themselves; rather it is a system which encourages self-destruction as a means to expand consumer bases and the marketability of “innovations”. All we must do to see the truth in this is look to the COVID-19 pandemic and the variety of reactions and actions conducted as a result of the chaos it has introduced.

In the second part of this article, we will go further into how these characteristics have contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how it is feeding our next, global challenge: climate change. We will end by exploring potential solutions to this and meaningful ways to engage in changing our uncaring society.