STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY AND THE MIGRANT CONDITION
Dr. Sandra Göttsche (Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg)
Migration is often discussed in polarized and simplified ways: either as a humanitarian crisis demanding urgent care, or as a security threat necessitating control. But beneath these polarized narratives lies a deeper human reality—that of vulnerability. In this blog post, I aim to challenge conventional assumptions by unpacking how vulnerability is more than a weakness; it is a multidimensional, relational, and even potentially empowering dimension of human existence. Drawing from my theoretical framework and empirical data, this contribution encourages a nuanced reflection on how we perceive, engage with, and shape policies around migrants and refugees.
Vulnerability Beyond Victimhood
Popular discourses often portray vulnerable individuals as passive victims, lacking agency, dependent, and in need of rescue.1 This framing, while well-intentioned, risks oversimplifying the complex realities migrants face. I argue that all human beings are inherently vulnerable, a notion supported by philosophy and theology alike.2 Vulnerability is not a deficit but a shared ontological condition, made more visible through social, cultural, and political contexts.
In contrast to medical, ecological, or security policy discourses that tend to see vulnerability as something to eliminate or fix3, this perspective acknowledges that being vulnerable also means being capable of empathy, connection, and transformation; therefore, it is both a site of risk and of potential.
Introducing Structurality: A Fifth Vulnerability Aspect
Building on the framework of Burghardt et al. (2017), who distinguish sociality, culturality, corporality, and liminality as key aspects of vulnerability, I introduce a fifth, often overlooked element: structurality.4 Structurality draws attention to how systems, such as asylum procedures, public administration, or even education, shape people’s vulnerability.
These structures, while ostensibly neutral, can reinforce power imbalances and restrict agency. Yet even within such constraints, individuals may find ways to act, resist, or redefine their position, which is precisely why vulnerability and agency must not be seen as mutually exclusive. For example, refugees may be denied access to social services based on their language skills or face structural discrimination in housing and employment. In such cases, the institution itself becomes what I call a vulnerant factor (a potentially harmful one), creating rather than just managing vulnerability.
Migrants at the Intersection of Multiple Vulnerabilities
Migrants often embody multiple intersecting vulnerabilities. They experience social exclusion, cultural alienation, legal precarity, and sometimes even bodily control—for instance, through biometric data collection or age verification practices. In addition, society also makes a distinction as to who is considered (particularly) vulnerable: the refugee child is often seen as more ‘deserving’ than the adult male migrant, reflecting a moral hierarchy of vulnerability.
This instrumentalization of suffering is problematic. When recognition, asylum, or aid depend on appearing ‘vulnerable enough,’ individuals may be pushed to perform their trauma, reinforcing victimhood narratives rather than enabling autonomy or resistance. At the same time, migrants who show political agency, e.g., through protest, may be met with suspicion or even backlash.
The Double Bind of Recognition
One of the most important contributions of this framework is the idea that vulnerability and recognition are closely intertwined. Migrants are not only vulnerable because of what they have endured but also because of how society sees—or does not see—them. Recognition is never neutral. It is shaped by cultural assumptions, policy imperatives, and institutional routines.
The paradox is this: to be recognized, migrants often need to be perceived as helpless; yet if they assert their needs or critique the system, they risk being delegitimized. This double bind traps them between gratitude and agency—between being helped and being heard.
Vulnerability as a Starting Point for Justice
Reframing vulnerability as a shared and relational condition opens new possibilities for justice. It invites us to ask not just how people suffer, but how systems contribute to or alleviate that suffering. Instead of depoliticizing vulnerability into abstract compassion, I propose an approach that situates vulnerability in power relations, where structurality becomes a key to understanding and transforming lived realities.
This has far-reaching implications. Institutions should be reflective about how their policies and practices reinforce hierarchies of worth. The actors, educators, and policymakers of civil society can benefit from viewing migrants not just as service recipients, but as co-actors in reshaping the meaning of belonging, rights, and solidarity. Recognizing the structurality of vulnerability compels us to move beyond token inclusion and toward institutional practices that redistribute power—for instance, by embedding migrant voices into the design and governance of the very systems that shape their lives.
Final Reflections
By redefining vulnerability as both a human constant and a political category, I aim to offer a compelling framework for rethinking migration. Vulnerability is not something to eliminate, it is something to understand. Migrants’ lives are shaped by a dense web of social, cultural, corporal, liminal, and institutional conditions. Recognizing these complexities, without reducing individuals to stereotypes, is a vital step toward creating more just and responsive societies and state institutions.
Ultimately, this perspective calls on us to shift from control to care, from pity to solidarity, and from categorizing people by their suffering to recognizing them as full political subjects—vulnerable, yes, but also capable, resilient, and worthy of voice.
- Birkmann et al. (1994): Psychophysiological stress and disorders of industrial society: A critical theoretical formulation for biocultural research. In: Forman (Ed.), Diagnosing America Anthropology and public engagement, (pp. 149-192). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ↩︎
- Keul (2015): Verwundbarkeit – Eine unerhörte Macht, Herder Korrespondenz, 12, pp. 647-651. ↩︎
- Burghardt et al. (2017): Vulnerabilität. Pädagogische Herausforderungen, Kohlhammer. ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎