Disapproval and non-use

At the same time as drawing heavily on notions of vulnerability in practice, most informants also recognised problems with the idea as a conceptual basis for their

work. There were also two informants who eschewed vulnerability-based

constructions of young people altogether. The reasons behind such resistance are explored in this section. Furthermore, the use of the notion did not often extend into direct work with young people and their families. This was of particular interest to the researcher and is explored further in this section.

5.3.1 Vulnerability-based constructions of identity and the neglect of

‘agency’

Around half of the practitioners mentioned that constructing young people as

‘vulnerable’ also seemed to position them as ‘weak’ or ‘fragile’. The informant from the FIP noted that calling someone vulnerable was to “question somebody's ability to be self-sufficient”. Although vulnerability emerged as a popular term with informants, there were two informants who rejected vulnerability-based views of the young people altogether on this basis, implying that vulnerability-based constructions undermined the extent of young people’s agency:

... it means sort of a weakness to me and I don’t think these young people are weak. They’ve got lots going and people … I don’t know, they class them as if they’re some sort of pathetic, ‘can’t do this’ and ‘can’t do that’, but really if you give them the chance and give them that opportunity. It’s a funny one, I wouldn’t ever refer to anybody as vulnerable, I don’t think it’s a term I’ve ever used. (Manager, Education Service)

As well as the term implying weakness, informants saw ‘vulnerability’ as potentially individualising problems to some extent. That the notion of vulnerability functions a label in welfare services has been argued by Hollomotz (2011) in relation to adults with learning difficulties. The majority of informants seemed to share such a view to some extent:

... it kind of puts it on them [young people] almost in some ways, like you're vulnerable, rather than looking at it's a vulnerable situation. (Project Worker, young carer’s service)

As well as concerns about ‘labelling’, 11 of the informants also discussed the risk of

“self-fulfilling prophecies” related to ‘vulnerability’:

... if you’re constantly telling someone, ‘You’re vulnerable, you’re vulnerable’, that might actually impact on their sense of who they are and that might become part of their identity which could be, ‘Yes, I want to fight against this;

I want to make sure that my children are in a position where they have everything and they’re not so vulnerable’, but it might work in the opposite where they think, ‘I’m vulnerable; there’s nothing that I can do’, or they might feel powerless by that or trapped in a box in some way. (Project Worker, welfare service for ‘vulnerable’ children)

Such concerns about the potentially debilitating implications of drawing on such a deficit-orientated notion in welfare practices are shared by some academics that are critical of the imposition of ‘vulnerable identities’ (see McLaughlin, 2012; Furedi, 2004).

5.3.2 Overuse

In the eyes of some informants, the increasing prevalence of the concept of

‘vulnerability’ in welfare and disciplinary services was connected with a de-valuing of the notion, which was seen by some to have decreased its usefulness:

... it wasn’t a word that was used nearly as much when I first started practicing, so if you did describe a child as vulnerable it meant a lot more (retired Commissioner, City Council Children’s Unit)

Overuse was mentioned repeatedly and tended to be met with disapproval. That vulnerability was overused seemed to be most significant for respondents in terms of how the concept functioned in the distribution of resources. The same informant cited immediately above went on to explain that she sat on a panel for a major grant-giving organisation in the UK and that in applications for funding,

‘vulnerability’ had “lost its currency”:

[voluntary groups] will routinely say that they work with vulnerable children or young people and because they all say it, actually it doesn’t press any buttons anymore (retired Commissioner, City Council Children’s Unit)

The Social Care Manager’s interview underlined potential problems with overuse, with her suggesting that the word ‘vulnerability’ was not enough to indicate that the threshold for a Social Care intervention had been reached, contrary to some of the practitioner impressions that drawing on this concept acted as a safeguarding

‘flag’ (see 5.2.1).

5.3.3 Absence in direct work with young people and their families The pervasive vulnerability-based rhetoric which most of the informants were apparently utilising in their everyday practice did not tend to extend to the arena where they worked directly with young people and families. With the exception of two informants (the retired commissioner and the clinical psychologist), all

interviewees gave an impression that vulnerability-based constructions of young people were used between professionals and not with receivers of services³⁴. There were two main reasons given for this; the word ‘vulnerability’ was viewed as one which might not be understandable to young people and families, but, more commonly, informants felt that young people would be resistant to the idea of themselves as ‘vulnerable’:

… my reluctance to use it sometimes with young people is because I anticipate it might - it can be perceived like it's a weakness in them. To describe someone as vulnerable can not really sound very empowering to them, I don't think. (Project Worker, young carer’s service)

That the use of the term in direct interactions with young people might potentially cause them offense was repeatedly noted:

I just think that young people would think, ‘you don’t know me’ you know, ‘I can look after myself’ sort of thing. It is a bit, I would say derogatory, but it’s

34 Most informants said that although they drew on the concept in their work with young people and their families, they would be inclined to avoid the term ‘vulnerability’ when speaking with service users.

not that, it’s more like, making that young person feel quite young, I guess.

Making them feel like they are a child. (Project Worker, ‘sexually exploited’

young people)

In discussions with one another, practitioners seemed to construct some receivers of services as fragile and precarious. However, they were also aware that this construction may not be viewed favourably by their service users. This raises interesting questions about how far young people’s feelings about their own identities shaped and informed the systems and processes by which they are supported and disciplined. In summary of 5.3, we have seen that there is evidence of resistance to practitioners about vulnerability discourses. Such resistances usually centred around the way that notions of ‘vulnerability’ were considered to imply diminished agency and overuse of the concept. Although we saw in 5.1 that vulnerability discourses are popular with informants, the use of the notion remains largely reserved for practitioner interactions and generally did not extend into use with service users.

5.4 Vulnerability and transgression: the subtleties beyond the