Thinking with Maria Puig de la Bellacasa’s Matters of Care: Concerns, Care, and Justice

Abstract

Social justice has become the panacea for all types of concerns and issues—providing a sense that all concerns are worthwhile, comprehensive, and matter for today’s world. Thus, developing alternative concepts, ideas, and imaginaries can potentially provide solid grounds for scholars to advance beyond conventional understandings about social justice. Therefore, this manuscript aims to experiment with ethics of care as a conceptual device to disrupt Trumpism, as well as propose alternative worlds where sport, youth/athlete development, and social justice can connect otherwise. Specifically, efforts will be deployed to advance notions concerning sport–social justice in ways beyond our contemporary understandings. The work of feminist theorist and scholar Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (and many other human, non-human and more-than-human entities) is used to situate care as a relational doing. Moving forward, alternative worlds with alternative caring responsibilities matter if youth sport is to continuously thrive for justice. The conventional game of sport–social justice inquiry may have consequences and implications for caring that may be deemed unsustainable and continued sources of oppression. Therefore, caring becomes much more than a fact, a concern, or a concept. It becomes an ontological compromise, an ideal, and an ontological project for scholarly work, which implies a willingness to navigate towards the unknown and unprecedented—potentially our main caring responsibility as scholars.

1. Introduction

I believe I want to care for the right things and take risks, but am I willing to take many risks? Is this really the case? … Am I simply concerned about troubling issues? Am I able to actually care beyond simply being concerned as postulated by Maria Puig de la Bellacasa? I do not have answers to these questions. I only know that I want to care, live with care and care for. I want to strive for justice and for things that are yet to come for me-others. There are many things about care I do not know, but that I am eager to find out, explore, and engage with. Where do I “start”? Is there a “good way” to “start”? Again, I do not know…

This is the point where this manuscript should “start”. Conventionally, starting is always paramount—where, when, and how to initiate reasoning—as ending is also pivotal as a way to point to best practices, recommendations, and prescriptions, i.e., what is to be added to the literature pile (cf. Barad, 2010). However, I1 will opt by not starting (neither ending) but attempting to help the reader engage with troubles, troubling times, and troubling responsibilities (Haraway, 2007; Latour, 2004).

I have no answers, as alluded to in my opening statement—at least no conventional answers to conventional questions. In essence, my efforts are to help the reader, myself, stare, and glance at troubling questions and potentially position increased possibilities for what is conventionally designated as sport–social justice.2 Indeed, throughout recent years scholars have been increasingly interested in investigating how to use sport, particularly youth sport, as a platform to foster social justice by posing provocative interrogations concerning equity, diversity, and inclusion, as well as providing voices to vulnerable populations across socio-cultural contexts (Tarr et al., 2023; Turgeon et al., 2023; Tyler et al., 2020).

Despite the merits of these scholarly efforts, social justice has become a victim of knowledge politics. According to Latour (1993), changes in epistemology necessarily imply changes in politics—knowledge is political. Knowledge politics have objectified and tokenized social justice, ignoring the complexities and intricate nature of today’s world. Hence, there have been criticisms made towards the usage of social justice, as a concept and practice, stemming from diverse ontological perspectives and viewpoints (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2023; Bozalek et al., 2017; Levin, 2019). One of these criticisms resides in the fact that social justice has become the panacea for all types of concerns and issues—providing a sense that all concerns are worthwhile, comprehensive, and matter for today’s world. Moreover, social justice-associated research (i.e., research explicitly grounded on social justice tenets) has in some cases failed to disrupt the status quo and inherently perpetuates normative notions concerning vulnerable populations. For instance, research on vulnerable groups, although well intended, can also create silos and further segregate such populations (Kulick et al., 2018). Also, methodology and sophisticated methods have been positioned as paramount by scholars that intend to investigate social justice. However, less emphasis has been placed on alternative concepts, ideas, imaginaries and ultimately on changing the lens that guide the way scholars inquire, explore, and experiment with social justice (Pillow, 2019). Therefore, this manuscript becomes a humble and always just–unjust effort to care for a line of inquiry that has fueled many studies, grants and Special Issues such as this one, but concurrently has prompted many questions concerning what is to come for sport (Adamson et al., 2022; Dart, 2024; Ponciano Núñez & Carter, 2025).

Moving forward, let us try to situate some of the troubles, troubling, times and troubling responsibilities inherent to contemporary ways of living–thinking (Latour, 2004). Care, sport, development, providing care, being cared for, and feeling happy, sad, and lost, feeling excluded, ignored, subject to violence, being violent, being racist, a victim of racism, and being positioned as a target or targeting—(social) justice exists and becomes at the intersection of all the above (Ferman, 2021; Kluch, 2020). Equity, diversity, and inclusion, amongst other social justice-related concerns, have been subject to an erasure attempt through politics. Thus, sport is not immune to the impacts of these politics of erasure (Agyemang et al., 2020; Darnell & Millington, 2018). For instance, in 2025, President Trump mandated that all equity, diversity, and inclusion-associated funding be terminated and directly targeted trans athletes by stating the need to develop sport programs that are for men and women only. In light of these trends, events and knowledge politics, it is important to consider as stated by Giroux (2023) the following:

Every era produces a language and cultural markers that offer insights into its politics, values, and vision of the past, present and future. This is especially true regarding the economic, public, and cultural influence of the Trump presidency and mode of governance. Trumpism is not limited to the personal behavior of Donald Trump. It refers less to a person than to a dangerous movement and social base and operates as a social pathology whose endpoint is the destruction of democracy itself. As a new cultural and political construct, Trumpism merges a ruthless capitalist rationality, widening inequality, and a commitment to white supremacy.

(p. 660)

Ideological warfare and ‘radicalness’ are at their pinnacle in today’s world (Giroux, 2024; Uba & Bosi, 2022). There are many forms and vehicles for violence (e.g., social media, politics, cultural erasure), but it is undeniable that ideological warfare has been pushed to its limits in the current contemporary landscape (Daniel et al., 2024; Giroux, 2023), posing complex questions for scholars who wish and claim the need for social change (Love et al., 2019). Ideological warfare and ‘radicalness’ contaminate every aspect of our lives such as academic life, family, politics, economics, nature–culture, among many others. Trumpism and extreme right-wing propaganda have created troubling doors for what is yet to come for youth, education, and inevitably sport (see Giroux, 2023, for an overview of the politics of Trumpism).

Moving Giroux’s (2023) conceptualization forward, Trumpism can be understood as a source of ontological violence (i.e., limiting what living and reality can be for all others and all things) that aims to maximize a neoliberal agenda that oppresses, discriminates and obliterates diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreover, Trumpism can make justice promotion a mirage for human, non-human, and more-than-human beings, which also impacts sport, particularly youth sport. As such, Trumpism operates across diverse societal levels, including the youth sport realm. Indeed, youth sport has been deemed as a context where youth (and many other things) encounter significant privilege–power–oppression dynamics (Agyemang et al., 2020; Bishop et al., 2023; Newman et al., 2024).

Despite this troubling reality, youth sport scholarship continues to be ruled, for the most part, by neoliberal concerns, particularly by the frenetic production demands of contemporary academia (Macdonald, 2023). Youth sport scholars, in some cases, have stayed in the sidelines by giving scant attention to the (inter)penetrating influences and forces of Trumpism and other -isms (e.g., neoliberalism, capitalism; Karlsson et al., 2022; Stemhagen & Hytten, 2025). However, it should be noted that thinking unconventionally and providing increased alternatives to think/do youth sport is challenging (Dowling, 2024; Lang, 2022; Matthews et al., 2024).

Hence, the brutal attacks of Trumpism on gender identity, race, diversity, justice, social justice, and all that concerns ethics of care may need to be addressed. The costs of such attacks include the promotion of erasure (i.e., erasing culture, history, nature and certain voices) and numbness (i.e., lack of ability to stay with the trouble as highlighted by Haraway, 2016). These costs shape the way youth sport has been positioned, sold to the masses, and investigated, as well as how sport-based interventions have been delivered (Adamson et al., 2022; Cunningham et al., 2019; Whitley, 2025). In some cases, sport-based interventions have made youth athletes ready for ideological warfare, particularly to oppress/be oppressed, stay numb, docile, and serve the status quo (Ronkainen et al., 2020, 2022).

As highlighted by Camiré (2023b), sport-based interventions have been typically based on ‘we’ and ‘them’ divides, which creates challenges in terms of justice and sustainability, and can ultimately reinforce privilege–power–oppression dynamics. Other scholars through posthumanist lens have also attempted to reimagine sport-based interventions towards more just processes by acknowledging the relationality of existence, learning, and development (Avner et al., 2024; Gearity et al., 2019; Kerr et al., 2022). This line of inquiry can provide alternative ontological lens through which scholars can question sport-based programming and social justice.

As stated by Camiré (2023a), “Given our precarious planetary state, siloed humanist approaches to doing coaching science may no longer be enough. Generative transdisciplinary cross-pollination is needed, with questions asked and problems tackled from imaginative ontological positionings” (p. 19). Thus, scholars have attempted to (re)think sport at the ontological level aiming to pave the way for more ethical and just doings (Fullagar, 2017; Giardina, 2017). Nonetheless, how can youth sport scholars create alternatives for coaches, social workers and other professionals across disciplines to care for justice? Conventionally,3 as highlighted at the onset of this manuscript, scholars interested in investigating and contributing to sport–social justice have attempted to pose important and timely questions about what is to come for vulnerable populations, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., Bishop et al., 2023). These scholarly efforts have sought to place social justice as a resource to determine what matters part of the political agenda. Through a humanistic/anthropocentric ontology, scholars have highlighted how the ‘social’ (i.e., bidirectional relationships between humans) is the centerpiece of justice in/with/for sport (Camiré et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the uneven agentic powers of some humans over others, the pernicious impact of sport, and the rise of inequities and exclusion are indeed troubling.

Many times, I have wondered and hesitated in writing this manuscript, struggling with the following question: are humanistic thinking and the current forces at stake within sport–social justice research making matters worse? This is why this manuscript is not a critique or an attempt to dismantle previous scholarly work. Conversely, this manuscript aims to care for such scholarly work, but staying with the trouble, which may help scholars envision alternative ways to think/do/live. As an attempt to increase possibilities for the becomings of sport–social justice, the purpose of this critical commentary is to explore possibilities for sport–social justice inquiry through de la Bellacasa’s (2010, 2012, 2017) ethics of care.

Despite the willingness to position sport–social justice otherwise, this is a challenging exercise filled with uncertainties and troubling questions as existence itself (Bozalek et al., 2017). Contrasting with conventional academic exercises and modes of thinking–doing centered on control, reproduction, and reflection (Tronto, 2018), this manuscript aims to use ethics of care as a conceptual device to disrupt Trumpism, as well as propose alternative worlds where sport, youth/athlete development, and social justice can connect and become otherwise. Specifically, efforts will be deployed to advance notions with sport–social justice in ways beyond our immediate/current understanding. The work of feminist theorist and scholar Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (2010, 2012, 2017) is used to situate care as a relational doing and use such ontological reasoning to reimagine sport–social justice.

The concepts of matters of concern and matters of care are deployed to provide alternative imaginaries that can help steer sport–social justice inquiry towards ethical and just lives. To achieve this, this manuscript is divided into three sections: (1) matters of concern and care; (2) ethico-political implications; and (3) caring responsibilities. The first section focuses on describing the concepts of matters of concern and matters of care through Bruno Latour’s and Maria Puig de la Bellacasa’s scholarship. Specifically, this section will allude to the ontological underpinnings of caring and thinking with care. The second section aims to provide implications for youth sport inquiry. At this time, social justice will now become matters of care due to the ontological juxtaposition adopted. Finally, the last section will provide prompts for scholars and instigate the development of caring responsibilities for inquirers interested in sport, particularly youth sport.

2. Matters of Concern and Care

Based on Latour’s (1987) contributions, de la Bellacasa (2010, 2012, 2017) highlights the value of ‘matters of concern’ as an entry point for approaching scientific reasoning, politics and existence. This approach towards scientific reasoning, politics, and existence derives from the need to envision more sustainable ways to live and do science, as well as connect with the world. Focusing on ‘matters of concern’, as an ethical approach, implies that science and knowledge are not apolitical and passive objects that makeup existence. Politics lie at the core of how scholars think, live, act, and ultimately do science. Conventionally, scholars have focused on ‘facts’—evidence-based connotations about other humans and their ecologies. More than ‘matters of concern’, which will be explained throughout this section, for the most part, scholars have been focused on ‘matters of fact’. ‘Matters of fact’ are based on the understanding that humans are responsible for knowledge and science. Such anthropocentric ontology allocates control and agency over to humans—things and matter do not matter. In other words, the world is of humans and for humans as things and matter become passive inhabitants.

Conversely, considering ‘matters of concern’ as an ethical resource to think inquiry/practice requires an ontological shift. Such an ontological shift refers to the fact that, through this lens, individuals and things matter and both are recognized as having agentic capacities and properties. Things such as care, politics, youth, sport, nature, and culture have animated powers (Latour, 1993, 1999). Thus, care is not of humans or a thing to give or take. Instead, care becomes with the human, non-human, and more-than-human (e.g., youth sport politics can care for humans and vice versa).

‘Matters of concern’ highlight the importance of acknowledging the “liveliness of things” (de la Bellacasa, 2010, p. 87) and caring/being concerned for all things—respecting all issues critical for a more just world. Beyond humanist morality—that is only centered on caring for/with humans (i.e., social justice; Levin, 2019)—‘matters of concern’ focuses on accepting vulnerability and embracing other’s concerns (Latour, 2004; i.e., the human, non-human and more-than-human). As postulated by Latour (2005), thingpolitics represents a way to give things a political voice within the democratic stage, highlighting the importance of exploring the politics of the posthuman.

Based on a relational ontology, ‘matters of concern’ acknowledge the fact that an individualistic “I” becomes a collective “we” as individual entities become assemblages (i.e., a set of caring responsibilities and relationalities; Barad, 2010). Alternate forms of caring and alternate worlds are always entangled with conventional ones—there is not a separation or a cut from/with the past. Through a relational ontology, de la Bellacasa’s (2010) invites us to think with and dissent within as things are always entangled with one another. Through ‘matters of concern’, scholars do not deploy critique, judgement, and dismantle ideas. Conversely, scholars accept all concerns as valid and consider their study interests and assumptions as temporary, volatile, and ultimately fragile. A respectful ethos of knowledge production requires scholars to consider how knowledge politics operate, particularly the effects and affects of powerful human interests that impact thinking–doing. Such powerful human interests and what is deemed as valid knowledge can create worlds that are unjust, exclusive, and unsustainable. This is why Latour (2005) highlights the importance of the critique of critique—remaining vigilant towards concepts, theory, and their usage.

Based on the work of Latour (1993, 1999), de la Bellacasa’s (2012) introduces the notion of ‘matters of care’, highlighting the importance of posing questions such as what do we care for and care with? It should be noted that caring has been conceptualized across the coaching science literature through humanistic lens (e.g., Cronin, 2023; Dohsten et al., 2018). Indeed, previous scholarly work has attempted to investigate and explore how caring coaching can impact coaches and athletes’ experiences in sport (Gano-Overway, 2021; Lewis et al., 2022).

Through conventional lenses, caring coaching has been positioned as a set of processes and mechanisms that aim to consider social, political, and cultural influences on coach–athlete relationships and foster “good” caring (Lewis et al., 2022). Thus, rooted in ‘matters of concern’, ‘matters of care’ become a way to act and intervene, taking a stance towards ours’/others’ caring responsibilities in an entangled world. Moreover, social justice as caring becomes an issue of belonging with. This is why caring is used by de la Bellacasa (2012) as the overarching concept instead of concern (i.e., care implies engagement with as concerns may simply imply recognition of). de la Bellacasa’s (2012) conceptualization of care goes beyond ‘looking out for another’ and is deeply rooted in a relational ontology (i.e., looking out for me is looking out for you). Coaches may see themselves as important and athletes as uncomplete humans. Through de la Bellacasa’s (2012) thinking, coaches and athletes are inherently linked and forever entangled. Although they have diverse agentic capacities (i.e., a coach may have agency over athletes’ possibilities to move), they become through their entanglement, which also includes non-human and more-than-human voices (e.g., ecologies, nature–culture). Therefore, when coaches create additional possibilities for athletes to move they also open alternative possibilities for them to coach, for coaching, and for the non-human and more-than-human to become.

Therefore, care is positioned as a thinking practice and a doing that acknowledges the complexities of the world, as well as its relationality and ongoingness (i.e., the world is always becoming). As stated by de la Bellacasa (2012), “Caring and relating thus share conceptual and ontological resonance. In worlds made of heterogeneous interdependent forms and processes of life and matter, to care about something, or for somebody, is inevitably to create relation” (p. 198).

Through/with caring, corrosive critique becomes adding layers of caring responsibilities and becoming entangled with the troubles (i.e., taking care of). Taken together, care becomes an ethical doing standing between choice and obligation. For instance, helping an athlete in a practice session may be both a choice and an obligation for a given coach influenced by politics, culture, practice spaces, technology and many other non-human and more-than-human voices. Ethical doings of care live through/with the human, non-human and more-than-human as all require and deserve care. Thus, in the next section, efforts will be deployed to identify questions, doubts, and troubles derived from thinking with care as postulated by de la Bellacasa (2017), particularly when exploring ethico-political implications for/with youth sport.

3. Ethico-Political Implications

Human interests and agendas may need to be questioned as we, as youth sport scholars, duel with the complexity of the world, sport, youth sport, and social justice. As this section becomes through text–thinking–reading–doing, a sense of care (more than simply concern) takes over and instills numerous alternative caring responsibilities. The challenge for scholars who wish to embrace this ontological project is caring as best they can via youth sport. The centerpiece of this ontological project becomes justice, an epistemology of not knowing and seeking increased possibilities in the time given to us to experience life with the world, particularly youth sport—the space that youth sport scholars inhabit. Hence, this is a humble attempt to think with de la Bellacasa (2010, 2012, 2017), who actively lives, argues and discusses through these words. Hopefully, this section cares sufficiently for/with the concepts advanced by her scholarly work as the journey of engaging with posthumanism unfolds.

The anthropocentric enterprise inherent to conventional sport–social justice inquiry has consequences on knowledge politics—what knowledges can become-cease to exist and how thinking–doing unfolds (Latour, 1993, 1999). Conventional sport–social justice inquiry and humanistic morality has raised several questions about (a) what some humans should/must do to other humans within the youth sport context; (b) attempted to use social justice as a passive object that can be promoted, fostered and made present or absent; and (c) erased non-human and more-than-human issues from youth sport inquiry (e.g., environment, policy, religion) and fostered limited caring responsibilities. Moreover, youth sport scholars have centered their attention on the self and on methodology, methods and ultimately reflection—reproducing a linear and controllable world where youth sport is, but does not become otherwise. With such reasoning, scholars can limit the proposition of speculative worlds but ensure the perpetuation of normative ones.

Through ‘matters of care’, there is much to explore, inquire about, and grasp in what is designated as the becomings of youth sport. Through de la Bellacasa’s (2017) propositions, thinking–inquiring become web-making ways to put forth alternative worlds that seek justice in the making—worlds with youth sport where all matter matters (e.g., the performativity of the justice–politics–sport–coaches assemblage). Within a relational ontology, justice is always becoming, it is a relational doing, it is yet to come. As postulated by de la Bellacasa (2012), justice can be positioned as “creating other relations, other possibilities of existence, namely other beings” (p. 200)—matters of care.

Rather than conforming to erasures in youth sport, as well as with fixed identities, roles and responsibilities, youth sport scholars can interpret the meanings and performativity of things and advance alternative caring responsibilities. Continuing to think with de la Bellacasa’s (2017), matters of care can enable youth sport scholars to move through/with erasures and ask alternative questions (not opposing/better questions). For instance, can matters of Trumpism, religion, technology, science, nature–culture and segregation be taken care of? Can alternative youth sports become part of scholars’ speculative reasoning? Indeed, “our modes of thought as well as our research ethos affect the politics we attribute to our objects” (de la Bellacasa, 2010, p. 86).

Moving forward, youth sport scholars can devote care towards undervalued and typically neglected issues, and carefully consider how they have defined ‘important things’ and erased ‘irrelevant ones’. Pondering the consequences of this ontological choice may become critical for care to take place. Through de la Bellacasa’s (2017) matters of care, such dichotomic and reductionist reasoning becomes thinking with. More than applying concepts (that entails that concepts are passive things), prescribing (reality is, does not become) and being self-centered (an ontology of the self), matters of care invites youth sport scholars to think ontologically, philosophically, and ultimately relationally. Within such ontology, methodology and methods become incommensurable. In other words, methods and methodology arrive late for justice and measure what is there–not there.

Therefore, through a relational ontology that highlights the agency of all things, youth sport scholars can achieve the following: (a) explore socio-political assemblages; (b) question how a caring world can become in youth sport; and (c) investigate how things have ethico-political and affective effects. Ultimately, youth sport inquiry can serve as ways to give things a political voice and wonder on the caring responsibilities of all beings—questioning and further understanding the agentic capacities of all beings. Affect, ethics, politics, and shared agency can help scholars consider complex and populated worlds (that involve webs of relations between the human, non-human and more-than-human; Haraway, 2007). Such complex and populated worlds can pave the way for youth sports that are yet to come that can become sustainable relations between–with all beings.

Ontology grounded in relationality and interdependency challenges and invites youth sport scholars to consider how relations imply caring responsibilities and inevitably consequences. For instance, erasing matters of Trumpism, religion, technology, science, nature–culture, history–time, colonialization, and segregation creates a specific set of caring responsibilities for youth sport scholars and consequences for relations. Thingpolitics, as postulated by de la Bellacasa (2017) through Latour (2004), highlights the need to ponder justice as a more-than-human issue. Refusing the objectification of all things through inquiry can create alternative spaces to care, expanding our conventional understandings about the ‘needs of others’ and concerning who are ‘meaningful others’.

Social justice becomes sustainable relations between–with all beings (i.e., multispecies justice) as youth sport inquiry can help advance alternative worlds, imaginaries and lives where youth–sport–coaching–coach developing–ecologies connect otherwise. Hence, youth sport scholars can attempt to provide temporary answers to questions such the following: What alternative proposals for coaching and coach developing (i.e., coach education as a becoming) can be developed? How can these proposals instigate unconventional understandings about youth sport that seek more just becomings for all beings?

4. Caring Responsibilities: Potential Pathways Moving Forward

Matters of care invites youth sport scholars to care with and care for as postulated by de la Bellacasa (2017). This manuscript is simply a becoming of thinking–reading–doing with de la Bellacasa (2010, 2012, 2017) and others (Latour, 1987, 1993, 1999, 2004, 2005), as well as the non-human and more-than-human. Through this ontological compromise, there are no tangible outcomes that should come as a result of this manuscript, which is honestly quite liberating. Conversely, this manuscript’s performativity entails caring for youth sport’s past–present, identifying alternate futures, as well as wondering within the web of relations (assemblages) that make up human, non-human, and more-than-human existence. Ultimately, this manuscript has become “my” caring responsibility for youth sport scholarship, particularly with regards to a line of inquiry conventionally designated as sport–social justice. Nonetheless, I humbly recognize how thinking–reading–doing with care is complex and requires reading as postulated by St. Pierre (2024). This is not an easy task.

Moving forward, alternative worlds with alternative caring responsibilities matter if youth sport is to continuously thrive for justice. As pointed out by Lorde (1984), “For the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change” (p. 112). The conventional game of sport–social justice inquiry may have consequences and implications for caring that may be deemed unsustainable and continued sources of oppression.

Therefore, through relational ontology, youth sport scholars are invited to experiment, observe, feel, and become otherwise. Ideas, concepts and words are not to be thought/written about and forgotten—they are thinking–doing, a matter of existence. Moving forward, we invite youth sport scholars and practitioners to reimagine coaching and coach developing through matters of care by acknowledging the incommensurable possibilities for these to become otherwise. Becoming otherwise requires us all to (re)think about what things can do. Beyond static connotations towards the world, the challenge becomes to position what is not here and is yet to come—how can coaching and coach developing move beyond the conventional box? This is not a process only for and with humans, but an entanglement that involves non-human and more-than-human active voices such as technology, nature–culture, politics, and religion. Ultimately, speculative worlds can become through thinking–reading–doing, which inherently provides increased possibilities for things to be, perform, and seek justice. Caring is much more than a fact, a concern or a theory. It is an ontological compromise, an ideal and a project for scholarly work, which implies a willingness to navigate towards the unknown and unprecedented—potentially our caring responsibility as scholars in a complex world.