So much talk about the importance of ‘care’ in agroecology, but what does it mean? This blog presents a ‘Matrix of Care’, a heuristic tool that helps us make sense of what care actually means in practice. Anouk Dijkman developed this matrix as part of her MSc dissertation for the transdisciplinary Agroecology, Water and Food Sovereignty MSc Programme at Coventry University (UK).
During the summer of 2024, I embarked on the final stage of my MSc in Agroecology, Water, and Food Sovereignty. After two years of engaging with agroecology in its many forms, it had become evident that the notion of care was central to agroecology. Yet, the more care’s importance became apparent, the less I felt care’s meaning was truly explored beyond passing mentions.This exploration of care became a focal point for my dissertation.
Historically, care work in capitalist patriarchies has exploited the work of (majoritarily) women and femmes (Bauhardt, 2014; Wong, 2017) – both in paid and unpaid spheres – and nonhuman nature (Perkins, 2019). The agroecological movement, in its centering of care, realises the importance of feminism and of the more than human for just socio-ecological transformation. To ensure my dive into the agroecological care world was one that would align with such a transformation, exploring care both within and beyond its ‘traditional’ sphere, I decided to apply an ecofeminist lens to my research.
Unsurprisingly for a movement that celebrates and encourages a diversity of worldviews and epistemologies, the dissertation revealed a varied mosaic of care practices and dimensions. Bringing together feminist agroecological views on care across a variety of geographies and epistemologies – combing through both global feminist literature on care in the context of agroecology and interviewing feminist and agroecological land-workers in the UK – ‘care’ was revealed as referring to a broad variety of work, practices and relations, surfacing certain ‘key dimensions’ of care. For example, where domestic care includes childcare, household chores and the ‘backyard’;, wider notions of human-oriented care refer to self-care and other dimensions related to health, food, knowledge and more. Community care brings the latter into forms of communal and collectivised care, moving away from individualistic notions (Pontes et al., 2024). In parallel, environmental care is described as both physical land-based practices but also a sense of ‘attunement’, and ‘ideological’ engagement. Notions of ‘holistic’ and interconnected care interlink many of the above care dimensions, in light of a wider more-than-human interspecies web of care where “all flourishing is mutual “ (Kimmerer, 2013, p.24).
Building on these identified dimensions of care, my research proposed a ‘Matrix of Care’, aligned with an identified need for care-pluralities to be acknowledged and cultivated, which this blog will further explore.
MATRIX OF CARE
Above all, the matrix of care was developed to understand the ‘essence’/’worldview’ embedded within various forms of care, rather than presenting care dimensions as ‘separate’ from one another. The matrix seeks to recognise the vast richness in diverse care dimensions and conceptualisation of care work – and the complex care relations that are cultivated by agroecological land-workers. It also seeks to be a new tool to practically explore and critically reflect on these varying dimensions, towards supporting a stronger care-awareness within the agroecological movement. To do so, the matrix suggests that notions of care are pluriversal and that its various conceptualisations sit along a spectrum varying from anthropocentric (centers humans) to biocentric (centres ‘life’), and from one directional to interlinked (web).
From anthropocentric to biocentric care
Varying from ‘Anthropocentric to ‘Biocentric’, the matrix’s horizontal axis explores care by asking: Who is considered?
Forms of care located on the left side of the axis center humans, applying an anthropocentric lens to the expression of care. This could include self-care, care for another human, or collective care amongst humans.
On the opposite end care centres ‘life’, of which humans are one of many other forms (biocentrism), making space for the more-than-human in our understandings and expressions of care. Here, care might vary from care ‘applied to’ the environment, to expansive forms of care where care relations with the more-than-human is expressed and understood as feeding into care for a wider web of life.
From linear to web care
The matrix’s vertical axis explores care by asking: What characterizes the relationships of care?
Varying from ‘Linear’ to ‘Web’, the bottom of the axis expressions of care denote linear forms of care work, practices or values. This could for example comprise of care relations where one individual is the ‘giver’ and the other the ‘receiver’, with a clear one-directional flow of care.
In contrast, forms of care located at the top of the axis care are those where care is expressed in relation to a wider holistic and interconnected system. Instead of being expressed towards individual entities, by applying care ‘in relation to’, the whole system is cared for.
Table 7. Determinants of care conceptualisations
| Axis | Area of consideration | Extremities | Description |
| X | Who is considered in the narrative on care? | Anthropocentric | Humans as central to the care narrative |
| Biocentric | Humans as part of a wider centering of ‘life’ | ||
| Y | What characterizes the relationships of care? | Linear | Care is discussed in terms of one ‘recipient’ and one ‘giver’ |
| Web (Interrelated) | Care is discussed in terms of a wider web of relations, by applying care the whole system benefits |
THE CARE MATRIX QUADRANTS
Looking at the matrix as whole, care can be described as spanning across four key quadrants. Where conceptualisations of care work as strictly pertaining to ‘caring for’ children and the household might sit on the bottom left corner of the matrix, the upper-right corner of the matrix might be populated by care applied in relation to a wider system, building towards a future of ‘kin-making’ with the more-than-human, which Harraway describes as “an urgent ethical responsibility” (as cited in Paulson, 2019).
Quadrant 1: Anthropo-linear
This quadrant includes more historically ‘traditional’ cares sphere, where care is often considered in light of ‘reproductive work’, or is sometimes described as a ‘duty’ or ‘burden’, or characterised as ‘taking care of’, such as:
- Parental care, care for elderly and dependents
- Domestic / household care
- Linear knowledge transmissions (education)
- Health care – when an individual seeks medical care
- Emotional care.
Quadrant 2: Anthropo-web
This quadrant represents the practices of care that are collective but human-centered.This includes:
- Community organising / community self-care (e.g. agroecological markets or community mobilization to defend agroecological workers)
- Care amongst wider networks including institutions and territories
- Bartering e.g. exchanging agroecological produce for health services or other ‘basic needs’ services/goods.
- Local cohesion amongst neighbours through resource sharing.
- Collective decision making practices.
Quadrant 3: Bio-linear
This quadrant refers to care practices that are focused on living beings more broadly but that are expressed in a direct or one-way relationship, such as:
- ‘Green care’ e.g. Care for a particular plot of land (e.g. no pesticides, organic farming,..)
- Farm animal care
- Plant-care e.g. providing plant support, watering, composting,…
Quadrant 4: Bio-web
This quadrant represents practices of care focused on the broader collective web of all life. Examples are:
- Interspecies and intergenerational care – e.g. knowledge sharing across generations to support the engagement of youth in traditional agroecological practices built on care-centric and loving relations with the more-than-human
- Planting flowers/native species for diverse pollinators
- Agroecological and agroforestry practices aimed at the wellbeing of the whole system, anchored in relational responsibility with the more-than-human – this can be expressed in ways anchored in both ‘necessity’ or ethics.
- Solidarity campaigns linked to reproduction of non-human life
Quadrants in light of the agroecology movement
In agroecology we can observe that, despite difficulties in applying this in practice, the type of care the movement seeks to foster and help emerge in future sustainable and just socio-ecological futures would sit towards the top right quadrant of the matrix in Figure 1, which contemplates care that is biocentric and network focused. However, in certain epistemologies/geographies/agroecological practices, many ideas of ‘care’ might concentrate in the bottom-left quadrant, notions of care that are human and individual-centric.
While the matrix offers a useful framework, the examples within it should not be seen as fixed or confined to particular quadrants. Forms of care—such as health care—can shift position depending on whom they are enacted towards, or how they are enacted. For instance, health care can reflect an individualised form of care when one person visits a doctor, emphasizing responsibility within institutional or personal domains – situating this form of care in the ‘anthropo-linear’ quadrant. Yet in a different context—such as within mutually supportive CRIP communities—health care becomes a collective, reciprocal practice rooted in shared responsibility and interdependence, characteristic of the ‘anthropo-web’ quadrant. In this sense, the same category of care can traverse quadrants, illuminating the dynamic and context-specific nature of care relations.
‘MATRIX OF CARE’: WHAT FOR?
The proposed Matrix of care might serve various purposes. For example, it could serve different agroecological groups/networks/researchers/landworkers to familiarise/acknowledge varying dimensions and conceptualisations of care. The inclusion of the more-than-human can enable the development of new care proposals and imaginaries that are “not limited to the human dimensions, breaking androcentric, capitalist, and patriarchal hierarchies” (Pontes et al., 2024). This could help avoid not only blank spots in care dimensions and conceptualisations, but also can help further “[legitimize] the plurality/diversity of knowledge, practices and experiences” (Alves et al., 2022, p.3). In many ways, there is at least some awareness and cultivation of care-plurality in agroecology, but this matrix could support further critical (feminist) explorations and understandings of what care can mean in different contexts and within different worldviews.
The matrix can also be a tool to prompt further reflections on care:
- How might we further foster ‘care-awareness’?
- When we talk about care in agroecology, do we know what form of care we refer to?
- What are the different pros and cons of care in each matrix quadrant for the development of an agroecological movement and future?
- What is the movement doing to ensure it intentionally and mindfully fosters specific forms of care?
- How might care practices with the potential for transformational change in agroecological systems and networks be better supported? And what barriers stand in the way of such caring practices?
- What are the care dimensions we might be missing out on in our conversations? And what impacts might ‘care dimension’ gaps have?
- From a feminist perspective, how might the matrix be expanded to add a layer helping to differentiate between:
- Agency achieved through care that is empowering without per se challenging gender relations, also described as ‘power of care’.
- Agency achieved through care that proposes a form of ‘feminist resistance’ and seeks to subvert gender relations.
This matrix was developed as part of my dissertation ‘Developing degrowth critically: learning from feminist perspectives on care in agroecological contexts’. A warm heartfelt thank you to Lucy Aphramor and Jessica Milgroom for their supervision during and beyond the dissertation process.
Blog written by Anouk Dijkman and Jessica Milgroom
