Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The enabling value of group vulnerability

  • Article
  • Published:
Contemporary Political Theory Aims and scope

Abstract

The notion of vulnerable groups has gained relevance in international legal instruments while being criticised in philosophical literature for its disabling potential and disempowering consequences. The article argues that the category of group vulnerability should not be abandoned, being an opportunity for resistance, visibility, and a place for dissent: vulnerable groups can both function as a sounding board for claims and make demands for recognition, resetting the political agenda and the topics of public debate, and allow the level of collective needs to emerge from the level of individual interests, thereby guaranteeing a fairer distribution of resources. For this purpose, the article provides two definitions of group vulnerability that avoid both the risks of essentialism and of labelling outcomes. The article also analyses the political value of vulnerable groups, highlighting that it is conceivable as an enabling condition, a source of political agency and mobilisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayalon, L. and Tesch-Römer, C. (eds.) (2018) Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arruzza, C., Bhattacharya, T. and Fraser, N. (2019) Feminism for the 99%. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S.M., Kerr, E.A., Keesey, J., Adams, J.L., Setodji, C.M., Malik, S. and McGlynn, E.A. (2006) Who is at greatest risk of receiving poor-quality health care? New England Journal of Medicine 354: 1147–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, S. (2013) Privatizing religion. Legal groupism, no-go-areas, and the public-private-ideology in human rights politics. Constellations 20(1): 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartky, S.L. (2015) Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bozzaro, C., Boldt, J. and Shweda, M. (2018) Are older people a vulnerable group? Philosophical and bioethical perspectives on ageing and vulnerability. Bioethics 32: 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., Ecclestone, K. and Emmel, N. (2017) The many faces of vulnerability. Social Policy and Society 16(3): 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker, R. (2006) Ethnicity Without Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2016a) Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?. New York: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2006) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. New York: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2016b) Rethinking vulnerability and resistance. In J. Butler, Z. Gambetti and L. Sabsay (eds.) vulnerability and Resistance. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cixous, H. (1975) La jeune née. Paris: Union Générale d’éditions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, A. (2016) All of us are vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others: The political ambiguity of vulnerability studies, an ambivalent critique. Critical Horizons 17(2): 260–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In: University of Chicago Legal Forum, pp. 139–167.

  • Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, J.M., Merchant, Mary L. and Jogerst, G.J. (2011) Elder abuse research: A systematic review. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 23(4): 348–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. and Frader, J. (2009) Off-label prescribing: A call for heightened professional and government oversight. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37(3): 476–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, S. (2000) Do not resuscitate decisions: flogging dead horses or a dignified death? Resuscitation should not be withheld from elderly people without discussion. British Medical Journal 320: 1155–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, A. and Spinner-Halev, J. (2005) Introduction. In A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev (eds.) Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights and Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, A. (2009) Reasons of Identity: A Normative Guide to the Political and Legal Assessment of Identity Claims. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engster, D. (2019) Care ethics, dependency, and vulnerability. Ethics and Social Welfare 13(2): 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrarese, E. (2016) Vulnerability: A concept with which to undo the world as it is? Critical Horizons 17(2): 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M.A. (2004) The Autonomy Myth. A Theory of Dependency. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M.A. (2010) The vulnerable subject and the responsive state. Emory Law Journal 60: 251–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M.A. (2008) The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 20: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M.A. (2012) Beyond identities: The limits of an antidiscrimination approach to equality. Boston University Law Review 92: 1713–1770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. (2013) Equality, autonomy, and the vulnerable subject in law and politics. In M.A. Fineman and A. Grear (eds.) Vulnerability: Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1990) Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text 25(26): 56–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2013) Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. New York: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1986) Protecting the Vulnerable: A Re-analysis of Our Social Responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, D. (2014) Dis/ability Studies: Theorising Disableism and Ableism. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. (1994) Internal minorities and their rights. In J. Baker (ed.) Group Rights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, S.A. (2008) Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics 22(4): 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito, F. and Iglesias Sanchez, S. (eds.) (2015) Protecting Vulnerable Groups: The European Human Rights Framework. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, M.B. (2002) Health care rationing affecting older persons: Rejected in principle but implemented in fact. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 14(2): 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S.U., Khan, M.Z., Raghu Subramanian, C., et al.. (2020) Participation of women and older participants in randomized clinical trials of lipid-lowering therapies: A systematic review. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, K. (2001) Vulnerability in Research Subjects: A Bioethical Taxonomy (Research Involving Human Participants V2), Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, Vol. 2. Bethesda: Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis, National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC).

  • Kittay, E.F. (1995) Taking dependency seriously: The Family and Medical Leave Act considered in light of the social organization of dependency work and gender equality. Hypatia 10(1): 8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E.F. (1999) Love’s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, C., Faden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L. and Sugarman, J. (2004) The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 4(3): 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K.A. and Di Pietro Mager, N.A. (2016) Women’s involvement in clinical trials: Historical perspective and future implications. Pharmacy Practice 14(1): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, F. (2009) Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1): 121–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.C. (1999) Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Vol. 20. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macioce, F. (2019) Informed consent procedures between autonomy and trust. Biolaw Journal 1: 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, C., Rogers, W. and Dodds, S. (eds.) (2014) Vulnerability, New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. (2001) The Fragility of Goodness. Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S.M. (1999) Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peroni, L. and Timmer, A. (2013) Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional Law 11(4): 1056–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quadagno, J. (2004) Why the United States has no national health insurance: Stakeholder mobilization against the welfare state, 1945–1996. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45: 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadagno, J. (2010) Institutions, interest groups, and ideology: An agenda for the sociology of health care reform. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51(2): 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2006) The ethical turn of aesthetics and politics. Critical Horizons 7(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C. and Dodds, S. (2012) Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5(2): 11–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. (2014) Vulnerability and bioethics. In C. MacKenzie, W. Rogers and S. Dodds (eds.) Vulnerability, New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartre, J.P. (2004) Critique of Dialectical Reason. Trans. A. Sheridan-Smith. London: Verso.

  • Shachar, A. (2001) Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spelman, E. (1988) Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. (2013) Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B.S. (2006) Vulnerability and Human Rights. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. (2004) World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, C. (1995) Anti-essentialism in feminist theory. Philosophical Topics 23(2): 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring, G. (2008) The politics of ableism. Development 51(2): 252–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodly, D. (2015) Seeing collectivity: Structural relation through the lens of Youngian seriality. Contemporary Political Theory 14(3): 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. (1994) Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 19(3): 713–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I.M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, I. and Prendergast, B.J. (2020) Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biology of Sex Differences 11: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank, for their valuable comments and guidance, the two anonymous reviewers, and especially Andrew Schaap for the accuracy and insightfulness of his comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, LUMSA University, 00193, Rome, Italy

    Fabio Macioce

Authors
  1. Fabio Macioce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Macioce.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macioce, F. The enabling value of group vulnerability. Contemp Polit Theory 22, 209–229 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-022-00568-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-022-00568-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation