Authors have approached vulnerability as an ontological condition with a transformative potential to promote social justice and human rights. 117, 118, 119 Judith Butler120 writes that vulnerability of a subject is a question of ontological precariousness of life. Vulnerability is often linked to the well-meaning approach of helping those ‘less well off’ in the society. 121 The policies and practices targeting vulnerable young people often resonate with good intentions. The school system needs to give equal opportunities, which means that the vulnerable individuals should also be given appropriate concern. However, the traditional ethos on youth work concerning empowerment and voluntary participation is increasingly challenged by short-term interventions and ideologies and practices responding to social problems as individualised risks and problems. The role of education seems to be slipping away from knowledge-based education to skills training and even towards infantilisation, which Frank Furedi has pointed out in his book Wasted: Why education isn’t educating.122 More policy and professional discourses insist that young people must develop competences of resilience, selfdiscipline, and continuous self-development. 123, 124 The shift of responsibility from social/society to individual has increased vulnerability. This is especially evident in the sphere of working life, where workers have been considered disposable without obligation on the part of the ‘social fabric’ to take care of them.
Nordic localism After a period of centralisation since the 1930s, ‘traditional Nordic localism’ re-emerged during the 1980s. 125 Traditionally, vesting a high degree of decision-making in local authorities has been the central feature of school education in the Nordic countries. 126, 127 Nevertheless, before the 1990s, state regulation was considered Turner, B. (2006). Vulnerability and human rights. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 118 Brown, K. (2011). ‘Vulnerability’: Handle with care. Journal of Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(3), 313–321. 119 Ecclestone, K., & Goodley, D. (2014). Political and educational springboard or straitjacket? Theorising post/human subjects in an age of vulnerability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 175–188. https://doi.org.10.1080/01596306.2014.927112 120 Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso. 121 Brown, K. (2014). Questioning the ‘vulnerability zeitgeist’: Care and control practices with ‘vulnerable’ young people. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 1–17. 122 Furedi, F. (2009). Wasted: Why education isn’t educating. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. 123 Bottrell, D. (2009). Understanding ‘marginal’ perspectives. Towards a social theory of resilience. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice 8(3), 321–339. 124 Walther, A. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions: Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts. Young, 14(2), 119–139. 125 Green, A., Wolf, A., & Leney, T. (1999). Convergence and divergence in European education and training systems. London: Institute of Education, University of London. 126 Arnesen, A.-L., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in the Nordic welfare states. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3), 285–300. 127 Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. 117
38
