Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reimagining of an Anthropology of Friendship: The Implication of the Notion of Vulnerability and Solicitude

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theological Perspectives on Reimagining Friendship and Disability

  • 71 Accesses

Abstract

To portray friendship as a highly inclusive relationship, where inclusion is congruent with the view that friendship is the universal category applicable to all, is in dialogue with the voices of people with disability, not without them. Differently, if friendship is exclusive of certain categories of people because they are people of different social classes, nations, economic statuses, religions, or intellectual or cognitive capacities, it fails to be open and, so to speak, remains closed in a framework of partial intellectualist morality. The elements of vulnerability and solicitude integral of proposal of rethinking the anthropology of friendship are not specific to the friendships of disabled people, but are the elements which provoke stability of and a perfect form of friendship as they address the question of dissimilarity. This entails that the friendship that includes people with disabilities does not require a completely new philia. It requires a reimagined notion of philia that includes something of equal value shared by and constitutive of all humans. The alternative anthropology that, in view of this proposal, is a relational anthropology of mutual interdependency and inclusive of the notion of vulnerability and solicitude, is stimulus to rethink friendship firstly as an open participation in relationship, and secondly as a moral category. The aim of this chapter is to apply and outline the main features of the notion vulnerability and solicitude as necessary elements for the reconsideration of the anthropology of friendship and rethinking the true otherness. 

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Google Scholar the use of the term human vulnerability from 2020 until 2023 was about 82,800, and the term life related to vulnerabilities has appeared around 108,000 times in review articles including Social Sciences, Medicine and Health; Business, Economics, and Management, as well as Humanities and Arts.

  2. 2.

    In this approach, I briefly present the main ideas about notion of vulnerability in selected academic fields that have impacted larger discourses on vulnerability in popular magazines and academic discussions. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to include all possible approaches and interpretations of the notion.

  3. 3.

    The factor to categorize the socially vulnerable groups according to selected socio-cultural index includes poverty, class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, disability, poor health, literacy, etc.

  4. 4.

    For a more robust comprehension theologically, this distinction requires implication and integration between not only various theological disciplines, but an interdisciplinary approach for which the space within the contours of this approach is limited.

  5. 5.

    The implication of the wounds of sin and stirrings in his body, as indicated by GS (n.14), requires further examination in searching for the grounds for considering vulnerability as the consequence of humanity’s fallen nature. I would hesitate to describe human vulnerability as the straightforward or direct consequence of sin. Rather, my suggestion aims to rethink vulnerability as an additional consequence of humanity’s fallen nature; it was “added” to the already-created human nature. Yet it is not the failure of human nature that damages or interrupts itself but rather sin that corrupts and damages humanity’s God-given, creaturely nature. Therefore, vulnerability is not a direct consequence of sin, neither is disability. For more on such discussion see Vuk, M. (2022). A Theological Challenge to the Notion of Vulnerability—a hypotheses. In Robert Petkovšek and Bojan Žalec (Eds.). Ethics of resilience: vulnerability and survival in global uncertainty, 87–95. LitVerlag Series: Berlin.

  6. 6.

    I thank Thierry Collaud to address this in “La vulnérabilité nécessaire au bien commun” (Paper Presented at Colloque International Personne vulnérable et société de performance, Institut Interdisciplinaire d’Ethique et des Droits de l’Homme, Université de Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, April 2, 2014).

  7. 7.

    For instance, Cooper in his analysis on forms of friendship (Cooper, 1977, p. 624) highlihted that friendship exists only where one wishes to the other party what is good for him, for his own sake, and when this well-wishing is reciprocated. People say that one ought to wish to a friend what is good, for his own sake; but those who wish what is good [to someone else] are well-disposed (evvov) and not friends. For friendship is a goodwill (evvota) when reciprocated (NE, 1155b31–34).

References

  • Aquinas, T., St., 1225–1274. (1947). Summa Theologica IIa-IIae. Benziger Brothers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, Altruism and Morality. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1987). Toward a Sociology of Acceptance: The Other Side of the Study of Deviance. Social Policy, 18(2), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, B. (2019). Wondrously Wounded: Theology, Disability, and the Body of Christ. Baylor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, M. (1973). I and Thou. T&T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, M. (2013). Common Frailty, Constructed Oppression: Tensions and Debates on the Subject of Vulnerability. Disability & Society, 28(4), 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.711244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. (1984). Autonomy: A Moral Good Not a Moral Obsession. The Hastings Centre Report, 14(5), 40–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catechism of Catholic Church. (1992a). Man’s Capacity for God. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/P9.HTM

  • Catechism of Catholic Church. (1992b). Image of God. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/P9.HTM

  • CIOMS. (2010). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comensoli, A. P. (2018). In God’s Image: Recognizing the Profoundly Impaired as Persons. Cascade Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. M. (1977). Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship. The Review of Metaphysics, 30(4), 619–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culp, A. K. (2010). Vulnerability and Glory: A Theological Account. Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. L. (2006). Disability Studies Reader. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Oro, R., & Taylor, C. (2006). Health and Human Flourishing: Religion, Medicine, and Moral Anthropology. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, F. K. (1999). Love’s Labour: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandolfo, E. O. (2015). The Power and Vulnerability of Love. Fortress Publisher.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gastmans, C. (2013). Dignity-Enhancing Nursing Care: A Foundational Ethical Framework. Nursing Ethics, 20(2), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012473772. PMID: 23466947

  • Gilson, E. (2011). Vulnerability, Ignorance, and Oppression. Hypatia, 26(2), 308–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1985). Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haker, H. (2021). Recognition and Responsibility. Religions, 12(467). https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070467

  • Hoffmaster, B. (2006). What Does Vulnerability Mean? The Hastings Center Report, 36(2), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (1995). The Struggle for Recognition. The moral grammar of Social Conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Bioethics Committee. (2013). The Principle of Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity: Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC). Paris, United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kottow, M. H. (2005). Vulnerability: What Kind of Principle Is It? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 7(3), 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemoine, L., Gaziaux, E., & Müller, D. (2013). Dictionnaire Encyclopédique D’Ethique Chretienne. Les Editions du Cerf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity. An Essay on Exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1992). De Dieu qui vient à l’idée. Librairie philosophique J. Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna, F. (2009). Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability: Layers Not Labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2(1), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. (2003). Bioethics, Vulnerability, and Protection. Bioethics, 17(5–6), 472–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maillard, N. (2011). La vulnérabilité, une nouvelle catégorie morale? Labor et Fides.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial Debates and Psychological Perspectives. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P. (2013). Pope John Paul II and the Apparently “Non-acting” Person. Gracewing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P. (2020). Discerning Persons: Profound Disability, the Early Church Fathers, and the Concept of the Person in Bioethics. Franciscian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, S., & Tobin, B. (2016). Human Vulnerability in Medical Contexts. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 37(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (1984). Caring—A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakaluk, M. (2005). Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pelluchon, C. (2011). Eléments pour une éthique de la vulnérabilité. Cerf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinders, S. H. (2008). Receiving the Gift of Friendship. Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology and Ethics. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff, J. D. (2002). Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability – Towards a Foundation of Bioethics and Biolaw. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 5, 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021132602330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, T. E. (2008). Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality. Brazos Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as Another. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (2007). Freedom and Nature. The Voluntary and the Involuntary (E. V. Kohak, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1867). Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A. D. 325. Volume 23. T. and T. Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruof, M. C. (2004). Vulnerability, Vulnerable Populations and Policy. Journal of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, 14(4), 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, D., & Gefenas, E. (2009). Vulnerability: Too Vague and Too Broad? Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 18(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180109090203. PMID: 19250564.

  • Sensen, O. (2013). Friendship in Kant’s Moral Thought. In D. Caluori (Ed.), Thinking about Friendship. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003997_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the Ethics of Care. Feminist Consideration on Justice, Morality and Politics (L. Savage, Trans.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (2000). Becoming Vulnerable: Contagious Encounters and the Ethics of Risk. Journal of Medical Humanities, 21(4), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singbo, O. G. (2021). Teološko-bioetičko vrjednovanje transhumanističke antropologije. Kršćanska sadašnjost.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springhart, H., & Gunter, T. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring Vulnerability. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiker, H. J. (1999). A History of Disability (W. Sayers, Trans.). The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Have, H. (2015). Respect for Human Vulnerability. The Emergence of a New Principle in Bioethics. Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9

  • Tonstad, L. (2020). On Vulnerability. In K. Kilby & R. Davis (Eds.), Suffering and the Christian Life (pp. 175–188). T&T CLARK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003070672

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. S. (2006). Vulnerability and Human Rights. Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuk, M. (2020). Vulnerability and Flourishing in Time of COVID-19. Yale Postdoctoral Symposium. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://ypa.yale.edu/postdoc-symposium/program

  • Vuk, M. (2022). A Theological Challenge to the Notion of Vulnerability—A Hypotheses. In R. Petkovšek & B. Žalec (Eds.), Ethics of Resilience: Vulnerability and Survival in Global Uncertainty (pp. 87–95). LitVerlag Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattles, J. (1996). The Golden Rule. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, P. (1987). Friendship Networks and Social Support. Policy Studies Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, B., Blaikie, P. M., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Martina Vuk

Authors
  1. Martina Vuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vuk, M. (2023). Reimagining of an Anthropology of Friendship: The Implication of the Notion of Vulnerability and Solicitude. In: Theological Perspectives on Reimagining Friendship and Disability. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33816-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation