‘Ethics of care’

Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour’s comments on the strikes contemplated by the Jordan Teachers Association, as reported by The Jordan Times on January 27, 2015, are frightening. 

The premier is quoted as accusing striking teachers of “taking children as hostages” and calling such action “illegal” on the grounds that it harms a large number of people.

The language he uses is significant. The association he makes with criminality is in contrast to the unwritten ethical code expected of teachers: that besides educating children, they are also to act as their carers and guardians.

The fact that teachers are overwhelmingly female, further adds to this gendered image and unwritten expectation.

The strongly worded comments make teachers accountable to a puritanical expectation of putting others’ interests before their own.

More to the point still, Ensour’s comments expose a discrepancy in the assignment of moral responsibility. It seems that the “ethics of care” is demanded of Jordanian citizens, but not of the state.

Where were the “ethics of care” when it came to protecting the environment, our natural resource, and the forests that make up less than 2 per cent of our landscape?

Or are we holding our teachers according to a different ethical standard than we hold our military?

What about the Press and Publications Law and arresting people for Facebook posts? Doesn’t that constitute “taking citizens hostage”?

Where are the “ethics of care” with regards to the income tax?

The new law stratifies tax brackets for those who earn less than JD10,000 and less than JD20,000 a year, but leaves high earners beyond that with a flat-rate tax bracket of a meek 20 per cent — in a country with a painful class divide.

And what about the privatisation of our natural resources, such as phosphates, and the selling of public land for a fraction of its value?

Are these the actions of a caring and nurturing government?

As to harming a large number of people, could it not be argued that the neo-liberal economic policy pursued single mindedly for nearly two decades has critically injured the middle class?

Striking remains a democratic right, and one of the few mechanisms for disenfranchised citizens to speak up and protest their marginalisation.

The notion of making striking illegal is, to say the least, frightening.

It should not be forgotten that regardless of the temporary inconvenience that the strikes may cause, in the long run striking teachers offer a great example to their students of what a peaceful but sustained fight for justice looks like.

They may fail to deliver a few lessons from the curriculum, but they are teaching their students a lifetime’s worth of political idealism instead.

The government should hold itself and its institutions accountable to the same ethical standards it demands of its teachers.

Furthermore, it should remember that regardless of title, its collective roles come down to just one: service provision to citizens. 

Deena Dajani,
London