Conclusion and Discussion

194

noisy disturbances, considered as taking away valuable time from the direct user time and hence as contributing to the efficiency and quality problem instead of to its solution. I have argued that as such the proxy role is made up not least of expectations of failed expectations. On a final note, the proxy role is difficult to pin in either a complementarity or substitution relationship to public eldercare – I assert the closest being the proxy as expected to in a strictly limited way and time complement public eldercare in improving efficiency and quality.

195

Ultimately, I have also demonstrated the availability of a fifth role as an opponent and a conflict relationship between the relative and the public eldercare constructed alongside the proxy and the co-responsible other roles, entailing expectations of failed expectations of these two ideal roles. I maintain that what we witness is an eldercare policy which cast relatives, who fail to meet the expectations of the proxy and the co-responsible other, in the role of an opponent to public eldercare and as such as part of the efficiency and quality problem, not the solution. As such, the opponent role stabilizes expectations of how to continue further eldercare communication in case of such failed expectations. As such the opponent role reduces uncertainty as it did in the previous period, but as it is constructed with a new function of public eldercare it is now other expectations of other failed expectations that are condensed in the role.

With five roles available for the relative and three relationships to possible expect between the relative and public eldercare, I assert that an open contingency is constructed in the years between 1995-2009 regarding which role and relationship to connect to. With the opponent role and conflict relationship also still prevailing, I also assert that the open contingency as to whether to address the relative in further eldercare communication as a resource or an opponent also still prevails. But importantly, as I have argued, such uncertainty is not left unaddressed in the eldercare policy between 1995 and 2009.

I have argued that the years from 1995-2009 are characterized by what I term as an eldercare policy in desire of standardization and certainty of what to expect from the relative. While the social dimension of both the proxy and the co-responsible other roles is postponed to be decided in the local eldercare communication, the eldercare policy has strictly limited both their thematical and temporal engagements.

What I have brought to the fore is also how the uncertainty about whether to expect the relative in the role as a proxy or a co-responsible other and exactly how and when to expect and address the relative in the two roles is absorbed with the NPM management tools. The tools condition what role and relationship to address the relative in, how and when and as such they close the open contingency as to which of several available roles to connect to, how and when. I claim that, as such, the management tools come to function as role uncertainty reducing machines conditioning how and when the relative is to be addressed in the different roles in further eldercare communication. Moreover, I have brought to the fore also how the role as an opponent function as a means of uncertainty reduction. The role condenses expectations of failed

196

expectations, that is uncertainty about whether the relative enacts the proxy and co-responsible other role in accordance with the temporal and thematical limits set in the eldercare policy, and as such the opponent role is made available for the continuation of local eldercare communication in case of failed expectations. In other words, the role reduces uncertainty about how to address failed expectations in further eldercare communication. As such I claim that also contingency as to which ideal to adhere to in further eldercare communication – whether to address the relative in the role as an opponent, and as such, as part of the efficiency and quality problem, or in the role as a resource, and as such, a part of the efficiency and quality solutions - is also closed with this specific construction of the opponent role. The strict limits defined to the proxy and co-responsible other roles, the opponent role defined as the opposite of such specific enactments of the proxy and co-responsible other role, and the management tools defining the limits, altogether condition when further eldercare communication is expected to connect to the opponent role or one of the two resource roles.

Hence the only uncertainty produced in the period, which I have found no attempts to address in the eldercare policy is the open contingency as regards which expectations to connect to with the roles as co-receiver, which has now sustained through three different periods in my story of the relative, and the role of a burdened caregiver returning at this point in the eldercare policy.

I ponder that the two roles carry with them an open contingency and thus postpone an uncertainty to the local eldercare communications as to which of the changing expectations which during time has been condensed in the roles, further eldercare communication is to connect to. The role as a co-receiver is a role having thus far both condensed expectations of how the relative is as burdened and unqualified a caregiver as to be more likely expected to be a receiver of eldercare itself, than a caregiver; expectations of how the relative poses competencies and resources complementary and superior to the public eldercare which the public eldercare was expected to enact by approaching the relative as a receiver of services; and expectations of how the relative in order to substitute the public eldercare and thus enable a retrenchment of public eldercare must be supported itself by public eldercare in order to carry the burdens of caregiving. The roles as a burdened caregiver and a co-receiver simply appears different with the different roles they are co-constructed with over time. Importantly this is a postponed uncertainty which I have found no reflections of in the eldercare policy between 1995 and 2009.

197

Besides once again having demonstrated the relationship between the relative and the public eldercare to be a mix of different relationships with both a care-relationship and a conflict-relationship and a, to my story of the relative, new type of substitution conflict-relationship where it is now the relative as a co-responsible other who is expected to substitute public eldercare, there are two points of engagement I will make with the eldercare literature based on my findings in this chapter.

As far as the literature on the role of the relative goes, I have already summarized the changes, I have so far demonstrated in the role of a proxy over 30 years and the role of a co-receiver over 40 years. Notably, demonstrating how these roles, which are also identified in the existing literature, during time have been constructed with changing functions and relationships of public eldercare condensing quite different expectations. This all serves as part of my argument that these roles, that one might perceive as stable, uniform roles, when reading the existing literature, are in fact containing an open contingency in and of themselves as to which expectations local eldercare communication connects to when addressing the relative in the two roles. As concerns the role as a caregiver I have with this chapter added additional insights to the complexity of this role. By showing that the relative as waning as caregiver is no longer a theme of the policy, instead the relative is now considered to be a caregiver who can substitute public eldercare and who is both considered qualified to meet social needs but also more practical hands-on caregiving tasks. Thus, even more expectations have been added to what can possible be expected of the relative when addressed as a caregiver, and as such more uncertainty has been generated and travels along with the role, so to speak.

My second point of engagement with the eldercare literature based on my findings in this chapter is with the historical studies of eldercare. Whereas I in the eldercare policy from 1995 to 2009 have identified a desire of public eldercare retrenchment, same as identified in the historical studies, I have also demonstrated how rather than merely a retrenchment what can be observed, when one observes the eldercare policy’s expectations towards the relative, is a budding of public eldercare. Public eldercare is expected to provide services to relatives aimed at not having to provide services to elderly citizens - I assert this is more like a budding than a retrenchment.