Fineman and vulnerability
| Date | 28 March 2019 |
| Published date | 28 March 2019 |
| Pages | 85-88 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-10-2018-0021 |
| Author | Ian Cummins |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Practice paper
Fineman and vulnerability
Ian Cummins
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to argue that the work of the American feminist political and legal
philosopher, Martha Fineman can be the basis for a shift away from the proceduralism and managerialism
that has come to dominate social work practice.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper’s work is based on the application of Fineman’s work to
social welfare settings.
Findings –Fineman’s work calls for a radical rethinking of our notions of autonomy and vulnerability.
Originality/value –This paper applies Fineman’s work to this field.
Keywords Safeguarding, Ethics, Legal, Vulnerability, Autonomy, Martha fineman
Paper type Viewpoint
This viewpoint piece willargue that the workof the American feminist political and legal philosopher,
Martha Fineman can be the basis for a shift away from the proceduralism and managerialism that
has come to dominate approaches to social work practice. Fineman’s work calls for a radical
rethinking of societal notions of concepts such as autonomy and vulnerability. One of the key
features of the political and social dominance of neoliberalism has been the focus on individualism.
Alongside the emphasis placed on the need for the introduction of market mechanisms into all areas
of life, this is the essence of neoliberal philosophy. The concept of individualism raises important
questionsfor professions such as social work that areexplicitly concernedwith broader notions of
social justice. For neoliberalism, inequality is a fact of humanlife –put simply; we are notequal –not
in terms of the law or civic rights, but in terms of skills and abilities. Social work in challenging
discrimination, disadvantage and oppression has used political language and discourse that
focuses on human rights of both individuals and groups. However, as Fraser (2013) has argued this
discourse of individual rights has been taken up most effectively by neoliberalism. The effect is to
empty thediscourse of the broaderconcerns with socialjustice that were at theheart of the original
challenge to the failings of the welfare state that were a feature of the Radical writers of the 1970s
such as Illich (1973). Giroux (2011) argued that neoliberalism has been successful in pushing out
notions such as “social goods”or “community”from broader policy debates.
Vulnerability
It is a feature of all professional fields that those working within them use some forms of jargon or
shorthand. This seems almost inevitable. It does serve to establish and maintain professional
identities and boundaries. Social work appears to be particularly prone to bouts of this, for
example, struggling to agree even on a term for those who use services. Various terms –service
user, client, customer and expert by experience have all been or continued to be used in various
contexts (McLaughlin, 2009). However, none of them is without fault and none really captures
the complexity of social work relationships. The use of language is clearly vitally important.
Beckett (2003) notes that social work practice is replete with metaphors drawn from the military
and war. An approach that is encapsulated in the fact that the Fast Track scheme in children and
Received 5 October 2018
Revised 19 October 2018
Accepted 23 October 2018
Ian Cummins is based at the
Salford University, Salford, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-10-2018-0021 VOL. 21 NO. 2 2019, pp. 85-88, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 85
To continue reading
Request your trial