
doi: 10.71265/mkh2tx21
In recent years, critiques of the ‘vulnerability’ label ascribed to specific population groups have gained momentum due to its stigmatising effects. With Martha Fineman at their forefront, these voices contest that vulnerability is not limited to particular groups but universal and inherent to being human. However, operationalizing this universal conception of vulnerability poses challenges and risks, potentially leading to the inadequate protection of groups disproportionately susceptible to harm. This paper discusses the dilemma between universal and particular vulnerability paradigms, focusing on persons with disabilities within the context of digital government. Particular vulnerabilities in this context are mirrored in the digital disability divide, systemic ableism, and public service dependencies. Drawing from legal feminist, socio-legal, and disability scholarship, this paper suggests that a ‘social model approach to vulnerability’ would reconcile vulnerability perspectives and allow for a particular vulnerability approach in digital government without perpetuating stigma. Inspired by the ‘social model of disability’, this vulnerability paradigm emphasises that external factors, such as structural disadvantage and unequal power and opportunity dynamics are the primary causes of vulnerability. This shifts the focus from individual characteristics to systemic accountability.
digital exclusion, automated government, inequality, SDG 16 - Peace, disability, vulnerability, systemic ableism, administrative law, digitalization, dependency, Justice and Strong Institutions, social model of disability
digital exclusion, automated government, inequality, SDG 16 - Peace, disability, vulnerability, systemic ableism, administrative law, digitalization, dependency, Justice and Strong Institutions, social model of disability
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
