Friday, 18 September 2020
The vulnerable and “the vulnerable”: concern as stigma
If the nineteenth century and the horrors of early industrial Europe, as dramatized in Victor Hugo's classic novel Les Miserables, seem a long time ago, they are not, but the naked reality of the excluded are hidden in today's laundered mainstream discourse. Suddenly, not so long ago some terms and the people they refer to, like the poor, or the oppressed, that used to be assigned to those who fail to “make the grade” in the mainstream of affluent societies have been recast as “the vulnerable”. The shift looks sympathetic and caring but in fact it’s a stigmatization of those who might once have been understood as poor or victimized, where condition responsibility is recognized as external and imposed on them. Vulnerability is different because it carries with it the strong suggestion of weakness. So in effect replacing “victims” with “the vulnerable” at our time of growing inequality burdens the poor and otherwise excluded with the responsibility for their own situation. It must be a great comfort to “the invulnerable” to know they avoid wounds because they are strong. To avoid this fairy tale it’s time to accept again that the poor are usually born poor and they will remain poor unless societies that accept poverty are changed. We are all vulnerable to external blows but the so-called “vulnerable” class have the added assumed wound of self-harm. In fact they likely don’t eat organic grub at Whole Foods or other “healthy food” establishments because they can’t afford it, not because they don’t care about their health. Time to call a spade a spade and “the vulnerable” poor. Then we will all understand better that where we are depends most on where we start. If healthy food restaurants really want all to eat better they should lower their prices so all can.
