Wow, Liz – you’ve really put some thought into this!
No, they just use it in the usual way that SS are prone to.
You’re quite right, of course, about vulnerability of people once they’ve had a few…
I also think you’re right about the concept needing to change, let alone the word – and the context in which it’s used.
Kind regards,
Helen
_____
From: Liz Panton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:47 PM
To: Bryant, Helen; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
Hi Helen,
I am not scholarly either :-) Very good question - it has made me think!
In the consultation document you mentioned, is "vulnerable" defined in any way? If it is not, then that could be confusing, as there are specific definitions in use, eg. Criminal Records Bureau
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/faqs/definitions.aspx#definition
What is the definition of a Vulnerable Adult?
A vulnerable adult is a person who is aged 18 years or older and:
* is living in residential accommodation, such as a care home or a residential special school;
* is living in sheltered housing;
* is receiving domiciliary care in his or her own home;
* is receiving any form of health care;
* is detained in a prison, remand centre, young offender institution, secure training centre or attendance centre or under the powers of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
* is in contact with probation services;
* is receiving a welfare service of a description to be prescribed in regulations;
* is receiving a service or participating in an activity which is specifically targeted at people with age-related needs, disabilities or prescribed physical or mental health conditions. (age-related needs includes needs associated with frailty, illness, disability or mental capacity);
* is an expectant or nursing mothers living in residential care;
* is receiving direct payments from a local authority/HSS body in lieu of social care services;
* requires assistance in the conduct of his or her own affairs
That covers a wide swathe of the population, with rather more being vulnerable on Friday night than Friday morning.
I went on POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) training a few years ago and the trainers emphasised that the local authority took a very inclusive view of "vulnerability" and that context was critical. One of the examples given was that whilst someone might not be a "vulnerable adult" stone-cold sober that they would be considered to be a "vulnerable adult" if, after a few drinks, they "required assistance in the conduct of their own affairs".
This is a more general definition that seems to express the concerns underpinning the CRB definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerable
Etymology
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin> Late Latin <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerabilis#Latin> vulnerâbilis (“injurious, wounding”), from Latin <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnero#Latin> vulnerô (“I wound”).
Adjective
vulnerable (comparative <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable> more vulnerable, superlative <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#comparable> most vulnerable)
1. More or most likely to be exposed <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exposed> to the chance of being attacked <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/attack> or harmed <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harm> , either physically or emotionally.
"You are vulnerable to be bullied by someone at school."
The synonyms are where the problems of negative stereotypes come in. Maybe it is hard to find a better alternative because, of all the synonyms, "vulnerable" is already the least offensive? To find a better term, maybe you have to start from a different concept?
In the context of the consultation document, I guess that goes back to the question of, what is the reason for identifying a state of "vulnerability" and/or a "vulnerable person"?
Your question about the use of the word "vulnerable" has made me think about it as I had accepted it as an objective term, understood in context. Food for thought :-)
Best wishes,
Liz Panton
I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here: http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters
On 24 November 2010 18:27, Bryant, Helen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear all,
Firstly, please forgive me if you think this is an inappropriate place
for this discussion: it's not exactly scholarly, but it's relevant to my
work, and I'm sure yours, too, in many cases.
For some time, now I've been railing against the systemic use of the
word "vulnerable" by Social Services. I'm sure it's used all over the
country, not just here.
I'm commenting on a consultation which is to be held, soon, and I've
said the following - which, I have to admit, may be a bit pompous, but
I'm trying to make a point:
"I'm going to be picky. As a disabled person, I hate, with every fibre
of my being, being described as "vulnerable".
EVERYONE is vulnerable, to one extent or another; you stand in front of
a moving bus going at speed and tell me otherwise! We're all flesh and
blood, and all "vulnerable" to the "thousand natural shocks that flesh
is heir to". Good old Hamlet!
The 'v' word is throughout the document, and unless there is some big
objection I think it should be substituted for another, less contentious
one. However, try as I might, I can't find an alternative.
As you can see from this link, "vulnerable" could be construed as
offensive: http://freethesaurus.net/s.php?q=vulnerable "
I just cannot find a better word.
So, has anyone else decided to tackle this head on? If so, what were
the results?
Yours ever hopefully,
Helen
The information in this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient to whom it has been addressed and may be covered by legal professional privilege and protected by law.
Reading Borough Council does not accept responsibility for any unauthorised amendment made to the contents of this e-mail following its dispatch.
Reading Borough Council has scanned for viruses. However, it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any) for viruses.
If received in error, you must not retain the message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Please contact the sender of the email or mailto:[log in to unmask] or call Customer Services
on 0800 626540 or if international (+44) 118 939 0900, quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete the e-mail
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/dm9!84cRKw7TndxI!oX7Uhro52l6ZDyyOFrF!7+sU+jt!R6PFBqJVbrw8ef2KWTG5bzmROjKiJJca1YcpG8Zdg==> to report this email as spam.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|