Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Vulnerability 18/01/18 (Initial concept brainstorm (risk (Sarewitz et al…

- - - - See also Prowse 2003: 22
        The starting point in disaggregating vulnerability is the internal/external distinction proposed by Chambers (1983, 1989):
        “Vulnerability thus has two sides: an external side of risks, shocks, and stress to which an individual is subject to; and an internal side which is defenceless, meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss” (Chambers 1989, p.1).
        p23
        Moser (1998) also utilises a two-step model of vulnerability but uses the concepts of sensitivity and resilience to significantly change the focus and emphasis of Chamber’s internal/external distinction
- - - - Adding a fourth dimension
        p460
        Time is frequently implicated in accounts of vulnerability; references aremade to the ‘episodic and shifting’ (Fineman, 2010: 265) and the ‘frequent downward spiral’ of vulnerability (Mackenzie, 2014: 46)
    - - Critical realist account
        p458-459
        this article applies a (critical) realist approach to explanations of
        vulnerability (Harr´e, 1986; Bhaskar, 2008). This recognises that social processes, like a relational understanding of vulnerability and the ways in which agency is exercised, cannot be measured.
      - See also Prowse 2003: 8
        d by Marcus and Wilkinson (2002) who focus on people who are “particularly vulnerable to the effects of poverty” (p.1). This change of emphasis, focusing on the outcomes of poverty, highlights the important difference between the means and ends of human welfare. Whilst the means of human welfare “refers to indicators of inputs intended to achieve an end result”, such as income or the consumption of food or the use of health services, the ends of human welfare measures the outcomes themselves, such as life expectancy or nutrition or literacy (Lok-Dessallien 1998, p.7; Henninger 1998). This focus on the ends of human welfare, often described as human capabilities, is commonly associated with Sen’s work on entitlements, capabilities and functionings (Sen 1981, 1984, 1999; Dreze and Sen 1989)
  - - - p464
        ...agency, in which people act to bring about
        change relative to the adequate function of public services, is one part of a relational model of vulnerability. Accounts that focus on an evaluation of an individual’s assets and their position relative to institutional relationships are insufficient.While it is right to recognise, as Fineman (2010) does, that state institutions can privilege some groups at the expense of others, it does not necessarily follow that the resolution to these relationships of disadvantage lies only in the reform of these state institutions. This article has shown that an explanation of vulnerability must include what people ‘do’ to access, or to fail to access, resources and opportunities
    - - p464
        The notion of empowerment provides an explanation of these relationships between institutions that have the capacity to produce and maintain vulnerabilities and themastery and control individuals may be able to exert to flourish in their lives. T
- - - - Structural analysis
        p18
        the claim of failure of personal responsibility might be harder to make if we do not frame equality arguments in terms of the absence of impermissible discrimination but, rather, question whether the system provided an impermissible advantage to some individuals or groups. Within that framework, claims that individuals are entirely responsible for their own failures become less tenable. A vulnerability inquiry proposes a more thorough and penetrating equality analysis--one that considers structural and institutional arrangements in assessing the state's response to situations of vulnerability before indicting the individual. This structural focus illustrates a second political advantage to a
        vulnerability analysis: It brings institutions-not only individual actions- under scrutiny, redirecting our attention to their role in providing assets in ways that may unfairly privilege certain persons or groups, even if unintentionally.
        
        Vulnerability analysis
        p20
        A vulnerability analysis greatly magnifies state responsibility for the institutions and structures the state constructs and utilizes. Vulnerability analysis demands that the state give equal regard to the shared vulnerability of all individuals, transcending the old identity categories as a limitation on the recognition that the state has a vital role to play in protecting against discrimination. A vulnerability analysis begins by first considering how the state has responded to, shaped, enabled, or curtailed its institutions. Has it acted toward those institutions in ways that are consistent with its obligation to support the implementation and maintenance of a vital and robust equality regime-a regime in which individuals have a true opportunity to develop the range of assets they need to give them resilience in the face of their vulnerabilities?
        
        See also Levy-Vroelant 2010: 448
        The development in European social states of the concept of frailty with regards the elderly is contemporary with that of risk, with the latter understood to be the basis for access to or eligibility for social assistance, an approach that takes the place of having the right to assistance (Beck, 1992), explains H´
        el` ene Thomas. The fact of being exposed to stressors and of the individual not being able to adequately cope due to physical,mental or social difficulties (similar to victims of catastrophes or poverty) prevents the individual from efficiently dealing with a situation resulting from risks and hazards. In the best of cases, the social and political use of vulnerability invites the search for an antidote from within the resources of each individual. In the worst of cases, the state becomes more penal and imposes compliant behaviour through social control or even repression (Wacquant, 2009). In either case, the doctrine of vulnerability refocuses public policies around intensified personal accountability rather than on rights and collective protection systems