I interviewed a man named Brent [1] who has been a friend for a quite some time with a person with a disability in community support centre in England. In a question what characterizes this friendship relationship Brent answers: “this friendship was a place where I could feel well, the place where I could be vulnerable; it helps me to discover that people could be my friend for reasons that were not mutual interest and mutual strengths, so this friendship brought me to love myself with weaknesses and imperfection and to be happy with this.”
In his answer, Brent indicates upon few key issues regarding the complexity of the ideas associated with the notion of vulnerability. First, he was a friend with a person with disability – a person who´s vulnerability is (as we could assume) greater that Brent’s. Second, the vulnerability of that person could possibly challenge Brent and expose his vulnerability to the fore. Third, approaching his condition as mature, true to self-man, he uses terms such as vulnerability, weakness, and imperfection. And forth, addressing the vulnerability and weakness as parts of his human condition and part of his friendship relationship, does not stop him to flourish (“to be happy”).
In a form of terminological and descriptive survey, my intention is to reflect upon ideas about the notion of vulnerability from the perspective of a recent ethical debates and experience of everyday life.
Because everybody has “experienced it”, it seems to be a self-evident phenomenon, that is until they are asked to define it. Therefore, it is not always clear whether we are talking about the same thing, or exactly why we are talking about vulnerability in the first place. The notion of vulnerability is often replaced with the meaning of fragility, weakness and suffering. Although the distinction between the three meanings is subtle, there is an obvious conceptual difference between the abovementioned terms. Vulnerability is not merely the capacity to be wounded, weak and fragile neither it is a tragic condition of illness and suffering. Yet, it is a complex and controversial term which require proper clarification. In her book La vulnérabilité une nouvelle catégorie morale? [2] Maillard addresses the distinction between the two terms: fragility and vulnerability. According to this classification, fragility refers to any natural being whose internal structure is brittle or subject to decay. The concept of vulnerability, on the other hand, refers to living beings as their ontological category which by nature of things per se, constitutes an essential part of their existence. Likewise, the concept refers to living beings who are subjects of exposure, injury or hurt due to the way of life organization, unforeseen events, and life circumstances. This addresses the meaning of social or relational vulnerability. It is important to emphasize that although all living beings are substantially vulnerable, not all have the same intensity of vulnerability. There are people who are more vulnerable, (remember Brent´s friend) and people who on vulnerability react differently. This means that we cannot make a categorical distinction between vulnerable and non-vulnerable individuals, but between more and less vulnerable people. [3]
“Vulnerability is not merely the capacity to be wounded, weak and fragile neither it is a tragic condition of illness and suffering. Yet, it is a complex and controversial term which require proper clarification.”
The second issue I would like to emphasize regarding vulnerability is it implication and understanding within academic disciplines. The concept of vulnerability emerged as an important element in a recent social, bioethical, philosophical, biomedical and theological discourses. The modern ethics of autonomy has been challenged by the call for recognition of human vulnerability. This means that the recognition and ethical evaluation of vulnerability became a task in contemporary biomedical and bioethical discourses. The biomedical approach seemingly observes the notion of vulnerability within the notion of disease – corporeal and biological fragility; or the fragility of certain capabilities such as the self -determination. In bioethical discussions it became challenged by the principle of autonomy and as a reaction to the medical and technological power and control, why is the reason the prevalence has been given to the discussion regarding the relation between the concept of autonomy and vulnerability. In the context of the ethics of care and nursing ethics approach the concentration of the arguments has been given upon relation between the concept of vulnerability and the principle of justice and is considered as a part of daily experiences of care between care receivers and care providers, including the mutual respect and particular moral responsibility of a care giver. It is relevant to address that vulnerability could be exposed by external factors such as society, social or environmental factors, poverty, etc. In such regard, the social philosophy discourses about vulnerability have been concerned with social factor (exclusion, harm, mutilation, poverty, malnutrition, immigration, etc.) which generates and increases individual vulnerabilities.
What about its paradoxical components: weak strength and the way to flourish? Anthropologically conceptualized, vulnerability signifies the aspect of weakness, relationally and dependency. As a theo-anthropological construct, it also communicates openness, relationships, dependency, belonging and flourishing. [4] According to Thomas Reynolds, emphasizing the aspects such as rational autonomy, independency, strength and individualism, the Enlightenment anthropology fails to recognize the proper value of human integrity and related to this vulnerability. [5] This creates a negative image towards individuals who are particularly affected by greater vulnerabilities such as people with disability or patients with dementia. Theologically speaking, the vulnerability does not present evil or a tragic condition, but indicates the existential limits of earthly creatures, their interdependency, and a possibility for love. In such regard, an anthropology founded upon the recognition of vulnerability can confront cultural inconsistencies and enable the Church and society with possibilities of appreciating the dynamic diversity of the human condition. In a nutshell, despite the fact that vulnerability encompasses the capacity to suffer, it also departs from a meaning of suffering marked as negative, tragic and distressing. Calling for recognition and acceptance it reveals its interpersonal character. Thus, it indicates relationally, dependency and mutual exchange. To enter into relationships, to be open towards others, is therefore a risk and necessity, but could be also a beautiful way to flourish. We cannot know the outcome of any particular relationship. It could be a terrifying experience, but it could also be a dynamic way to flourish. Because of this, vulnerability is a necessary condition that leads our human civilisation towards a respect for diversity and a need for belonging. [6] Thus, taking the positive approach, the vulnerability is not only to be understood as an exposure to suffering but also as an opening up in trust to relations with the other and with the world. And this exactly has been Brent’s experience.
[1] Due to the respect of participant privacy the present names are arbitrary
[2] Nathalie Maillard, La vulnérabilité une nouvelle catégorie morale? (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2011).
[3] See Maillard, 161-228.
[4] Thomas Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality, (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008).
[5] See Reynolds, Vulnerable Communion, 160-163.
[6] Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another (Chicago &London: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Comments