This chapter focuses on the ways in which interviewees talk about care in their relationships. The main focus is on the repertoires that people draw on . I begin with some theoretical explorations regarding the ways in which repertoires are identified and how meanings are created in talk and text. As part of this early section of the chapter, I draw out the epistemological debate between realism (commenting on traditional professional practice in relation to informal care) and relativism (the discursive enterprise).

The majority of this chapter is taken up with a presentation of interviewees’ accounts alongside analysis that indicates the ways that repertoires of care are worked up and drawn on in talk. Each repertoire is discussed in terms of the ideological business that is performed within the talk; that is, the work that is accomplished in fostering common-sense assumptions of what care is or should be. The repertoires discussed in this chapter all relate directly to care and are referred to as:

• • ‘informal care’ – talk that explicitly notes identities of ‘carer’ and ‘caree’;

• • ‘normative family care’ – talk where identities are restricted to family roles and the expected, ordinary and natural event of helping relatives;

• • ‘formal care’ – talk reinforcing the professional nature of care;

• • ‘illness/disability care’ – talk that focuses on the physical nature of the need for care, drawing on medical models;

• • ‘positive/beneficial care’ – talk that includes a moral evaluation of care, deeming it to be good, useful and appropriate;

• • ‘negative/harmful care’ – talk that includes a moral evaluation of care, deeming it to be bad, unhelpful and inappropriate.

There are many commonalities between these categories and the published literature. Relevant publications are quoted toward the end of each section to locate each repertoire in the academic field, since academic accounts, as well as lay talk about care, draw on these resources. Consequently the interactions, between ‘official’ accounts of care and participants’ own accounts of their relationships, are drawn out.

Constructing meanings

There are multiple types of interaction available for analysis within this book. What I aim to do in this short section is to clarify the range of interactions within the dialogue, and indicate how they shape the analysis that follows.