It is possible for acts of care to be simultaneously admirable and politically problematic. Caring for others, communities, or democratic processes may improve immediate conditions while still unintentionally sustaining systems that produce inequality and harm. This tension sits at the center of this discussion, which draws on interviews with local public officials and civil society actors in segregated Swedish cities.

These “street-level” practitioners work in municipalities, schools, housing companies, and NGOs, where their task is to strengthen cooperation, rebuild trust, and support collective problem-solving in socially divided urban areas. Their work can be understood as a form of democracy care—care directed not only toward individuals, but toward the conditions that allow democratic life to function.

Yet care in this context is deeply ambivalent. In a society that values solidarity and inclusion, care is constructive and socially stabilizing. In an environment shaped by inequality and neoliberal governance, however, the same care becomes frustrating and politically constrained. Care workers often cannot change the structural conditions that produce the problems they address. They are left with two imperfect options: withdraw and expose systemic failure while abandoning vulnerable communities, or remain engaged and risk stabilizing the very system that generates harm.

---

Care, Neoliberalism, and the Hidden Labor of Democracy

Recent scholarship has increasingly emphasized the importance of care in social and political life (Chatzidakis et al. 2020). Care theorists argue that modern neoliberal societies systematically undervalue the labor that sustains everyday life—care work that maintains social bonds, institutions, and material well-being (Tronto 2013; Held 2006).

Neoliberal governance tends to promote individual responsibility, competition, and self-reliance, while weakening collective forms of solidarity. As a result, care becomes both essential and politically invisible: societies depend on it, yet rarely acknowledge or properly distribute it. Economic success is valorized over relational well-being, and social cohesion is treated as an unintended byproduct rather than a political goal (Brown 2015; Fraser 2014).

From this perspective, democratic instability—declining trust, polarization, and disengagement—cannot be separated from broader social conditions that erode the practices of care required to sustain collective life.

---

Democracy Beyond Institutions: Trust, Legitimacy, and Their Limits

Mainstream democratic theory often focuses on trust, legitimacy, and participation as key indicators of democratic health. However, these concepts can obscure the labor that makes such conditions possible.

In practice, many urban policies aimed at strengthening “social capital” rely on continuous relational work carried out by public servants and community actors. These include coordination between residents and authorities, conflict mediation, youth engagement programs, and collaborative safety initiatives.

While these efforts are widely recognized as supporting “democracy in action,” they are rarely interpreted as care. Yet they closely resemble what care theorists describe as the maintenance and repair of shared social worlds.

Understanding these activities as democracy care highlights a crucial point: democratic stability depends not only on institutions and elections, but on ongoing relational work that sustains trust and cooperation under difficult conditions.

---

Democracy Care in Segregated Urban Contexts

Fieldwork from Swedish cities such as Malmö, Stockholm, and Gothenburg shows how democracy care operates in practice. In marginalized neighborhoods marked by segregation and socioeconomic inequality, local governments employ coordinators, social workers, police officers, and housing managers tasked with building trust and facilitating cooperation.

These actors often serve as bridges between residents and institutions. They organize dialogue meetings, support youth initiatives, respond to crises, and collaborate with community leaders. In moments of tension—such as local unrest or violent incidents—these networks become crucial for communication and de-escalation.

For example, municipal coordinators describe their role as connecting associations, maintaining communication channels, and ensuring that local actors can respond collectively in times of crisis. Civil society leaders, including religious and community figures, often step in to support conflict resolution or provide trusted mediation where formal institutions lack legitimacy.

At the same time, many of these practitioners are fully aware that their work is constrained. They are not in a position to address structural inequalities such as segregation, poverty, or institutional mistrust. Instead, they manage the consequences of these conditions on a daily basis.

---

The Ambivalence of Care Work

A recurring theme in interviews is the tension between immediate social impact and long-term structural reproduction. Many practitioners recognize that their efforts improve daily life—supporting young people, creating safe spaces, and strengthening community ties—but also risk stabilizing a broader system that produces inequality.

Some express concern that partnerships with private actors or performance-driven urban policies may even contribute to processes like gentrification or uneven development. Others describe emotional strain, burnout, or frustration at being tasked with treating symptoms rather than causes.

Care in this sense becomes politically ambiguous. It is simultaneously necessary and insufficient: without it, communities would face immediate harm; with it, structural critique and systemic change may be delayed or diluted.

---

Caring for Democracy as Political Labor

Reframing these practices as democracy care shifts the analytical focus. It highlights that democracy is not sustained only through formal institutions but through everyday relational work that enables cooperation, legitimacy, and shared problem-solving.

However, this perspective also raises difficult questions: Who performs this care? Under what conditions? And to whose benefit? Care for democracy can stabilize existing systems, including unequal ones, rather than transform them.

This dual character is central. Democracy care is not inherently emancipatory. It is a form of political labor that can both resist and reproduce neoliberal structures.

---

Conclusion: Living with the Contradictions of Care

The concept of democracy care helps reveal a hidden layer of democratic life: the everyday practices that sustain social trust and collective functioning. These practices are essential, yet often undervalued and politically constrained.

The central tension is not whether care is good or bad, but how it operates within unequal systems. In a caring society, care supports justice and solidarity. In an uncaring one, it becomes a fragile mechanism that holds together conditions it cannot fundamentally change.

Those engaged in this work are therefore constantly navigating contradiction: acting to support people in need while operating within structures that may perpetuate the very conditions they are trying to mitigate.

Democracy, in this sense, depends not only on institutions and rights, but on care that is both necessary and deeply ambivalent.

---