Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:05:20.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empowerment in the Relational Longitudinal Space of Vulnerability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

Nick Emmel
Nick Emmel*
Affiliation:
The School of Sociology and Social Policy, The University of Leeds E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term vulnerability has little theoretical purchase in social policy. It is used widely as a short-hand phrase to describe deficit. As such, it provides only limited value and has little regard for the wider structures of society that might ameliorate, sustain or exacerbate vulnerability. There is, however, a critical literature that seeks to understand the social, economic and political relationships that produce vulnerability and its potential opposite, flourishing. This article draws on this theoretical literature, focusing particularly on relational accounts of autonomy, capabilities and functioning, and the role of societal institutions. Using cases drawn from empirical research investigating how grandparents care for their grandchildren in relationships characterised by rescue and repair, this article refines a relational model of the longitudinal space of vulnerability. It extends explanation of three dimensions of the model: basic needs, the capacity to be and access to service providers, and elaborates on how these dimensions inter-relate through an investigation of empowerment.

Keywords

Flourishingcapabilityagencysocietal institutions
Type
Themed Section on Vulnerability and Social Justice
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 457 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, W. N. (2006) ‘Vulnerability’, Global Enviornmental Change, 16, 268–81.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (2008) A Realist Theory of Science, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E. and Watts, M. J. (1994) ‘Climate change and social vulnerability: towards a sociology and geography of food insecurity’, Global Environmental Change, 4, 1, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. (2014) ‘Beyond protection: “the vulnerable” in the age of austerity’, in Harrison, M. and Sanders, T. (eds.), Social Policies and Social Control: New Perspectives on the ‘Not-So-Big’ Society, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Brown, K. (2015) Vulnerability and Young people, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Census of India (2016) Literacy in India, http://www.census2011.co.in/literacy.php [accessed June 2016].Google Scholar
Chambers, R. (1989) ‘Vulnerability, coping and policy’, IDS Bulletin, 20, 2, 1–7.Google Scholar
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991) A Theory of Human Need, London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Drèze, J. and Sen, A. (1995) India, Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Mumbai: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ecclestone, K. and Lewis, L. (2014) ‘Interventions for resilience in educational settings: challenging policy discourses of risk and vulnerability’, Journal of Education Policy, 29, 2, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmel, N. (2013) Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Emmel, N. and Hughes, K. (2010) “‘Recession, it's all the same to us son”: the longitudinal experience (1999–2010) of deprivation’, 21st Century Society, 5, 2, 171–82.Google Scholar
Emmel, N. and Hughes, K. (2014) ‘Vulnerability, inter-generational exchange, and the conscience of generations’, in Holland, J. and Edwards, R. (eds.), Understanding Families over Time: Research and Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Emmel, N. D., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J. and Sales, A. (2007) ‘Accessing socially excluded people-trust and the gatekeeper in the researcher–participant relationship’, Sociological Research Online 12, 2, doi: 10.5153/sro.1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fineman, M. A. (2008) ‘The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20,1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Fineman, M. A. (2010) ‘The vulnerable subject and the responsive state’, Emory Law Journal, 60, 251–75.Google Scholar
Furedi, F. (2004) Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1985) Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of our Social Responsibilities, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Lamont, M. (2013) ‘Introduction: social resilience in the neoliberal era,’ in P. Hall, A. and Lamont, M. (eds.), Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1986) Varieties of Realism: A Rationale for the Natural Sciences, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hughes, K. and Emmel, N. (2008) Intergenerational Exchange, http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/research/projects/intergenerational-exchange.php [accessed February 2016].Google Scholar
Irwin, S. and Winterton, M. (2011) ‘Debates in qualitative secondary analysis: critical reflections’, Timescapes Working Paper No 4, http://forscenter.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/wp4-march-2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. (2014) ‘The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability’, in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. and Dodds, S. (eds.), Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, J., May, V. and Clarke, L. (2007) ‘Ambivalence and the paradoxes of grandparenting’, The Sociological Review, 55, 4, 687–706.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2012) A Realist Approach to Qualitative Research, London: Sage.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, K. (2012) Surviving Identity: Vulnerability and the Psychology of Recognition, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/contents/enacted [accessed September 2012].Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice, London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (2006) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/contents [accessed September 2015].Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (2011) Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1999) Development and Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timescapes (2016) http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/ [accessed June 2016].Google Scholar
Wallerstein, N. (1992) ‘Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: implications for health promotion programs’, American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197–205.Google Scholar
Watts, M. J. and Bohle, H. G. (1993) ‘The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and famine’, Progress in Human Geography, 17, 1, 43–67.Google Scholar