What we miss when we label people “vulnerable”

Vulnerability is shaped by context, not by identity. Photo © Jana Sleem

Vulnerability rarely reflects identity. It reflects context. This blog explores why acknowledging that distinction matters for language, analysis and peace practice.

By Jana Sleem

In peacebuilding and community engagement work, the word “vulnerable” is widely used. It often functions as a shortcut to describe groups assumed to be at risk. Yet in practice, the term rarely reflects the realities I encountered when working with young people, women, people with disabilities, minorities and community actors. Instead, it can narrow how we understand people and overlook the many ways they contribute to their communities.

Vulnerability is not who people are; it is shaped by their environment and is something they can move out of.

Vulnerability is often presented as if it stems directly from age, gender, disability, minority status or socio-economic background. In reality, it arises from context. It emerges where governance systems fall short, where access is restricted, where services are absent, or where political and economic pressures make daily life more precarious.

This became evident during a youth training on community initiative planning in one of the villages in Mount Lebanon. One participant, who had spent the day facilitating group discussions on community needs, asked why he continued to be listed in programme frameworks as “vulnerable youth.” His question revealed a clear gap between lived experience and external categorisation.

Women, people with disabilities and minorities illustrate the complexity of this term

Women in conflict and post-conflict zones are often categorised as vulnerable by default. Yet in many contexts, they sustain household life, mediate tensions and maintain social ties. During a dialogue session on the Lebanese Civil War one woman highlighted that although women are regularly described as vulnerable, they are often the ones ensuring that daily life continues. Women’s experiences, however, differ depending on various factors such as access to education, economic security, mobility and protection from gender-based violence, underscoring the need for programming that responds to specific conditions rather than treating women as a homogeneous group.

People with disabilities challenge assumptions similarly. Many lead advocacy efforts, actively organise community initiatives, and contribute to civic and social processes when environments are inclusive. When governance frameworks, public services or institutional practices fail to ensure accessibility and inclusion, participation becomes constrained and vulnerability increases. The source of risk lies in the conditions, not in the disability itself.

Minorities likewise demonstrate how vulnerability is shaped by geography and governance rather than identity alone. A group may be a minority at national level but influential locally, or the reverse. In my work across different regions in Lebanon, I have observed how minority groups living in peripheral or border areas experience heightened vulnerability due to weak local governance structures, weaker service provision and barriers to meaningful participation, even when they are socially cohesive and locally organised. By contrast, communities with the same identity living in central or urban areas often face fewer constraints because of stronger institutional engagement and service provision. Spatial and structural factors often shape lived experience far more than population size.

Using “vulnerable” as a general category risks oversimplifying diverse lived experiences. It can portray communities as passive when they are active contributors, and it can obscure the systems that generate risk, including exclusion from decision-making, unequal service provision and governance failures.

A single label cannot capture such nuance. As one community organiser involved in mediation between host communities and internally displaced people during the 2024 war in Lebanon noted, the term “vulnerable” explains nothing about how people live, what they face or what they contribute.

The term “vulnerable” explains nothing about how we live, what we face or what we contribute.

Language, context and conflict sensitivity

Especially in conflict-affected settings, language shapes relationships, perceptions and trust. Assigning vulnerability to entire groups can unintentionally reinforce power imbalances or signal dependency. A conflict-sensitive approach therefore requires awareness of how terminology influences dynamics between communities, institutions and practitioners.

Describing people in relation to conditions rather than identities is both more accurate and more respectful. It avoids deficit framing and supports analysis that foregrounds systems rather than individuals. It also recognises that vulnerability can shift over time, expanding or contracting depending on access, safety, participation and changing conflict dynamics.

When describing groups, it is more constructive to name the specific conditions shaping their experience. Terms such as “excluded from decision-making”, “historically marginalised”, “underrepresented”, “affected by unequal access”, “facing structural barriers” or “at risk due to current conditions” offer greater precision without defining people by a single attribute.

In my work with youth programmes for instance, young people were often labelled as “vulnerable youth” due to unemployment or exclusion. In practice, many were facilitating dialogue and organising community initiatives. When language focused on vulnerability, youth were positioned as beneficiaries; when it named conditions such as exclusion from decision-making or limited institutional access, their participation became more meaningful and their roles more clearly recognised. Such language directs attention to systems rather than identities and invites more careful, conflict-sensitive analysis. It also leaves space to recognise people not only in relation to risk, but also in relation to their contributions, roles and aspirations.

Towards a more accurate and respectful narrative

People do not experience vulnerability simply because they belong to a category. They experience it when protections break down or when institutions fail to serve them. Understanding vulnerability as a fluid condition rather than a fixed identity helps clarify where governance, peacebuilding and conflict transformation efforts should focus.

This insight is grounded in my peacebuilding practice across different settings. Whether working with youth programmes, facilitating dialogue on conflict and memory, supporting mediation between communities, or engaging with minority groups shaped by geographic and administrative conditions, the same pattern repeatedly emerged. When language reduced them to a single label, their roles were narrowed; when it named the conditions shaping their lives, their contributions and agency became visible. These experiences point to a clear implication for peacebuilding practice. If our aim is to support dignity, participation and meaningful engagement, then our language must do more than signal risk. It must help us understand context, reveal power dynamics and guide responses that address the conditions producing vulnerability, rather than reproducing it through the categories we use.

Media contact

You can reach the press team at:
+49 (0) 177 7052758
email hidden; JavaScript is required