1 / 17

Compounded Vulnerabilities in Social Institutions: Vulnerabilities as Kinds

Compounded Vulnerabilities in Social Institutions: Vulnerabilities as Kinds. Laura Guidry-Grimes, Georgetown University Elizabeth Victor, USF & Georgetown University Diotima Conference, 2011. Introduction. Vulnerabilities Rejection of Kantian isolated ‘ willers ’ account

romeo
Download Presentation

Compounded Vulnerabilities in Social Institutions: Vulnerabilities as Kinds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Compounded Vulnerabilities in Social Institutions: Vulnerabilities as Kinds Laura Guidry-Grimes, Georgetown University Elizabeth Victor, USF & Georgetown University Diotima Conference, 2011

  2. Introduction • Vulnerabilities • Rejection of Kantian isolated ‘willers’ account • Reflect the various ways in which we are dependent on others for effective agency • Vulnerability: Our definition • Morally problematic disadvantaged placement of an individual within the context of social practices • Clarifying who is ‘the vulnerable’ • Context and the impact of situations • Overlapping factors Vulnerabilities as kinds

  3. Compounded Vulnerabilities: A Concept • Sides of Compounded Vulnerabilities • Agent-side factors • Luna (2009) • Widen scope of applicability & still keep sufficiently narrow definition of vulnerability • Institution-side factors • Shift analysis to social practices and systematic disadvantage • Function of labels in the context of vulnerability

  4. Outline of Presentation • Medical labels as interactive kinds • Where and when interactive kinds arise • Diagnostic categories creation of barriers • Limiting capacity toward well-being • Firmer grasp on the interaction of medical practice and other social institutions • PMDD as an example of an interactive kind that can compound vulnerabilities

  5. Medical Labels & Interactive Kinds • Hacking on interactive kinds • Distinguishing interactive kinds from indifferent kinds • The problem with causal mapping • Biological determinants vs. social determinates • Why interactive kinds? • Better modeling of relationships by looking at the looping effects between variables • Better starting point for measures & remedy development • Another safety mechanism against perpetuating oppressions

  6. Social Construction Model • Interactive Kind Model Methods for Modeling • Medical-Biological Model

  7. PMDD as an Interactive Kind • Choosing between models for PMDD • Medical-biological model • Social constructionist model • Rejecting mutual exclusivity of the models • Difficulty in teasing the two apart • Why we wouldn’t want to if we could • What interactive modeling has to offer • Different ways of understanding • Different ways of responding • Recognition of how social groups can be rendered vulnerable upon diagnosis

  8. Defining Vulnerability • Vulnerability as a flexible term • Accommodate particularities & circumstantial details • When is a person vulnerable? • When in a position which threatens the holistic person as an agent for developing and achieving the most fundamental dimensions of well-being • Sources of vulnerability • Internal variables • External variables • Narrowing the definition • Distinguishing from susceptibility or loss whatsoever

  9. Vulnerabilities & Well-Being • The holistic person • Powers & Faden (2006) & dimensions of well-being • Sufficient level of functioning along all dimensions necessary for decent minimum • All of equal moral importance • Necessary for human flourishing • Health • Personal security • Reasoning • Respect • Attachment • Self-determination

  10. Vulnerability, Well-Being , and Labels • Intersecting of dimensions • Medical labels can cut across categories • Vulnerability as too broad or abstract? • Problems with non-ideal theories • Flexibility at the expense of narrowness? • Avoiding blanket labels • Essential/fixed traits do not threaten • Vulnerability enters with • Perceptions of other within the context of normative social practices

  11. Ways to Interpret Vulnerability • Distinguishing vulnerability from susceptibility • All humans are vulnerable, but only certain people at specific times are susceptible (Kottow 2003) • Feature of humanity • In our close social relationships, acknowledgement of human frailty is essential for emotional closeness & empathic engagement (Carse 2006) • Forced vulnerability as a social ill • Distinguishing our definition from Kottow & Carse • As the result of • Systematic disadvantage • Asymmetric power relations

  12. Compounded Vulnerabilities • When do they happen? • When systemic or institutional conditions intersect in a manner that creates additional barriers to the agent's ability to develop or achieve wellness of being • Particular susceptibility of historically marginalized populations • Tools to identify when and how different kinds of vulnerabilities intersect to give rise to compounded vulnerabilities • Compounded vulnerabilities as layers of vulnerability

  13. Mental Illness, labels, and compounded vulnerabilities • When diagnostic categories target historically marginalized and disadvantaged populations • Stigma of mental illness • Building of an institutional barrier • Reinforcement of stereotypes & biases • Effects of psychological oppression • Double effect of compounding vulnerabilities • Bolsters marginalization and adds difficulties for attaining sufficient level of well-being

  14. PMDD & Compounded Vulnerability • Controversial medical labels • Designate specific population as an essential feature of the diagnostic criteria • Not explicit in this regard, but de facto apply to a specific population in their diagnostic practices • PMDD as an institutional barrier • Perpetuated stereotype of ‘menstruating women’ • Continues history of women’s pathologization • Compromised legal standing • Compromised medical autonomy • Denied career opportunities • Internalized stigma

  15. Conclusions • Interactive kinds as a conceptual tool • Better evaluate how labels are reflective of biological determinants • How social determinants inform the interpretation of biological factors • Mitigating harm • Through understanding how vulnerabilities intersect • Who is susceptible • Harms and barriers confronted by targeted groups

  16. Recommendations • NOT suggesting radical changes • Awareness is the first step in • Rethinking classifications • Rethinking research interventions • Rethinking treatments at the institutional level • Recognizing the role of the clinician in enhancing patient autonomy through the presentation of materials • Incorporate contextually rich diagnostic tools • Narrative-focused structured interviews when patient presents symptoms or seeks treatment • Provide fuller context & nuanced details • Explain what symptoms mean to the individual • Explain condition-significant distinctions • Communicate life circumstances

  17. Questions? • Diversity of concepts • How can they be bridged? • Historically marginalized populations • Who are they? • Effects of psychiatric labeling Check out our website: http://engage.bioethics.georgetown.edu/mentalillness

More Related