Hi Susie,
When I saw the first message I searched for definitions of "vulnerability"
too as I wondered if it might turn up some different notions. I found this
one interesting, as it seems to be focussed on "risk", although mostly at
the level of a society or population rather than an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_%28Society%29
The term "at risk" also has specific meanings, I think in the UK in relation
to children specifically?
I expected to find that the CRB definitions would include a definition of
"risk", as the purpose of CRB checks is to "screen out" people who, from
their past history, are presumed to present a greater level of risk . . .
however, "risk" is not included in the CRB Glossaries (although risk
assessments are mentioned in passing):
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/glossary/glossary_of_terms_-_crb.aspx#V
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/glossary/glossary_of_legal_terms.aspx
I wonder what the reasoning was for using the term "vulnerable" rather than
"at risk" where adults are concerned? Maybe someone here knows the history?
Is it because the term "at risk" was already "taken", ie. understood to
apply specifically to children (eg. the "at risk register")? Some other
reason? Or no good reason at all and it just happened by chance?
On a personal level, thinking about "vulnerable", it is a bit of a funny
word. There are certainly times when I have felt "at risk" or have seen that
someone else is "at risk" (eg. on different occasions: "at risk" of being
physically attacked; actually being attacked and "at risk" of being badly
hurt; seriously ill and "at risk" of being hurt and/or permanently damaged
or left to die when one's life depends on the actions of others). How I have
felt about it has varied: scared, paralysed by fear, angry, confused,
focussed, panicked, determined, calm, activated, protective, etc.
It is hard to recall real-life examples when being actually rather than
potentially "at risk" of injury or worse did NOT involve a danger posed by
another person in direct interaction. There are some examples, eg. my
lighting fireworks inexpertly; planks blowing off the back of a truck and
aiming straight for my head, but far fewer over a lifetime than the dangers
posed by other people.
It is only where other people are involved that I can imagine using the word
"vulnerable" to describe my experience or another person's experience. In my
case, only then only to describe my feelings, ie. "*I felt very vulnerable*"
rather than my condition/state (?), ie. *"I was very vulnerable*". Probably
only then also as a euphemism for, "*I was scared shitless!*"
When I have been very scared for the safety of someone close to me, most
often and for good reason when they have been in hospital, I have definitely
thought of them as being "vulnerable" and my response has been to try to
protect them. (As my mother, who spent a lot of time in hospital, used to
put it, *"The things people will do to you when you haven't got a gun!"*).
I have not come across the term "psychoemotional disablism" before so I have
looked it up and I recognise very easily what it refers to. It wasn't quite
we what I expected, or I have not read enough yet to undertand it properly.
Does it, or some other concept, cover circumstances in which a threat (being
"at risk") is the sole cause of "disablement", eg. at the extremes, being
paralysed in thought and action, unable to move, breathe or make any sound,
due to fear/awareness of unavoidable risk/impossibility of safety?
Apologies if I this has not strayed too far from the original question.
Best wishes,
Liz P
I raise money for Communication Matters with Everyclick.com
Find out how you can help here:
http://www.everyclick.com/communicationmatters
On 25 November 2010 07:50, Vision Sense - Susie <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> This is a very current debate and interesting to read your posts on it.
>
> Writing as a disabled woman who works with 'victims' (another problematic
> term!) and Survivors of systems and crimes, it's common that professionals
> often attempt to locate the label of 'vulnerable' onto myself and others
> (particularly young disabled people) in relation to service provision.
> It's a term I politically reject.
>
> 'Vulnerability' is direct contrast to the resistance experienced by
> Survivor identity and cultural pride delivered by disabled people with
> engagement with the Disability Movement, disability arts and outsider art; I
> consider it to be a disabling term which can damage the space where people
> can take their own agency.
>
> I've only ever heard oppressed people without a cultural identity as
> disabled, or people experiencing psychoemotional disablism (from hate crime,
> sexual violence or in segregated 'care') use the word 'vulnerable' about
> themselves and even then it may be a learned narrative; it's a 'serviceland'
> (thanks Crippen!) term that disabled people from a social model approach
> haven't chosen for ourselves.
>
> Gents may note that women working through feminisms and male hegemonies had
> this debate over thirty years ago, when we located as 'vulnerable' to sexual
> violence; even policy now recognises that women may be in situations at risk
> of rape or battering, but are not inherently 'vulnerable' as the problem is
> with the perpetrator or the lack of safety, not the subject.
>
> For a more eloquent discussion of notions of 'vulnerability' in criminal
> justice, see Disability and Society in spring 2011 (in press), when an
> article by Roulstone, Thomas and Balderston will unpick the notions in
> relation to disablist hate crime. Hollomotz work is excellent in resisting
> 'vulnerability' as a notion in relation to learning disabled people in
> institutional settings.
>
> In short, the 'care' and policy industries may promote the term, but may
> fail to grasp the correct grammatical subtlety offered by Erik! So I'm
> sticking with 'risk' and resisting the use of 'vulnerability' until someone
> can convince me otherwise..
>
> Best,
> Susie Balderston
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Bleasdale
> Sent: 25 November 2010 04:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
>
> Dear Erik and the group,
>
> I seem to recall having a similar discussion to this in your living room,
> Erik!
>
> Having read both of these posts, I find myself in agreement with the
> majority of points made in both of them. I am not quite as critical of the
> modern discourse of autonomy and individual rights as is Erik, but I do
> accept that framing independence (and taking this to mean no mutual
> assistance or reliance) as nirvana is problematic.
>
> However, the term "vulnerable", I believe, has a tendency to "stick" to
> certain labels which are appended to people who are regarded as other by
> society, and informs an understanding that there is something inherent to
> the person's biology that renders them naturally vulnerable. I accept that
> Erik is deliberately not discounting impairment as a quality which can
> render someone vulnerable, but I think we need to be careful not then to
> establish some continuum whereby as a person's impairment increases thereby
> increases their vulnerability.
>
> I think the term "vulnerable" can be useful but it should related to
> circumstances and situations, rather than attributed to the person as part
> of their natural make-up. Thus, a person with disability is "vulnerable to
> sexual abuse", is attributable to their living and socio-economic
> circumstances, the extent to which the society objectifies women with
> disability, and to aspects of their capacity to resist attack or to be in
> situations where they are accompanied and therefore not open to this risk.
>
> I try as much as possible to refrain from describing the person themselves
> as vulnerable - only vulnerable to these external forces because of a range
> of factors. So in that sense I agree with Erik that it is a good word to
> describe the situation - but not the person.
>
> All the best,
>
> Michael Bleasdale
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of erik leipoldt
> Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Use of the word "vulnerable" and possible alternatives
>
> I don't see the word vulnerable as problematic. It only involves a personal
> value judgement if you want to experience vulnerability as such. Agree: All
> people, life really, are/is vulnerable to environmental events, attitudes
> from other humans, and their often unconsciously held dominant social values
> construct. Many people with disabilities are more highly vulnerable than
> most other people because of the nature of their impairment, social
> attitudes and environment. No-one is truly invulnerable, though
> vulnerability is reduced according to the type of impairment and what
> supportive environment one has.
>
> The dominant social values tell us daily that vulnerability and dependence
> on others is shameful. So, if the paper Helen refers to vulnerable in a
> negative sense (as in: 'they' are vulnerable, therefore objects of, to be
> subjected to, charity, services and care, and 'we' are not) it seems to me
> that it is that perception that needs challenging.
>
> Society's mnessage is we should all be autonomous, independent actors
> choosing goods and services in a market economy. For one this construct has
> led us to the brink of global social and environmental breakdown. Secondly
> this picture is an illusion of what makes for a good life. Thirdly it is
> unsustainable. Fourthly, its underlying values are a major cause of
> disablement of people who have impairments. Instead we are all
> interdependent - with each other and every aspect of the planet and its
> life. Whereas we may construct useful constructs like 'independent living'
> and demanding choice in how are needs are met, we don't mean we want to
> live by ourselves as an independent, disconnected individual. We want and
> need good enlivening, supportive and freely-given relationships to transcend
> disability including through the appropriate goods and services. Choice
> really means full participation in assessing our needs and how they are met.
>
> So, I think, vulnerable is a good word to describe the situation of many
> people with disability and we may all reduce or maximise it by our own, and
> social attitudes. Does that help?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Erik Leipoldt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Liz Panton" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:47 AM
> 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 Late Latin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Latin>
> vulnerābilis<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnerabilis#Latin>
> (“injurious, wounding”), from Latin
> vulnerō<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulnero#Latin>
> (“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.
> >
>
> ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
>
> ________________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.
>
________________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.
|
