Vulnerability: Too Vague and Too Broad?

Abstract

Imagine you are walking down a city street. It is windy and raining. Amidst the bustle you see a young woman. She sits under a railway bridge, hardly protected from the rain and holds a woolen hat containing a small number of coins. You can see that she trembles from the cold. Or imagine seeing an old woman walking in the street at dusk, clutching her bag with one hand and a walking stick with the other. A group of male youths walk behind her without overtaking, drunk and in the mood for mischief. It doesn't need an academic to say what vulnerability is. We can all see it, much more often than we care to.

What Vulnerability? Whose Vulnerability? Conflict of Understandings in the Debate on Vulnerability

“…On that point, Schroeder and Gefenas (2009) offer a more nuanced understanding: we are all equally fragile to the possibility of being harmed (e.g. becoming ill), but we are not all equally exposed to that threat nor do we all have the same resources available to protect ourselves (e.g.…”

“…However, as the definition of vulnerability that aims at justifying special protection (of those who are vulnerable) has to assume the existence of invulnerable subjects (those who are not vulnerable), it will in effect never conjoin with the understanding of vulnerability as a universal characteristic of human nature (every human being is by nature vulnerable). What would lead in that direction would be the assumption that certain circumstances only reveal our vulnerability, as suggested by Schroeder and Gefenas (2009). On the other hand, it seems arbitrary to think that our openness in a certain context can make us only victims of harm and wrongs.…”

“…This understanding of vulnerability is widely accepted in the field of medical ethics. Consequently, the field of medical ethics alone handles numerous applications of the descriptor ‗vulnerable' which has become ubiquitous to the point that its utility has been changed (Hurst, 2008;Levine et al, 2004;Luna, 2009;Macklin, 2003;Schroeder, Gefenas, 2009). Wrigley (2015) has listed some of the problems with these two understandings of vulnerability, as well as with attempts to construct some sort of overarching concept.…”

Vulnerability and Marginalized Populations

“…This analogy maps directly to the challenge of defi ning vulnerability. Because different perspectives abound on what con-stitutes the grounds of vulnerability, consensus on the defi nition is diffi cult to reach (Schroeder and Gefenas 2009 ).…”

“…The ( V3 ) approach has therefore met with the criticism that it is both too broad and too narrow to satisfactorily defi ne vulnerability (Levine et al 2004 ;Schroeder and Gefenas 2009 ;Luna 2009 ). Concerns about being too broad stem from the list of vulnerabilities becoming infl ated to the point where "virtually all potential human subjects are included" (Levine et al 2004 ).…”