‘Vulnerability’: Handle with Care

Brown, Kate

doi:10.1080/17496535.2011.597165

Cited by 162 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a context of broader moves to narrow welfare provision and to make entitlements increasingly conditional on certain behaviours (see Dwyer 1998;Flint, 2006;Harrison and Sanders, 2014), critics of normative vulnerability narratives have argued that these can reinforce rather than challenge pathologies of difference (Harrison and Sanders, 2006; and see also Quesada et al, 2011). These authors have underscored how ideas about vulnerability (especially when deployed in policy) can be controversial due to how these can mix concerns about risk to certain groups with anxieties about risks from these groups (see Harrison and Sanders, 2006;Brown, 2011), and can give limited space for acknowledgement of human agency (see Brown and Sanders, this issue), augmenting tendencies for 'vulnerable' people to be 'done to' by policy-makers (see also Hasler, 2004).…”

Section: Vulnerability and Social Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Many Faces of Vulnerability

Brown¹,

Ecclestone²,

Emmel³

2017

Social Policy & Society

Self Cite

163

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social injustices, structural and personal crises as well as intensifying stress on some citizens seem increasing preoccupations in contemporary society and social policy. In this context, the concept of vulnerability has come to play a prominent role in academic, governmental and everyday accounts of the human condition. Policy makers and practitioners are now concerned with addressing vulnerability through an expansive range of interventions. As this special issue draws attention to, a vulnerability zeitgeist or ‘spirit of the time’ has been traced in contemporary welfare and disciplinary arrangements (Brown, 2014, 2015), which now informs a range of interventions and approaches to social problems, both in the UK and internationally. As prominent examples, ‘vulnerable’ people are legally entitled to ‘priority need’ in English social housing allocations (Carr and Hunter, 2008), vulnerable victims of crime are seen as requiring special responses in the UK criminal justice system (see Roulstoneet al., 2011; Walkgate, 2011), ‘vulnerable adults’ have designated ‘protections’ under British law (Dunnet al., 2008; Clough, 2014) and vulnerable migrants and refugees are increasingly prioritised within international immigration processes (Peroni and Timmer, 2013). There is a long tradition in the field of social policy of critiquing the implications of particular concepts as mechanisms of governance, from poverty (Townsend, 1979; Lister, 2004) and social exclusion (Levitas, 1998; Young 1999) to risk (Beck, 1992; Kemshall, 2002) and resilience (Ecclestone and Lewis, 2014; Wright, 2016). Yet while vulnerability seems to be one of the latest buzzwords gathering political and cultural momentum, critiques and empirical studies of how it is operationalised in different policy and practice contexts are less well elaborated.

show abstract

Section: Vulnerability and Social Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Many Faces of Vulnerability

Brown¹,

Ecclestone²,

Emmel³

2017

Social Policy & Society

Self Cite

163

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, there are debates over its proper meaning: for instance, the extent to which it describes a quality of individuals versus a quality of situations (Wishart, 2003), or the extent to which it can be considered mutually exclusive with prejudice or 'hate' in explaining crime against disabled people (Roulstone et al, 2011). However, it is often used by professionals and policy-makers in nebulous ways and without definition (Brown, 2011). This is worrying given that there can be practical consequences of being judged to be vulnerable in this type of context (Hasler, 2004;Roulstone et al, 2011).…”

Section: Vulnerability In Policy Law and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some people with learning difficulties and their advocates are particularly strong proponents of these arguments in respect of ASP or safeguarding (Hollomotz, 2009;Hough, 2012;Wishart, 2003). Specifically, they reject being categorised as vulnerable and/or in need of protection, because they associate this with deficit, paternalism and stigma (Brown, 2011). This in turn connects with arguments that vulnerability has a significant subjective component (Spiers, 2000), and that people's own views of themselves and their situations are therefore relevant to its definition (Dunn et al, 2008).…”

Section: Vulnerability In Policy Law and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Scottish child protection system is underpinned by an understanding of childhood as an inherently vulnerable state (Brown, 2011;Daniel, 2010), in counterpoint to the assumed norm of the 'liberal subject' (Fineman, 2008). This is demonstrated by the existence of child protection as a state activity at all, and by its potential applicability to any person under a specified age, notwithstanding some variations in the upper bounds of 'childhood' in different aspects of the law (Daniel, 2010;Scottish Government, 2010).…”

Section: Inherent Characteristics Dependency and Power In Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructions of ‘vulnerability’ in comparative perspective: Scottish protection policies and the trouble with ‘adults at risk’

Sherwood-Johnson

2013

Disability & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper places Scottish Adult Support and Protection (ASP) policy in the context of debates about the nature of 'vulnerability' and its usefulness as a defining concept in law and social policy. It examines the construction of 'adults at risk' in ASP policy, using a comparison with the construction of children in Scottish child protection policy, on the one hand, and women in Scottish domestic abuse policy, on the other, to illuminate the nature of the vulnerability that ASP considers itself to be addressing. It then problematises this construction, drawing both on the social model of disability and on an ethic of care. It concludes that current ASP policy remains underpinned by unhelpful assumptions about disabled people, older people and people with mental or physical health problems. A more inclusive understanding of vulnerability would be more empowering to these people and others, in policies concerned with mistreatment and abuse.  Ideas about vulnerability in ASP policy are more similar to ideas about children in child protection policy than ideas about women in domestic abuse policy. However, there are differences between ASP and child protection as well.  ASP policy could say more about oppression.  The three policies, and their separation from each other, are based on the idea that some people are 'vulnerable' and some people are not. It might be more helpful to challenge that idea. Points of interest

show abstract

“…The amorphousness of the concept is far from benign (Brown, 2011) and whilst attention to vulnerability can be useful to certain individuals some of the time, its increasing popularity can also support moves towards enhanced social control in the name of protection (cf Phoenix, 2012), augmenting tendencies for 'vulnerable' people to be 'done to' by policy-makers (Brown, 2015). This is especially relevant in relation to street sex work (see Carline, 2009 andScoular, 2012 and2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic, Progressive, Problematic: Addressing Vulnerability through a Local Street Sex Work Partnership Initiative

Brown

Sanders

2017

Social Policy & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst it remains a criminal activity to solicit sex publicly in the UK, it has become increasingly popular to configure sex workers as ‘vulnerable’, often as a means of foregrounding the significant levels of violence faced by female street sex workers. Sex work scholars have highlighted that this discourse can play an enabling role in a moralistic national policy agenda which criminalises and marginalises those who sell sex. Yet multiple and overlapping narratives of vulnerability circulate in this policy arena, raising questions about how these might operate at ground level. Drawing on empirical data gathered in the development of an innovative local street sex work multi-agency partnership in Leeds, this article explores debates, discourses and realities of sex worker vulnerability. Setting applied insights within more theoretically inclined analysis, we suggest how vulnerability might usefully be understood in relation to sex work, but also highlight how social justice for sex workers requires more than progressive discourses and local initiatives. Empirical findings highlight that whilst addressing vulnerability through a local street sex work multi-agency partnership initiative, a valuable platform for shared action on violence in particular can be created. However, an increase in fundamental legal and social reform is required in order to address the differentiated and diverse lived experiences of sex worker vulnerability.

show abstract

‘Vulnerability’: Handle with Care

Cited by 162 publications

References 10 publications

The Many Faces of Vulnerability

The Many Faces of Vulnerability

Constructions of ‘vulnerability’ in comparative perspective: Scottish protection policies and the trouble with ‘adults at risk’

Pragmatic, Progressive, Problematic: Addressing Vulnerability through a Local Street Sex Work Partnership Initiative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About