Poiesis o Ca e: The Aes he ic-Pe o ma i e Value o Delicacy
Ma ía Jesús Godoy Domínguez
Abs ac
In his pape , he e hics o ca e is add essed om an aes he ic pe spec i e by analysing
he poiesis o ca e, o ca e om he pe o ma i e aspec o i s physical execu ion. To his
end, delicacy is unde s ood as a sensi i e p ope y o ca e, an aes he ic language whe e
he subjec , assuming an ac i e ole, becomes an ‘a is ’ in he e e yday ealm. The main
hesis is ha he subjec is a ca egi e who exp esses delicacy in hei e e yday ges u es
and a i udes wi h he people and objec s a ound hem. To de elop his idea, fi s ,
delicacy is concep ually cha ac e ized wi hin he amewo k o mode n aes he ics, while
explo ing i s p emode n an eceden s. Then, body posing is analyzed, whe e he subjec ’s
physical p oximi y o he beneficia y o ca e makes he sense o ouch a p io i y ac o .
Las ly, he conclusion eached is ha delicacy in ca e, when p ac iced uni e sally and on
a daily basis, makes he wo ld a be e place.
Key Wo ds
ca e, e e yday aes he ics, delicacy, poiesis, ac
1. Aes he ics o Ca e
Following Yu iko Sai o, he sphe es o e hics and aes he ics a e in e wined and en ich
each o he by con e ging in he unique alue o ca e. The e o e, i could be a gued ha
he e a e bo h e hically g ounded aes he ics –aes he ic ca e based on a ce ain se o
mo als – and aes he ically guided e hics –e hical ca e exp essed h ough o mal and
senso y means.[1] Howe e , while ca e om an e hical pe spec i e seems o be clea ly
unde s ood, ca e om an aes he ic pe spec i e seems o be mo e ambiguous. This migh
be because he heo e ical de elopmen o he e hics o ca e has had o e o y yea s o
consolida e he idea ha ca e in ol es no only a oiding ha ming o simply espec ing
o he s –as se in he Kan ian-de i ed e hics o jus ice[2]– bu also sa egua ding o he s’
wel a e by pe o ming app op ia e ac ions o co e hei needs. This is especially pe inen
when he o he o whom ca e is ini ially a ge ed is weak and ulne able, and he e o e
needs help om o he s –who a e p esumably s onge – in o de o es o e and ad ance
hei well-being.[3] In con as , in he eme ging aes he ics o ca e, he e is s ill a long way
o go in o de o define wha i means o be ca ing.
Fo he ime being and hanks o Sai o, we ha e lea ned ha ca e, in an aes he ic sense,
can benefi he subjec indi ec ly, who ecei es ca e ia he objec wi h which hey a e in
close con ac , and also benefi he objec di ec ly, which is hen he ecipien o
ca e.[4] On accoun o James Thompson, we also know ha collabo a i e a is ic
p ac ices such as hea e a e good b eeding g ounds o his ype o ca e, bo h on a small
scale, wi hin he a is ic p ocess i sel –in e dependence and a sense o esponsibili y
among ac o s a e essen ial o a success ul pe o mance– and on a la ge scale, as a
model o be expo ed o human ela ionships in gene al.[5] The same au ho s a es, om
his pe spec i e, ha ca e can be di ided in o h ee successi e in e connec ed s ages,
namely p epa a ion, execu ion, and exhibi ion.[6] Howe e , in pa allel, despi e s essing
he impo ance o ca ing ges u es, ca e as pe o mance and, ul ima ely, manne s, we s ill
do no know wha he aes he ics o ca e ac ually is.[7]
The aim o his pape is o p o ide an answe , om an aes he ic pe spec i e, o he
ollowing ques ion: Wha does i mean o be aes he ically ca ing? In o he wo ds: Does
ca e ha e an aes he ic language o i s own? Is he e a physical ges al ?[8] A kinesics o
ca e? The in en ion he e is o show ha ca e as a o m o non- e bal communica ion, bo h
in gi ing and ecei ing, is exp essed h ough he body, gi en ha ou ca ing o non-ca ing
a i ude is e ealed o o he s ia ou ges u es and co po al mo emen s. Mo eo e , he
objec i e is o es ablish ha he physical exp ession o aes he ic ca e is essen ially
h ough one aspec : delicacy, p esen ed he e as he aes he ic and sensi i e p ope y o
ca e. Thus, in his essay, he eminis -based mo al ca ego y o ca e is co ela ed wi h
delicacy, an eminen ly eminine way o being and ac ing in he wo ld, acco ding o Kan
and he majo i y o Enligh enmen hinke s.[9]
Howe e , his app oach di e s subs an ially om Sai o’s on bodily aes he ics in cul i a ing
mo al i ues.[10] Fo al hough he au ho includes ca e in he lis o i ues, she does no
gi e i a dis inc s a us –as p esen ed he e– bu ea s i on an equal oo ing wi h espec ,
ole ance, accep ance and hospi ali y.[11] E en mo e significan is he ea men she gi es
o he aes he ic exp ession o hese i ues, whe e he epea ed men ion o elegance,
gen leness, g ace, and sub le y con as s sha ply wi h he passing e e ence o delicacy,
which is he en i e subjec o his pape .[12] Delicacy is hus unde ec able e en o he
powe ul aes he ic ada ha Sai o uses in he eflec ions o cap u e his o ically neglec ed
aes he ic phenomena,[13] pa icula ly in he case o he e e yday.
This pape is o ganized as ollows: fi s ly, he aes he ics o delicacy is concep ualized by
d awing on i s heo e ical e e ences in he amewo k o mode n aes he ics, p ima ily
Da id Hume, bu also by acing some o i s p emode n an eceden s, which da e back o
pos -A is o elian he o ic. Secondly, he implemen a ion o delicacy is analyzed, e e ed
o he e as poiesis o ca e, whe e physical p oximi y o he o he – he one ca ed o – makes
he sense o ouch, and all ha is ac ile in gene al, a p io i y ac o . To his end, Richa d
Shus e man’s somaes he ics and Mau ice Me leau-Pon y’s phenomenology a e b ough
in o play, alongside conc e e examples om e e yday li e ha illumina e he p esence and
sensi i i y o delicacy.[14] Finally, he conclusion is ha he aes he ics o ca e, i p ac iced
uni e sally and on a daily basis – o pa aph ase Sai o–, makes he wo ld a be e place.[15]
2. Delicacy, Délica esse, Sua i as
The concep ual design o delicacy in he eigh een h cen u y is con empo a y wi h ha o
as e as he capaci y o he subjec o o mula e a so e eign judgemen abou he objec .
In his con ex , and p ima ily ela ed o B i ish aes he ics, delicacy eme ges as a supe io
quali y o as e, gi ing i a conspicuous sensi i e acui y: delica e as e eaches wha
common as e is no capable and un a els he sub les o nuances. Da id Hume
illus a es his e y well by using a passage om Don Quixo e in which wo wine as e s
make di e en bu equally delica e judgemen s o as e. Unbeknown o he wine as e s,
he e was a key a ached o a lea he co d a he bo om o he a con aining he wine;
he e o e, one de ec ed he as e o lea he and he o he he as e o i on.[16] The
passage also eflec s he p oximi y, e en he o e lap, du ing ha cen u y, be ween
physical as e and aes he ic as e, due o he immediacy wi h which bo h ope a e, despi e
Wes e n philosophy ega ding he o me wi h con emp as i was oo bound o he body,
in con as o o he physical senses as sigh and hea ing, which, ha ing li le o do wi h he
body, we e ega ded mo e a o ably.[17] Fo he B i ish aes he icians, in addi ion o he
pu ely sensi i e, aes he ic as e was delicacy, ei he because he imagina ion ha
os e ed i was also conside ed so, as can be seen in Joseph Addison,[18] o because he
sen imen ha sus ained i was also delica e, so and ende , as in Hume, o
example.[19]
In he eigh een h cen u y, delica e as e also has an o ganic o social explana ion,
depending on whe he he subjec possesses he ai inna ely o has acqui ed i cul u ally.
Fo Addison, he la e o igin gi es ise o he educa ed man wi hou u he ado, while o
Hume, i leads o he ue judge, who, apa om being bo n wi h pe ec senso y o gans
and ou s anding sensibili y, p ac ices con inuous e alua ion and c i ical judgemen . Wi h
he ue judge, delicacy, ini ially an aes he ic, sensi i e ca ego y, a ma e o as e,
becomes an e hical ca ego y; some hing pe ec ly in keeping wi h he mo aliza ion o
beau y ha has been a ibu ed o Hume’s philosophy.[20] This is because, as a
ounda ional aspec o he ue judge,[21] delicacy gi es ise o a whole se ies o skills ha
a e social in appea ance ye e hical in essence, such as pu ing onesel in he place o he
o he , o ge ing he sel and a lack o p ejudice. As he equisi es o any ue judge, hese
skills confi m ha delicacy in Hume goes hand in hand wi h sympa hy, which p omp s us,
by ou e y na u e, o be sociable and li e in ha mony wi h ou equals. This sympa hy
p edisposes us o con e ge ou indi idual as es, howe e dispa a e hey may be, in o jus
one: he mos accep able o being also he mos suppo i e and open o o he s.
Howe e , i we analyze hese skills in de ail and ollow he e olu ion om he young Hume
–p ima ily in A T ea ise o Human Na u e (1740)– o he ma u e Hume –in O he S anda d
o Tas e (1757)–, wha seems o be linked o delicacy is a ai ly incipien empa hy, om
whe e he leap o ca e is easie .[22] Indeed, when he u ili a ian objec on which Hume
had been heo izing in his ea ly w i ings ga e way o he a is ic objec – he poe ic objec ,
o be p ecise– o which his culmina ing essay is de o ed, he a ec i e and, consequen ly,
he mo al dimension a e supe la i ely in ensified. I is as hough, a his poin in his li e,
he me e exchange o emo ions wi h o he s, o which sympa hy was educed in his
you h ul essays, ell sho and Hume op ed o del e deepe in o wha o he s eel.[23] He
e en ually op ed o an a ec i e, mo e in ense, mo e p o ound and, he e o e, mo e
e hical bond, which he nine een h cen u y –al hough no ye Hume– would label empa hy
(Ein ühlung), a concep ha eme ged in he field o his o ical he meneu ics as a ype o
sympa hy capable o b idging empo al dis ance, as can be seen, o example, in Johann
He de .[24]
No in ain, o Hume, delicacy, as a undamen al ai o he ue judge, p e en s hem
om succumbing o pa icula likes and dislikes, and he sympa hies ha na u ally a ise in
e e y indi idual. Mo eo e , delicacy enables he ue judge o a el men ally o he o he –
he audience ha , in Home ’s ime, a ends he hea ical ep esen a ion o he Odyssey,
as Hume himsel exemplifies[25]– o expe ience he o he ’s emo ions he e and hen, in
hei own ci cums ances – he deligh p o oked by Ulysses’ icke y, acco ding o he
p e ious example– by in en ionally abandoning hei own emo ions; some hing ha Edi h
S ein would la e explo e wi h Ein ühlung in he field o phenomenology.[26] In b ie ,
delicacy lends legi imacy o ue judges as subjec s who a e mo e empa he ic han
sympa he ic and, he e o e, incipien ca e s: hey no only connec wi h he close and
simila –as in he young Hume’s cha ac e isa ion o sympa hy–, bu also wi h he di e en
and dis an o he , and hus an icipa e he co- eeling ypical o empa hy in which subjec s
a e awa e o wha he o he eels because hey assume he o he ’s eelings as hei own
and, consequen ly, ac in a o o ha o he .[27]
As he leading eigh een h cen u y heo is on delicacy, Hume aces he p emode n
an eceden s o his ca ego y in his wo k O he S anda d o Tas e, which, ocusing on
poe ic ques ions, is se in a li e a y con ex domina ed by Gallic he o ic. In ac , he
F enchman Jean-Bap is e Dubos is highligh ed as one o he inspi a ional sou ces behind
Hume’s essay;[28] e en mo e, i is belie ed ha , h ough Dubos, Hume migh ha e come
in con ac wi h ano he F enchman, Dominique Bouhou s, o whom delicacy had al eady
become significan when he classicis pos ula es o he F ench Academy became mo e
elaxed in he wake o he Que elle des anciens e des mode nes.[29] This enabled
Bouhou s o con as he aes he ic ideal o cla i y and exac i ude o classical he o ic wi h
a di e en ideal ha had i s aison d’ê e in he enuous, he ague and he imp ecise. This
explains so-called ‘delica e hough ’ (pensée délica e), a succinc concep in which he
sub le y o Ca dano and he acui y o G acián, and he exquisi eness and efinemen o
Cas iglione’s The Cou ie –a hugely influen ial ea ise in se en een h cen u y F ance[30]–
concu ed. In he in e es o délica esse o ‘flowe o he spi i ’ (fleu
d’esp i ),[31] Bouhou s lashes ou a hose who e on he side o excess and
a ec a ion[32] in he li e a y sphe e o a o eloquence p ope , as well as in he social
sphe e, as exhibi ed by I alians and Spania ds in hei lo e o o e -ac ing. Ino dina e and
a ificial, bo h a e an ipodes o he man o fine manne s who se ed as a model o he
eigh een h cen u y man o as e; an enemy o excess who was p one o efinemen and
mode a ion, as can also be seen in Hume.[33]
The Sco ish philosophe also echoes olde he o ical an eceden s, specifically pos -
A is o elian, o which he alludes in di e en passages o his book O he S anda d o Tas e.
Delicacy, e e ed o as sua i as in he Hellenis ic pe iod, is aimed a pe suading an
audience o ake ac ion.[34] I is easy o each he conclusion ha he wo old influence o
e hics and aes he ics, which would be seen la e in he mode n no ion o delicacy, was
al eady inco po a ed in he la e om i s e y beginning, gi en ha he calm and anquil
one o discou se is he ideal medium wi h which o di ec he public owa ds a specific
end. Mo eo e , due o he classical seman ic simila i y
be ween sua is and dulcis,[35] Cice o, he mos eloquen o a o o ancien Rome in
Hume’s iew,[36] is a pains o sepa a e he supe io gen le –sua is– he o ical s yle om
he swee –dulcis– s yle, which can easily be in e p e ed as mawkish, indiges ible and
unpleasan .[37] Thus, he mode a e, balanced Cice onian he o ic, which symbolizes he
e m sua is, p e ailed o e he o e abundance o swee ness, which had made ama o y
poe y eign sup eme, and would do so un il he end o he Renaissance.[38] As a esul ,
delicacy was cha ac e ized as a ma e o empe ance and good judgemen –a ma e
o sua i as–, hence in his dicendi pe i us (‘expe in he o ic’), Quin ilian –ano he o he
e e ed classical o a o s– iden ifies he i bonus (‘good man’);[39] and, ollowing his
example, Hume’s man o as e will be he epi ome o he ue judge.
3. Poiesis o he delicacy o ca e
To speak o poiesis in ca e is o speak o ca e in i s pu ely dynamic, c ea i e aspec . To his
end, poiesis needs o be unde s ood no so much in i s o iginal classical meaning, as
simple physical dex e i y whe e he subjec p o es o be an expe in echne, bu in i s
mode n meaning, as spi i ually ele a ed c ea ion whe e he poie es has infini e esou ces
–owing o hei p olific imagina ion– o ca y ou hei ac ion.[40] This is he meaning
o poiesis ha comes in o play in he pe o mance o ca e h ough he body, which
enables he obse e o ecognize i immedia ely. Howe e , as Sai o highligh s, no all
co po al exp essions o ca e o o he aes he ic i ues will do.[41] In o de o ca e o o he
i ues o become au hen ic, he subjec needs o pay ca e ul a en ion o hei execu ion;
in o he wo ds, ca e mus be delica e and he e o e aes he ic, o i canno be conside ed
ca e. Coa se, ough, c ude, un efined o unpolished ca e, in sho , ca eless ca e, is ne e
ca e. To illus a e his, conside he common ac o a goodnigh kiss. This ges u e may be
execu ed wi h genuine a ec ion and sha ed eye con ac , con eying a sense o complici y
and wa m h. Con e sely, i may be pe o med eluc an ly, accompanied by a sombe
exp ession and a u ning away o he ace. In he o me ins ance, he ac exemplifies
delica e ca e, ep esen ing ca e in i s ues sense. In he la e , he absence o delicacy
ende s he ac ion a emo ed om i uous ca ing.
When ca e is passed h ough he fil e o delicacy, i becomes au hen ic poiesis. I is hen
ha he subjec assumes a uly c ea i e ole, almos like an a is ,[42] pu ing hei body
in delicacy mode in o de o appea ca ing when p ac icing he i ue o ca e. In Mau ice
Me leau-Pon y’s phenomenological e ms, his is equi alen o saying ha h ough
he phenomenal body o knowledge o he many physical op ions ha exis o exp essing
ca e, he subjec modifies hei objec i e body o exp ess he delicacy op ion and hus
succeed in being pe cei ed as ca ing by o he s as well.[43] In o he wo ds, om he he e
and now whe e he sel physically exis s – he place and ime whe e hei objec i e body is
be o e execu ing any ac ion– he subjec is able o an icipa e he sel in he he e and
hen –in he o m o hei phenomenal body– which enables hem o pe o m he ac ion
aes he ically.[44] The sel o he he e and now imme ses i sel ully in he sel o he he e
and hen and, by conscien iously p epa ing, ob ains he desi ed – he delica e–
pe o mance o ca e.
The e o e, he poiesis o ca e ela es o somaes he ic, namely, o own’s own eflec ion on
how one’s own body pe o ms and eels as a li ing en i y. In his ega d, Richa d
Shus e man a gues ha in an a emp o o e come he classic mind/body an agonism,
somaes he ics p oduces a wo old sense o pleasu e: ha o he bodily pe o mance i sel
and ha which is ob ained when we subsequen ly examine ou pe o mance o imp o e
and adjus i as much as possible o wha we ac ually wan o
communica e.[45] Shus e man explains ha sel -knowledge h ough he body leads o
g ea e con ol o ou physical habi s. This enables us o modi y ou habi s i we belie e
hey a e e oneous o deficien , o o eel good abou ou sel es i we belie e we ha e
pe o med a well-execu ed ac ion. The p elimina y s ep owa ds sel -knowledge is
cogni i e acui y, especially when poo pe o mances ha e o be co ec ed o , as in his
s udy, gi en a ce ain aes he ic aspec .[46] This can be achie ed h ough aining, which
helps us o econfigu e ou body and, once achie ed, o pe o m he ac ion o he ull.
Sai o’s geisha example is e y enligh ening: geishas in e nalize ges u es and mo emen s
h ough bodily discipline, which hen ma e ialize spon aneously when he occasion
a ises, u ning such common ac ions as si ing, alking and walking in o
a .[47] Some hing simila happens wi h ca e: a e an in ense bodily awa eness, we can
p ac ice so ha ou mo emen s, ou ges u es, e en ou one o oice, become
p og essi ely delica e in o de o p o ide he bes ca e we a e capable o p o iding.
In sho , once we ealize ha delicacy enables us o become as ca ing as we wan , we
adap ou bodies o become mellowe and kinde . Fo ins ance, when assis ing a pe son
wi h physical disabili ies o ise, we do so no by o ce, bu by gen ly suppo ing hei a ms.
We hus u n ou bodies in o an aes he ic place whe e e e y hing is pe ec ly calcula ed –
he esul o lea ning, jus like he eigh een h cen u y man o as e–, which is no
incompa ible wi h na u alness, e en imp o isa ion, as documen ed in he geisha
example.[48] The admi able hing abou he geisha is ha hey appea delica e by na u e,
ha ing le hemsel es be pe aded by he ha d aining hey ca ied ou . And his is
p ecisely he poin , o he geisha and o us, ha since e ac ions as ca ing do appea o
be genuine o ou ellow human beings, no as a whim, bu as a necessi y:[49] pe o ming
ca e is u ile i he ca e we p o ide, deficien in o m o exp essed inco ec ly –wi h no
delicacy–, does no each anyone;[50] e en less, i ha someone is he beneficia y. This
si ua ion u ns pa icula ly c i ical when he beneficia y is no a me e obse e , as wi h he
geisha, bu a pa ien whose physical and psychological well-being hinges en i ely on he
quali y o medical ca e p o ided. This explains he in e es in ed awing ou sel es
physically, in exhibi ing a ce ain pose wi h which we communica e o he obse e s ha
we a e au hen ically ca ing.
Howe e , whe he we pose in ca e, o whe he we wish o appea ca ing, does no de ac
om he mo al cha ac e o ou ac ion, since posing is no unde s ood he e as appea ance
de oid o subs ance o indeed p e ence.[51] Gi en ou social idiosync asies and, o some
ex en , he hea ical and scenog aphic cha ac e o exis ence –we cons an ly obse e and
a e being obse ed–, posing mus be unde s ood s ic ly as a pos u e adop ed by he body
in a si ua ion defined by Edmund Husse l as ‘image consciousness,’[52] o awa eness o
being obse ed. As such, he in en ional ac o posing by he ac o is as impo an as he
delibe a e examina ion by he spec a o .[53] Following Roland Ba hes’ analysis o he
pho og aphic image, posing subjec s, awa e ha hey a e being pe manen ly obse ed,
ans o m hemsel es in ad ance in o he image hey wan o p ojec . Consequen ly, hey
p epa e hemsel es, co ec hemsel es and e en, i necessa y, physically o ce
hemsel es o make ‘ano he body,’ o quo e Ba hes.[54] The aim is o induce a a o able
image –ul ima ely, o be conside ed as good as beau i ul– by u ning hei body in o an
objec -image. Acco ding o he phenomenological dis inc ion be ween body image and
body schema, be ween he pe cep ual expe ience and awa eness o one’s own body, i
could be a gued ha once he mind becomes awa e o he body schema –usually a a
p e eflexi e, p econscious le el– i exe cises con ol o e he body h ough posing, which
is measu ed agains he image o he body i sel , impelling bo h o collabo a e o make he
ac ual image compa ible wi h he desi ed image.[55]
Posing, wi h i s cul u al and symbolic componen a he body image le el –unlike body
schema, which, limi ed o senso y-mo o capaci ies, unc ions a a mo e pe sonal le el–
plays wi h he di e en languages p oduced by i sel o di e en si ua ions; languages ull
o ges u es, a i udes and mo emen s, which a e anspa en o he obse e s amilia ised
wi h hem. The subjec who wishes o pose uses app op ia e body language o deploy a
se ies o cha ac e s ha , while o ming pa o he epe oi e o a cul u e, a y om one
indi idual o ano he , and e en o he same indi idual, om one s aging o
ano he .[56] Mo eo e , by con olling body images p e iously used in di e en si ua ions,
subjec s can de elop hei own s yle.[57] In he case o ca e, in addi ion o hose who
p o ide ca e o wo k easons –basically, nu ses and domes ic ca e s– his le el can be
eached by anyone who is fluen in he language o sua i as, which e e yone gene ally
knows o , a leas , in ui s[58]. In o he wo ds, anyone who can men ally
pic u e hemsel es so ening hei oice when someone is asleep o placing a consoling
hand on hei shoulde du ing a di icul ime, o ins ance, will be be e equipped o
physically execu e hese ac ions. Indeed, anyone who, ha ing s udied he body schema o
ca e and pu i in o p ac ice in public se ings, knows ha hei mo al ac ion – o ca e is
undamen ally a mo al ac —will be well ecei ed because i is highly ega ded.
Ne e heless, ca e no only appeals o he sense o sigh , bu also o he sense o ouch,
which means ha , in addi ion o being seen, delicacy mus also be palpable o eel
physically. In insically, ca e is cha ac e ized by emo ional and physical closeness, in
con as o espec , al hough bo h a e o en con used despi e he huge di e ences
be ween hem.[59] The main di e ence is ha espec , o he e hics o jus ice which i
se es, goes hand in hand wi h equali y and eedom and, he e o e, enables subjec s o
de elop hei own exis en ial p ojec s a he expense o disengaging om o he indi iduals
in o de o a oid mu ual in e e ence. The e hics o ca e libe a es subjec s om his
isola ion and eminds us ha he igh s-based socie y is also a socie y o du ies and
obliga ions. I encou ages commi men o ou equals, especially o he weak, and seeks o
adap he gene al and abs ac ules o he e hics o jus ice o hei pa icula needs.
P oximi y o he de enceless, in con as o he dis ance s ong indi iduals o he e hics o
jus ice keep om one ano he , is undamen ally a ec i e as i equi es he subjec o
empa hically connec wi h he objec , o men ally a el o hei inne mos being in o de
o disco e hei deepes needs.[60] Mo eo e , i is also a physical p oximi y, as i o en
in ol es wo king side by side o help people o e come hei di icul ies. This physical
con ac is much mo e han jus lending a hand: i in ol es ouching he o he pe son,
ca essing, e en hugging hem, i necessa y, in o de o make hem eel he suppo we a e
gi ing hem in hei own flesh.
Delicacy, o ac , is hus p o ided in a me apho ical and a li e al sense, which, al hough
ela ed, a e no exac ly he same. The me apho ical, which is ac ually he mo al – he
in angible– sense, is a icula ed by he exp ession ‘ o be ac ul’ o ‘ o be delica e,’ wi h
which we exp ess he special ega d we ha e o o he s once we ha e empa hized wi h
hem and unde s ood hei challenging ci cums ances. Fo ins ance, o e ing com o ing
wo ds o a iend who has ecen ly los he a he exemplifies his me apho ical
dimension. The li e al o aes he ic sense – he angible sense– is ac i a ed when we come
in o physical con ac wi h o he s; gen ly, delica ely, in he o m o a ca ess,[61] such as
ca e ully combing a young daugh e ’s hai o a oid pulling i . Howe e ele an he o me
may be as a egula o o social beha io , o he ounda ion o e e yday e hics,[62] he
la e is no less so, bea ing in mind he epis emic alue a ibu ed o he hap ic sys em
since A is o le’s ime: i is by ouching hings ha we know hey eally exis . This explains
why, o he fi e human senses, ouch is he one we us he mos and, consequen ly,
canno do wi hou .[63] This also explains, as Ko smeye says, why we au oma ically each
ou o ouch objec s om he pas wi h ou hands o e i y hei au hen ici y.[64] All his
leads, in he specific field o ca e, o u ning oughness in o he many di e en o ms o
gen leness.
Fu he mo e, since i is no possible o ouch wi hou being ouched, because ouch is a
wo-way s ee , ‘ e e sible,’ o use Me leau-Pon y’s exp ession,[65] his sense should be
add essed om a wo-p onged app oach when i is combined wi h ca e: he app oach o
he ouche , who, by aking he ini ia i e o ca e, implemen s delicacy in an ac i e
o poie ic way; and he app oach o he ouched, who, as he beneficia y o ca e, ela es o
delicacy in a passi e o ais he ic way.[66] F om he pe spec i e o he ca egi e , ouch is
an obliga ion and du y: gi en ha he ecipien o ca e is usually a agile being –whe he
an indi idual o an objec –, hey mus be a en i e in bo h body and soul o p e en o
epai any damage – o example, when es o ing a cul u al asse by hand– o simply
p o ide a ce ain le el o wellbeing –such as massaging he aching ee o an elde ly
pe son. F om he beneficia y’s pe spec i e, ouch is a igh and a necessi y: as a
ulne able being, hey u gen ly need o be physically a ended o by hose who ca e o
hem. They only eel p o ec ed once hey a e in hei ca e s’ hands. As wo sides o he
same coin, bo h ac ions endow ouch wi h e hical and aes he ic p ope ies: in he case o
he ca egi e , h ough delicacy, o by being kind and ende in hei in e ac ion wi h he
being in hei ca e, and in he case o he beneficia y, by esponding delica ely o he ca e
ecei ed.
4. Conclusion
Cu en ly, one o he mos se ious challenges acing he discipline o aes he ics is
e e yday aes he ics, which has eclaimed he aes he ics’ eflec ion o he mundane
objec s and banal ac i i ies ha o m pa o ou day- o-day. O he many p osaic ac i i ies
we pe o m, Yu iko Sai o has become he ad oca e o one in pa icula : ca e. Al hough no
one would dispu e ha ca e alls in o a mo al ca ego y, doub s a e s ill aised in e e ence
o i s aes he ic ca ego y, conside ing he di icul y in judging he ac o ca ing as
beau i ul/ugly, ins ead o he usual good/bad. Sai o encou ages us o app ecia e ca e
aes he ically and o unde s and ha he o ms h ough which ca e is exp essed, like o he
mo al i ues, ha e he capaci y o change hei na u e;[67] hese o ms a e clea ly
physical, gi en ha hei aes he ic cha ac e de i es om he body pe o ming sensi i e
ca e. Delicacy has been p esen ed he e as an a emp o comple e his app oach, by
highligh ing he concep as he ideal way o exp ess ca e in he eyes o o he s: h ough
delicacy, ca e is good bu also beau i ul.[68]
Fo Sai o, he impac ha e e yday aes he ics has on people’s li es, as well as on he
cou se o socie y and he wo ld, is also decisi e.[69] In e e yday li e wi h a ocus on ca e,
his impac is mo e e iden conside ing ha he wel a e o he ulne able is a isk. Ou
physical way o a ending o hei needs deno es ou ma u i y as human beings, and,
abo e all, he ma u i y o ou p esen -day democ a ic socie ies, in ligh o hei e o s o
inco po a e he p o ec ion o he de enceless in o hei bills o igh s.[70] Howe e , i we
unde s and ca e as a modus i endi, as Sai o ad oca es, he impac is e en g ea e ,
because i implies ex ending ca e o e e y hing wi hou excep ion: o e e yone –weak and
s ong– and o all he objec s wi h which we ela e, e en o he spaces we equen . In
sho , i means wea ing an infini e ne wo k o ca e in which we a e all, in one way o
ano he , called upon o pa icipa e.
Ob iously, such ca e is hen in e p e ed by each indi idual in hei own way wi hin he
gene al exp essi e amewo k o delicacy. None heless, i is he aes he ic excellence o
ca e ha cons an ly pu s us o he es and equi es us o be c ea i e, poié ico, e e yday
a is s. By p ac icing he delicacy o ca e, each one o us in ou own way, day a e day and
in ou own en i onmen , oge he we can build a pleasan a mosphe e ha makes li ing
wo hwhile. This a mosphe e, as a di use and inde e mina e space, may no be isible o
he eye, bu i is pe cei ed in o he po en ial ways. Acco ding o Böhme,[71] i can be
inhaled because i floa s in he ambiance and can be ouched because i en elops us
bodily; i aps us a ec i ely and condi ions ou way o in e ac ing wi h ou su oundings.
The e o e, when we all c ea e his a mosphe e be ween us by ca ing o each o he
delica ely, ou li es a e en iched because we a e all in ol ed in making li e a mo e
com o able place o be, somewhe e whe e we all pull oge he .
Ma ía Jesús Godoy Domínguez
[email protected]
Ma ía Jesús Godoy Domínguez is a Full P o esso in he Depa men o Aes he ics and
His o y o Philosophy a he Uni e si y o Se ille, Spain. In 2014, she co- ounded he
Spanish Socie y o Aes he ics and Theo y o he A s (SEyTA) and se ed on i s Boa d o
Di ec o s o en yea s (2014-2024). He esea ch in e es s include aes he ics, gende
s udies, and mass cul u e. She’s also explo ed he aes he ics o nega i e a ec s. Mo e
ecen ly, he publica ions ocus on he aes he ics o he e e yday, a subfield she’s helped
in oduce in Spain by coo dina ing he fi s Spanish-language monog aph on he subjec
(Anua io Filosófico, 2025).
Published on May 29, 2025.
Ci e his a icle: Ma ía Jesús Godoy Domínguez, “Poiesis o Ca e: The Aes he ic-
Pe o ma i e Value o Delicacy,” Con empo a y Aes he ics, Volume 23, (2025), accessed
da e.
Endno es
[1] Yu iko Sai o, Aes he ics o Ca e: P ac ice in E e yday Li e (London/New Yo k:
Bloomsbu y, 2022), 13.
[2] Fo Kan , human beings dese e espec by i ue o he digni y con e ed by hei
a ional iden i y. Immanuel Kan , G oundwo k o he Me aphysics o Mo als, ed. A.W.
Wood (Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2002 [1785]), 54. Wi h he ad en o biocen ic en i onmen al
e hics, he Kan ian inhe en alue o humans has also been ex ended o non-humans.
[3] In Sai o, ca e ex ends o e e yone and e e y hing, whe he ulne able o no , as i is a
way o being in he wo ld and defines ou ela ionship wi h o he s. Sai o, Aes he ics o
Ca e, 2.
[4] Ibid, pp. 126-132.
[5] James Thompson, “Pe o ming he Aes he ics o Ca e”, in Pe o ming Ca e: New
Pe spec i es on Socially Engaged Pe o mance, ed. Amanda S ua Fishe and James
Thompson (Manches e Uni e si y P ess, 2020), 215-229.
[6] James Thompson, “Towa ds an Aes he ics o Ca e”, in Pe o ming Ca e, 36-48. See p.
45.
[7] Fo ca ing ges u es, see Luigina Mo a i, Filoso ía del cuidado (Concepción: Ra aello
Co ina, 2015), 82; o ca e as pe o mance, see Mau ice Haming on, “Poli ics is no a
