The term vulnerability originates from the Latin word ‘wound’ (Turner, 2006, pp. 26–28) that refers to someone or something susceptible to damage, harm, or attack. Though the ontology of the term points towards a physical weakness, it can be expanded to other forms of weakness as well. While there can be multiple forms of vulnerability, this article focuses on vulnerability in terms of gender. This not only defines the scope of study but also indicates the intersectionality in the article. Two strands of argument are taken in this article. The first strand relates heteronormativity to vulnerability, while the second strand argues on the debatable dynamics between vulnerability and marginalisation. In both strands, gender remains at the centre of the argument, with a primary focus on women. The aim is to seek a definitive measure to address the gendered hierarchy through vulnerability. While critics, academics, as well as several organisations, at both local, regional, and global levels, have addressed and identified the vulnerable position of non-cisgender individuals, particularly women, they have failed to address the crux of the problem, which lies in heteronormativity within the very structure of society. The term heteronormativity refers to the embedded belief system regarding the compulsory attraction between opposite genders, “Normative heterosexuality refers to the encompassing regime in which an individual, sexually attracted only to a person of the opposite sex, is assumed to be a natural and universal norm or way of being human” This results in what Butler terms as, “heterosexual matrix” (Butler 1993). While the heterosexual matrix renders the non-heterosexual people in a marginal position, this article recognises how this heteronormativity also puts women on a secondary pedestal. Here, I study how this secondary pedestal contributes to the vulnerable position of women. The second strand of argument locates the argumentative differences between marginalisation and vulnerability, whereby the former results in exposing the limitations of the latter. My article aims to create a symphony between the two superficially contrary arguments. I will try to bridge the gap between the two schools of thought by showing how one inevitably leads to the other. Hence, addressing marginalisation can precede recognising vulnerability. Thus, the article would provide an overview of vulnerability studies through the lens of gender.
Types of Social Vulnerability and Gender
While there are multiple ways to classify vulnerability by keeping women at the centre, this section classifies it into three types of social vulnerability. The division largely emerges from the differences in the ways in which women fall into vulnerable situations. They are broadly as follows: climate, poverty, and health. In my next section, I will show how all of these have their roots in heteronormativity and the power structure emerging from it.
A) Climate
It has been unanimously agreed by most academicians, lawmakers, and activists that climate change results in indispensable hardships among the rural communities, particularly women (Garutsa et al., 2018). While most communities in the world are patrilineal, the situation does not change for women in matrilineal communities since the gendered division of labour hardly changes between the two. While in matrilineal communities, women might have a larger authority on property, the work division remains almost similar between the two forms. Hence, as far as the impact of climate change is concerned, no difference can be located in the two forms of communities. A simple example of adverse climate on women in rural India can be located in the lack of water, which leads women to walk for miles to fetch clean water. Further, they are compelled to carry the water. While there has been a significant development in science and technology, there seems to have been no improvement as far as such issues are concerned. “The challenges women face in coping with climate change are worsened by lack of access and control over productive resources” (Azong, Kelso 68). The above argument signifies the disproportionate division of resources that results in the vulnerable situation of women.
B) Poverty
The uneven distribution of resources leads to poverty, whereby a section of individuals has more access than the other. Poverty or economic disparity is one of the chief factors behind vulnerability. Iorhen (2001) defines poverty in terms of vulnerability as, “Poverty as a global concept has suddenly given birth to vulnerability which has exposed lives, nations and organisations to severe shocks, threats and risks among others. The ability to recover from these shocks is highly dependent on the poverty level, among other factors. The rates of poverty eventually determine the degree of vulnerability. Therefore, poverty and vulnerability are interdependent and affect each other” (188). In the same article, he uses the term chronic poverty to refer to the situation where a section of people is trapped in a situation of economic shortage for generations, with no option or opportunity to move out of it. For women belonging to this section of chronic poverty, the situation is worse since they undergo double layers of marginalisation. While they are in the periphery due to their gender, they also suffer from monetary instability due to their economic position.
C)Health
The lack of adequate health care structure, particularly in third-world countries, puts women in a position of structural frailness. Further, the gendered role of care-giving puts them in a dialectic position where even if they fail to receive the health support, they are expected to perform the role of care-giver towards their family and near ones, “Women were constrained to support their children and elderly family members during this event (Fatouros, 2021, p. 102495). Hence, while a considerable number of women die from childbirth or reproductive problems, at the same time, they are compelled to be caring mothers. Such gendered glorification makes women susceptible to further vulnerability, where they fail to escape the role or attain adequate health care.
In this discussion, I have consciously chosen these three forms of vulnerabilities since they are part of everyday life and do not exist independently. These three vulnerabilities together come under social vulnerability. Since the article is concerned with vulnerability and gender, I chose to discern social vulnerability and its relation to gender. The three forms of vulnerability have one determining factor in common: distribution of wealth. All the forms of vulnerabilities that subject women to regular marginalised situations can be addressed if the resource redistribution is done by keeping women at the centre. Hence, even if the problems are different from one another, they can be collectively addressed through social vulnerability where economic redistribution becomes the crux.
Vulnerability and Heteronormativity
Beyond theeconomic redistribution, the social vulnerabilities that affect women are also a result of the normative heterosexuality that runs the society, whereby women always occupy the secondary pedestal. While it appears that heteronormativity is limited only to relationships, in reality, it dominates every social aspect. Let’s take a closer look at all three aspects. Firstly, as far as climate, disaster, and the role of women are concerned, the heteronormative structure assumes that women would marry a man who would be the breadwinner. Hence, family is assumed to be at the centre. So, all the plans are built accordingly, whereby the independent problems of women are overlooked. A similar strategy is built on the eradication of poverty. Here, again, funding schemes are distributed by stationing the family, or rather, the heteronormative patrilocal family, consisting of husband, wife, children, and the husband’s parents, at the centre. A similar pattern is observed in women’s healthcare, where a major amount of money is spent on women’s reproduction, be it investments in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or funding for health conditions, at the local level or the global level. Further, under the capitalist heteronormative structure, women’s prime role lies in reproduction[1]. Thus, the health problems of women beyond reproduction are kept at the margin with minimal effort to uplift them. Hence, heteronormativity impacts every social reality through the compulsory binary lens. This has a major impact on how women are perceived and the steps taken towards their upliftment. The situation is contradictory since it is heteronormativity that puts women in a state of vulnerability. Hence, the attempt to uplift women is faulty, since the crux of the problem remains unaddressed.
Vulnerability and Marginalisation
This leads to my final argument on the debate between marginalisation and vulnerability. Proponents of vulnerability, like Fineman, argue that vulnerability has the potential to describe a universal enduring aspect of the human condition that needs to be at the centre of our concept of social and state responsibility (Fineman, 2008, p. 8). However, one of the major arguments against vulnerability is its one-dimensional approach that equates everything from a similar linear perspective. In the process, equity is completely discarded (Mayrhofer 9). The discriminatory tools are also eliminated in the utopian concept of equality, or as Krivenko terms it, formal equality (Krivenko, 2022, p. 8). Thus, the debate stands on the fact that vulnerability, while choosing to reduce the gaps, fails to recognise the multiple layers of marginalisation. It navigates through the social reality with a utopian lens and fails to recognise the various degrees of head-starts within the social hierarchy. Here, again, the problem lies at the crux: while vulnerability studies aim to uplift the vulnerable section, the same field of study fails to recognise the marginalisation. Through the lens of vulnerability, women’s social condition is supposed to be uplifted, but the same lens fails to recognise the multiple layers of marginalisation of women. It puts women under a homogeneous spectrum where the entire category is susceptible to damage or attack, and hence needs protection and upliftment.
[1] For further reading, consult Seeing Like a Feminist (2012) by Nivedita Menon and The Creation of Patriarchy (1987) by Gerda Lerner.
Conclusion: Merging the strands
This article tries to bridge the gap between the two strands of arguments as far as gendered hierarchy through heteronormativity is concerned. The very fact that a gendered hierarchy originating from heteronormativity is present results in marginalisation for a particular section. Following the definitions of vulnerability, this marginalised section spontaneously becomes the vulnerable section of society. Thus, recognising vulnerability offers the opportunity to address gendered marginalisation. While the claim is that vulnerability rejects equity, another way to look at the structure is to put vulnerability as the first layer of argument. Once the vulnerable status is confirmed, the politicisation can be initiated by keeping marginalisation stemming from heteronormativity at the centre. Hence, it would open further engagements and discussions on the multiple layers of marginalisation(s) of women. Thus, this article proposes to bridge the gap between vulnerability and marginal studies by claiming that recognising one would inevitably lead to further interrogation about the other. Thus, vulnerability study by keeping gender at the crux does not necessarily provide a conflict to equity and marginalisation; rather, it opens up further discourse on the two by keeping heteronormativity and vulnerability emerging from the former as pivotal lenses.
References
Azong, M. N., & Kelso, C. J. (2021). Gender, Ethnicity and Vulnerability to Climate Change: The Case of Matrilineal and Patrilineal Societies in Bamenda Highlands Region, Cameroon. Global environmental change, 67, p. 102241.
Butler, Judith. (1993). Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. London: Routledge.
Fatouros, S., & Capetola, T. (2021). Examining Gendered Expectations on Women’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Low to Middle-Income Countries: A Critical Literature Review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 64, pp. 102495.
Fineman, M. A. (2008). “The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition.” Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 20 (1), p. 2.
__ (2016). “Equality, autonomy, and the vulnerable subject in law and politics.” In M. A. Fineman & A. Grear (Eds.), Vulnerability: Reflections on a new ethical foundation for law and politics (p. 14). Routledge.
Garutsa, T.C., Mubaya, C.P., Zhou, L. (2018). “Gendered Differentials in Climate Change Adaptation amongst the Shona Ethnic Group in Marondera Rural District, Zimbabwe: a Social Inclusions Lens.” AAS Open Research, 1 (14).
Krivenko, E. Y. (2022, November 19). “Reassessing the relationship between Equality and Vulnerability in Relation to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the ECtHR: The MSS Case 10 Years On.” International Journal of Refugee Law, 34(2), pp. 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeac027
Iorhen, P. T. (2021). “Vulnerability: Types, Causes, and Coping Mechanisms.” International Journal of Science and Management Studies, 4 (3), pp. 2581-5946.
Lerner, Gerda. (1987). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Menon, Nivedita. (2012). Seeing Like a Feminist. New York: Penguin Random House.
Mayrhofer, M. (2025). “The Concept of Vulnerability and Its Relation to the Concepts of Inequality and Discrimination– A Review Article.” The International Journal of Human Rights, pp. 1-30.
__ Mayrhofer, M. (2020). “The Challenges of the Concept of Vulnerability in the Human Rights Context from a Discourse-Analytical Perspective.” Zeitschrift Für Menschenrechte/Journal for Human Rights, 14 (2), pp. 164–166.
Peake, Linda. (2017). “Heteronormativity.” The International Encyclopedia of Geography. DOI: 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0827.
Turner, B. S. (2006). Vulnerability and Human Rights: Essays on Human Rights. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Pritha Sarkar teaches at the Department of English, XIM University, Bhubaneshwar, India