Ies they inhabit and produce. The dominant notion

Beyond this, vulnerability is understood as an attribute of populations of related men and women (female, poor, and so on), but the person members of these populations are certainly not understood as connected one to a different in any way besides by way of an overarching vulnerability. The concept of social relations is absent or is very difficult to capture and target devoid of lapsing into notions on the social as a barrier. We talk about this dilemma in relation to social drivers, delivering a a lot more nuanced approach to vulnerability (see the Social Drivers or Social Enablers section). Lastly, there is no understanding of collective agency that arises out of social relations or any acknowledgment on the practices of collectives or communities.35 Instead, each folks and groups are often presented as constrained and inhibited, in line withthe deficit model that vulnerability theory so typically justifies. In the absence of any investigation on the social relations that connect people to one another, SU5416 attributes of a population are mistakenly collapsed with attributes of persons inside that population.36 As a result, the notion of vulnerability renders the person members of vulnerable populations incapable of action; there's tiny recognition or understanding of what connects people to one another, and what types the stuff of their social and cultural lives. Moreover, although the move to vulnerability originates as a move to extend beyond the concept of individual behavior, the notion of an individual is just not totally absent. The positive aspects of addressing vulnerability are described inside a way that augments the identical topic: the rational, person agent of liberal and neoliberal societies is upheld because the dominant mode of becoming. As a result, criticisms of assumptions in regards to the limits from the autonomous topic, who is invoked when behavior will be the primary object of study or intervention, are reinterpreted (and misinterpreted) to imply if only the social and political situations were correct, we would all be inside a position to possess our behavior targeted by well-designed wellness interventions, and we would all act rationally and take up the technologies promoted.37 This embracing of vulnerability often has the unintended consequence of creating agency disappear, just about by definition, because vulnerability assumes that people can't act until the social is changed. As a result, this strategy will not market what it often sets out to accomplish (i.e., grassroots HIV prevention efforts), due to the fact such efforts commence with social relations. Rather, by approaching the social within the type of problematic social structures or barriers, framing HIV prevention as a matter of vulnerability after once again dangers inviting vertical or top-down attempts to tackle the social. In place of stimulating resistance in the face of structural violence,38---41 it might grow to be immobilizing because of the seemingly insurmountable process of transforming macro-level social structures that lie beyond the attain of even the largest public overall health applications.likely to be productive, at the least not without an understanding with the soci.Ies they inhabit and create. The dominant notion on the social implied by most attempts to conceptualize vulnerability inside the context of HIV prevention can be a social structure or social barrier.