This article reflects on the global uprisings in support of Black life during the early pandemic. The focus is on what the protests reveal about Black resistance to the nation-building project of Canada. Protests during this period are understood here to have included taking to the streets, practicing care, and calling for abolition. Drawing on critical race theory and Black Studies, especially Black feminism, the author claims these forms of protest condemned Black dispossession under Canadian laws, while they simultaneously exceeded Canada’s jurisdiction. In other words, the protests can be understood ambivalently, as occurring under and responding to, but not being of, domination. They refashioned the self and the collective, expressing transient freedom from domination and partial redress, even as settler colonial laws would continue to suppress Black and other subaltern peoples. The article navigates such insights through works by Dionne Brand, Saidiya Hartman, and Katherine McKittrick, among others.

Care has increasingly been promoted as an element of successful management practice. However, an ethic of care is a normative theory that was initially developed in reference to intimate relationships, and it is unclear if it is an appropriate normative standard in business. The purpose of this review is to bridge the social scientific study of care with philosophical understandings of care and to provide a theoretical justification for care as a managerial value. We review the three different forms of care advanced by the ethics literature: caring relations, organizational care, and care as a virtue. We compare these forms of care to the management litertature. In doing so, we integrate what has previously been a scattered, yet growing, body of research on care. Our review of the literature reveals that care has increasingly been studied in management in relation to an ethic of care. Yet, many of the properties of care have also played a role in other established research domains (e.g., leadership). We discuss and critique the management and ethics literatures on care, paying attention to areas of agreement or disagreeement between the two. We go on to provide a normative justification of care as a value in business. Finally, we close by suggesting directions for future research.

The article reports the perspectives of senior care staff as part of a study exploring personalisation in care homes. Behind the conceptual sword and shield of ‘choice and control’ associated with personalisation in the United Kingdom (UK) lie irreconcilable flaws, thrown into sharp relief in this context. Personalisation, which originated in community-based social services, has recently been extended into UK care homes. This service development has been stimulated by a desire to promote a humane response to caring for an ageing population, whilst containing costs. Seemingly promoting a relational approach, personalisation also entails consumerist underpinnings, with consequent tensions resulting in weakened policy mechanisms. Discussing findings pertaining to ‘food and eating’, the article illustrates the complex interplay between supporting resident capabilities with poor staff ratios; when choice is not really choice at all; balancing choice, risk and the duty of care; and responding to diverse perspectives about what matters. This complexity reflects the highly skilled nature of care work as promoted by care ethicists. The tensions permeated care home life and found parallels in the wider system of care. Honesty about the limitations of choice and control is essential to achieve ethical care in care homes. The care home constitutes fertile ground for exposing and exploring the shortcomings of the ‘logic of choice’ and for advancing a more relational, inclusive and sustainable conceptualisation of personalisation.