the vulnerability is the Leitvokabel the new normal. Behind the medically virulent question of who counts as one of the Vulnerable, the Vulnerable, continuing the socio-political struggle. The sociologist Stephan Lessenich, author of the book “limits of democracy – participation as a problem of Distribution”, describes the situation as follows: “Sovereign is who decides on the vulnerability condition. And these are not the Vulnerable self.“
The political determination of these Vulnerable-oriented, logical, good reasons, on the one hand, a physio-psychiatric risk scheme, and in part to social risk factors such as poverty and experiences of violence. But the concrete socio-political conflicts, not as evidence based as is often claimed. Lessenich is suspicious: “do not have to store actually, the people in the refugee in the European periphery in the front of manoeuvring in the socio-political priority scale?” They are not doing so. Instead, vulnerability is supported by the guidelines of the German ethics Council, in a strictly “national frame” (Lessenich) is defined, and within this framework, the social Agenda remains a lobbyist marked with: Vulnerable, who belongs to us, to our respective minority.
Who blames on this line arbitrary and de facto narrowing of the vulnerability concept, can now but on the other hand, the excessive expansion of suppression. New inequalities, unmet needs, happiness, loss and vulnerabilities in the political character of the vulnerability felt. The psychiatrist Asmus Finzen seen the flip side of normality assumptions, which explain the Imperfection of the shortcomings of being human, his violated constitutional rule of law, to become abnormal. This is our species-specific normality is not to be exposed to just. In fact, the necessary socio-political sensitivity is measured according to the righteous and not to the Normal.
