Love the discussion and the idea that the term may be as implicated in the
construction of the object of study as it might shape the outcome effects of
its use. Going on a bit more from there - the idea that the power/knowledge
effects of discourses of vulnerability may also shape the actions of caring
professions, perhaps orientating responses towards the 'protection from
harm' point of view?
Best Wishes
On 1 December 2010 19:12, Judy Mckenzie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Andrea and group,
> There seems to be a need to bring the work of Michel Foucault into this
> discussion. As Andrea points out vulnerability is an individualising concept
> that picks out certain individuals as "having" vulnerability and she argues
> for a situational understanding of risk. I would like to add to this by
> suggesting that vulnerability is also a totalising concept that groups
> people together in various categories of social pathology. Vulnerability
> calls for in-depth knowledge about the vulnerable group - their number,
> their symptoms, their habits, their behaviours, their relationships and so
> on. All of this information then supports a heightened surveillance so that
> harm can be prevented from occurring. In a similar way to the function of
> the poor house and the asylum (see Foucault's Madness and Civilization),
> vulnerability does not only impact those who are labeled as "vulnerable" but
> it figures social relations as one where autonomy can be restricted (to
> protect from harm) where socially undesirable behaviours are evident.
> However, according to Foucault measurement and surveillance do not serve to
> describe what was already there but construct the very object of study. By
> knowing the "vulnerable" in detail, it becomes possible to act in their own
> best interests with the operation of power concealed by the caring
> professional stance. I think that the concept of vulnerability could well be
> examined as an instance of the operation of bio-power and the work of
> Nikolas Rose would be very helpful in this respect. I suspect that we would
> find that vulnerability has a relationship to neo-liberal notions of
> personal responsibility and economic productivity. I realize there is a lot
> to be though through here and this is just a stab at it in the company of
> the list.
> Judy
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2010, at 12:33 PM, Andrea Hollomotz wrote:
>
> Dear Helen and group
>>
>> I’m coming to this debate rather late and I have very much enjoyed reading
>> the responses. I share many of the views that were expressed. To add to this
>> debate, Angharad Beckett has written about ‘vulnerability’ as a state of
>> being that affects everyone, not just particular groups. She asserts that
>> ‘vulnerability’ is inherent to all humans. I also find comparisons to
>> spatial analysts useful, as they conceptualise ‘vulnerability’ in much more
>> general terms. For example, Bankoff et al (2004) do not see it as specific
>> to particular sections of society but rather as a relationship that humans
>> have with their social environments. Dunn et al. (2008) believe that
>> ‘vulnerability’ can be both, inherent and situational, so it can be part of
>> who we are, but also arise from social contexts. For instance, I may get
>> very drunk tonight and that state of being makes me more ‘vulnerable’ in
>> many respects.
>>
>> I have recently completed a PhD study that deconstructed assumptions about
>> inherent sexual ‘vulnerability’ of people with learning difficulties. I
>> investigated how the assumption of ‘vulnerability’ leads to the social
>> creation of actual ‘vulnerability’. For instance, someone may be seen as
>> sexually ‘vulnerable’. We therefore protect them from consenting sexual
>> encounters and information about sexuality. Yet, when that person is
>> confronted with an actual unsought sexual approach they will have less
>> knowledge to draw on to enable them understand what is happening.
>>
>> To pick up the point about the term we should use instead, I think
>> ‘vulnerability’ is not a helpful concept. As many others said, it is a label
>> and it can mean anything to anyone, as there are so many different
>> definitions. As I agree with Beckett that we are all ‘vulnerable’ I also do
>> not find it helpful to single out a person and label them as such. It’s like
>> labeling someone as ‘human’. What’s wrong with being ‘vulnerable’?
>>
>> I think if potential risk to harm is identified, we should just name it as
>> that: risk. ‘Vulnerability’ is an individualizing concept, almost a stigma
>> attached to a person. Risk can be inherent to an individual. It can arise
>> from socialization processes (such as lack of information on how best to
>> protect oneself). It can arise from particular situations and wider social
>> contexts. In other words: Risk allows us to see beyond individual
>> ‘vulnerability’.
>>
>> Identifying a solution to reduce risk is of cause a much more complex task
>> than merely responding to individual ‘vulnerability’. We need to consider
>> many more factors and many more solutions. If we say someone is sexually
>> ‘vulnerable’ because they lack understanding of sex and sexuality our
>> response is often to protect them. Paradoxically the act of protecting a
>> person can increase situational risk (e.g. easily exploitable dependency
>> relationships). If we move beyond an individualizing approach we can see
>> that someone may be at risk because they have had little chance to learn
>> about sex and sexuality. This can then be addressed by rectifying risk
>> arising from socialization processes.
>>
>> Best wishes, Andrea
>>
>>
>> References
>>
>> Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., & Hilhorst, D. (2004). Mapping vulnerability:
>> disasters, development and people. London: Earthscan.
>>
>> Beckett, A. E. (2006). Citizenship and vulnerability: disability and
>> issues of social and political engagement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
>>
>> Dunn, M. C., Clare, I. C. H., & Holland, A. J. (2008). To empower or to
>> protect? Constructing the 'vulnerable adult' in English law and public
>> policy. Legal Studies, 28(2), 234-253.
>>
>> Hollomotz, A. (2009). Beyond 'Vulnerability': An Ecological Model Approach
>> to Conceptualizing Risk of Sexual Violence against People with Learning
>> Difficulties. Br J Soc Work, 39(1), 99-112.
>>
>> Hollomotz, A. (forthcoming, March 2011). Learning difficulties and sexual
>> vulnerability: A social approach. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
>>
>> Hollomotz, A. (forthcoming, late 2010). Vulnerable adults? The social
>> creation of risk to sexual violence. In T. Sanders & R. Schuttleworth
>> (Eds.), Disability and Sexuality. Leeds: The Disability Press.
>>
>> ________________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.
|