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.
|
