This discussion has been stimulating. A few years back, I tried to address
the social construction of some forms of vulnerability in an article for a
medical journal special issue on palliative care and vulnerability. The
reference is:
Gill, C. J. (2006). Disability, constructed vulnerability, and socially
conscious palliative care. Journal of Palliative Care, 22(3), 183-189.
Also, Margrit Shildrick's work on vulnerability is relevant here.
Carol
>Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:53:30 -0000
>Reply-To: jennymorris <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: The Disability-Research Discussion List
><[log in to unmask]>
>From: jennymorris <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
>Comments: To: "Bryant, Helen" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>List-Help: <http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?LIST=DISABILITY-RESEARCH>,
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Owner: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>List-Archive:
><http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?LIST=DISABILITY-RESEARCH>
>X-Concentric-MX-Info: s=14EVQ3GHHL00:1 ts=0 td=16 dt=0 tro=1 tra=1 trb=0
>sro=1 sra=1 ic=0
>X-Concentric-DKIM: SigStatus="No signature", PolSusp="No", PolTest="No",
>Policy="none", Handling="none"
>
>I've enjoyed reading this exchange and it's an issue I've grappled with
>(unsuccessfully) many times in the work I've done with central and local
>government alike. The problem with the word 'vulnerable' is that it doesn't
>fit within a social model framework, in that it is used to describe a
>(supposed) characteristic of the individual - with the assumption that it is
>this characteristic which is 'the problem'.
>
>A social model approach to things like abuse would use language which
>described characteristics of situations and relationships: for example a
>person is at risk of abuse if they experience an unequal power relationship
>and have little or no opportunity for their voice to be heard. So ideally
>adult social services wouldn't use the word 'vulnerable' to describe
>categories of individuals but would talk about identifying situations where,
>for example, someone needs assistance with personal care and does not have
>choice and control over how that care is provided.
>
>The list that Liz quoted which is used for defining when CRB checks should
>be carried out partly reflects this approach in that it is a list of
>contexts in which people are (potentially) in an unequal power relationship
>with those on whom they are dependent for a service. The exception is those
>"receiving direct payments from a local authority/HSS body in lieu of social
>care services". Some social services authorities insist that CRB checks
>have to be carried out when direct payments are used to employ PA s and
>disabled people's organisations have argued that there should be no such
>obligation but it should be up to the individual - rejecting the idea that
>they are automatically 'vulnerable' particularly as the whole point of
>direct payments is to enable people to have choice and control over the
>assistance they need. There are also problems with the inclusion on the CRB
>list with those "receiving a service or participating in an activity which
>is specifically targeted at people with age-related needs" - because there
>is an assumption that old age in itself is associated with 'vulnerability':
>and having just become an officially defined 'older person' I object to
>that!
>
>'At risk' is an easier term to live with (though still uncomfortable) in
>that it is harder to use it without describing the context in which the risk
>occurs. The concept of 'risk' is also more likely to be used to describe
>situations where a non-disabled person may come to some harm so it is
>potentially more inclusive (though the way it is used in a social services
>context still makes me feel uncomfortable).
>
>Jenny
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryant, Helen
>Sent: 26 November 2010 14:53
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
>
>Hi Liz
>
>I just clicked on your first link, and this has made me even more determined
>to change people's mindsets - if anyone is "resilient"; which is looked upon
>as the counterpart of "the v word"; in terms of psychology and stressful
>events it is many disabled people.
>
>We have to take stress and other psychological upsets in our stride, as such
>things can occur daily.
>
>For some people, even getting out of bed in the morning is stressful, but we
>do it anyway.
>
>We put up with insults, being patronised, inaccessible buildings, ignorance
>and systemic neglect (whether intentional or not) - and that's not all. We
>always seem to be the last on the list, meaning that measures to address our
>needs are often added on, rather than there from the start, and are often
>not listened to. We have to fight for almost everything.
>
>So, who's vulnerable, here?! Just a few thoughts.
>
>Helen
>
Carol J. Gill, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Disability & Human Development
Director of Graduate Studies, Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Disability
Studies
University of Illinois at Chicago (MC 626)
1640 West Roosevelt Road - Room 236
Chicago, IL 60608 U.S.A.
(312) 355-0550 V
(312) 996-1233 TTY
(630) 920-0928 Fax
[log in to unmask]
________________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.
|