Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Please don't talk about the "most vulnerable".

Since 2010,  most political debates about disabled people have used the term “vulnerable” - or more often “most vulnerable” - to argue for or against current government policies on social security and social care. 

David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith are particularly keen on this term.  As Cameron said in June this year:
Whatever the pressures, we will stand by my promises to protect the most vulnerable – including the most disabled who cannot work because that’s the sign of the compassionate country I believe in.
But it isn’t just Conservative politicians who have described disabled people in terms of their ‘vulnerability’.  Labour politicians have done it as well.  To take just one example, most Labour MPs speaking in a debate initiated by Labour’s Rachel Reeves in 2013 referred to ‘the vulnerable’ or ‘most vulnerable’ to argue the case against reforms to housing benefit.

The etymological origins of the word ‘vulnerable’ are to be found in the Latin word for wound.  Thesaurus offers alternatives such as: defenceless; open to attack; frail; exposed; unprotected; impressionable.  Cameron’s use of the word in his speech to the 2012 Conservative Party conference confirmed these meanings when he argued that:
Conservative methods are not just good for the strong and the successful but the best way to help the poor, and the weak, and the vulnerable.
Up until a few years ago, disabled people had been on a long journey away from this curtailment of our lives and ambitions,  a journey away from being defined as objects of pity and charitable endeavour to ‘look after’ and ‘protect’ us.  

Allan Sutherland, a disability activist writing in 1981, said;
We are not weak; we are not powerless; we are not alone.  Control of our future is ours for the taking.   
Such a vision - and the struggle for our human and civil rights which followed - is incompatible with the notion of ‘vulnerability’ as applied in current policy debates. 

Unfortunately, as the full implications of the ‘welfare reform’ agenda became apparent following the 2010 election, some disability activists and organisations started to also use 'vulnerability’ in their attempts to point out the injustice of the policies. 

By using the terms ‘vulnerable’ and ‘most vulnerable’, we are voluntarily taking ourselves back to those days when to be disabled was to be shut out, shut away from society, the object of pity, not part of mainstream society.  The words are as far removed from defining disability as a civil rights issue as it is possible to be.  

Not only that, if we use the term ‘vulnerable’ to make our case for a good quality life, we collude with the centuries-old categorisation of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’. 

These categorisations have little to do with people’s actual material circumstances but are based instead on supposed personality and psychological characteristics. 

This goes back to the days of the Poor Law, when Poor Law Guardians - custodians of the funds raised from ratepayers - attempted to distinguish ‘sham cripples’ . Like then, distrust and blame are still the most common values underpinning welfare reform,  People with impairments or illness which have no significant physical outward signs fare particularly badly within such a value system. Distrust and blame make it hard to get recognition for the functional limitations which accompany mental health difficulties such as social anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or clinical depression.  Distrust and blame lead to a refusal to acknowledge the realities of people whose impairments or illness fluctuate. Distrust and blame even lead to people with terminal conditions being declared ‘fit to work’.

These days, instead of ‘sham cripple’ we have ‘shirkers’ and ‘scroungers’ and it is the word ‘vulnerable’ - or rather the term ‘most vulnerable’ - which is used in order to distinguish the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.  If you are categorised as ‘most vulnerable’ your impairment or illness is accepted as ‘real’ and, most importantly, not your own fault.  

The key thing about being vulnerable is that you lack agency, you depend on others to protect you.  In a world where politicians talk approvingly of ‘aspirations’ and ‘hard working families’, disabled and sick people are placed in a double bind.  The legitimacy of need for support is dependent on being ‘most vulnerable’ and, in order to get the support you need, you therefore have to place yourself in a situation where you are beyond aspiration and autonomy. 

As Caroline Richardson, writing for the Spartacus Network, says: 
In the current political climate, being 'vulnerable' casts you as worthy but also demeans you, portraying you as passive, helpless and in need of benevolence. This appears to contradict the promotion of aspiration, and paints a very confusing picture. To function within this framework necessitates proving your own vulnerability to secure ever smaller crumbs of welfare, simultaneously almost writing yourself off from any dream or aspiration. This artificially created juxtaposition is profoundly demoralising. 
As many people have pointed out, it is government policies that make disabled people vulnerable - vulnerable to being poor, to insecure and inappropriate housing, to mounting debt, to being imprisoned within our own homes because of lack of support. What is more, as Neil Crowther argues, the language of vulnerability actually makes disabled people less safe.  Moreover: 
It promotes the idea that society’s primary responsibility should be to act as custodians, not to respect and promote disabled people’s freedoms.
So my plea to disability activists and our political allies alike is - please never ever use the words ‘vulnerable’ or ‘most vulnerable’ when making the case for our equal access to a good quality life.  By all means, point out that current government policy and some wider social attitudes make us vulnerable to poverty, homelessness,  unemployment, abuse and discrimination.  By all means, point out that cuts to social care make us vulnerable to being consigned to residential care or imprisoned within our own homes with minimal support.  By all means, point out that welfare reform is leaving households without enough food to eat, at risk of eviction, and frightened.

But such vulnerability is created by political choices and prejudice. We should be campaigning to remove the policies and practices which create vulnerability, not using the term as a qualification for support. If disabled people are made vulnerable this is a human and civil rights issue.  It took us many years to reframe our position in society away from that of a matter of protection and exclusion.  Please don’t collude in imposing that history back onto us.


  1. Different interests for different types of disability. This, like CRPD, reads like it was written about people with physical disabilities, whose impairments can be almost negated by aids and adaptations, and whose movement has an element of 'don't assume because I am physically impaired I am mentally impaired '. But if you have an intellectual (learning ) disability, you need support from people who can do the mental things you can't, e.g. planning and organising. If your disability means you can't tell if someone could or even is abusing you, you are vulnerable and need protection

    1. Thanks so much for responding. I actually don't have people with physical impairments in mind at all when I make this argument, though I can quite understand why you make the point. Many many people - with a whole range of impairments - need "support from people who can do the mental things you can't, eg. planning and organising". But my point is that it isn't that need for support which makes people vulnerable but the lack of sufficient and appropriate support which places you in danger. I have needed not only physical support but also advocacy support at various points in my life and the extent to which I was vulnerable to experiencing harm at those points was related to the extent to which that support was available and appropriate.

      It's also other people's attitudes which can create vulnerability. I referred to a non-disabled person the other day as 'vulnerable', which was entirely because attitudes/prejudice/malign intent amongst certain other people were placing him at risk. Vulnerability is created by the context in which people experience their particular needs and circumstances, rather than being an inevitable part of those needs and circumstances.

      For example, there's a woman in my village who, when she was in hospital earlier this year, was told by her social worker that she was 'too vulnerable' to return home. She is now in fact very successfully living at home because there are people in the village who made it possible by giving her the support she needs.

      Also, my blog was particularly aimed at the use of the term "most vulnerable" in the context of the government defending its social security changes and cuts to social care. When it's pointed out to them the devastating impact this is having on very large numbers of people, their defence is that they will always support "the most vulnerable" - with the subtext being that 'vulnerability' is a way of distinguishing the 'deserving' from the 'undeserving'. So my point is that if we use that language we are colluding with the terrible impact that current policy is having on many people's lives.

      My feeling about the CRPD is that it is unlikely to have much impact on countries such as ours, because the government can, and has so far, argued that it is compliant (though it remains to be seen whether the forthcoming UN confidential inquiry will make any impact). But where the CRPD will potentially have the most impact is countries where people with learning disabilities are incarcerated in institutions (various eastern European countries for example) or where people with mental health problems are shackled and kept separate from others (in some parts of some African countries). So I'm not sure about it only being relevant to people with physical impairments - I would hope that its impact is much broader than that.

      It's a good discussion to have however so thanks for responding.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Thank you for an interesting and important post, Jenny. As I read it I began to reflect on the increasing, almost ubiquitous use of 'safeguarding' as a term to describe action to counter abuse and malpractice. It reinforces the 'vulnerability' aspect, rather than the argument that people's rights need to be upheld. And of course can be used to deny people opportunities which might give rise to 'safeguarding' issues. It is a way of othering disabled people. People who need safeguarding are not like us, are they? Worrying times

  3. Thanks for sharing this reflection. I have been using vulnerable. Will give this careful thought in future. But for some situations and people close to me, I have to say I think I need this word. This does not mean that I do not energetically advocate for rights, voice, agency.

    1. Thanks for this. I agree that sometimes it feels that the word accurately describes an individual's situation. The problem is more when it's used in a policy context to identify 'the most deserving' and also when the identification of an individual's 'vulnerability' becomes a way of assuming an inevitability of poor outcomes and therefore an avoidance of addressing the things that can be tackled to reduce their 'vulnerability. It's a bit like the use of the word 'complex needs' to subtly shift the blame onto individuals' characteristics for the inability of services to meet their needs. Thanks for responding.

  4. I completely get the angle of this thread. At least I think I do - but haven't recent Government policies made many disabled people just that - 'vulnerable'.
    So - here it would be OK to say 'those disabled people made vulnerable because of government austerity policies' rather than 'vulnerable disabled people and government austerity measures' ?