**Articles**

Stuart Waiton, in "The Vulnerable Subject", draws on a variety of theorists to explore the history, development, and current primacy of the conception of the individual in society as always vulnerable and potentially subject to victimhood, and he discusses some policies and practices which derive from this. With a range of examples, and a particular focus on the law and criminal justice, he argues that the identification of a substantial proportion of the population as victims, subject to trauma and abuse, has significant negative implications. Individualisation grows, collective activity is undermined, and the governmen<sup>t</sup> is increasingly presented as planning for the avoidance of harm. This matches the experience of many professionals and workers, whose jobs from the 1980s onwards became less driven by making progress and more by the avoidance of risk. A linked development has been that this approach has allowed determinedly censorious groups to reduce their reliance on arguments based on morality by adopting arguments based on the avoidance of alleged harm (e.g., harm caused by pornography or prostitution). Since causing "offence" by presenting critical ideas regarding these processes has become conflated with committing harm and abuse, how are their negative consequences to be identified and challenged? How can universities be encouraged to support real freedom of thought, writing, and research in these areas? Is it possible to recover a conception of managemen<sup>t</sup> and governmen<sup>t</sup> based on the achievement of positive ends for robust and self-confident individuals and communities, rather than merely avoiding harm and victimhood

#### for vulnerable individuals?

Jane Fenton and Mark Smith, in "'You Can't Say That!': Critical Thinking, Identity Politics, and the Social Work Academy", develop and exemplify a point made elsewhere in this collection. Long-standing ideals and regulatory requirements are paid lip service (in this case, regarding the necessity of understanding heterodox ideas, and of critical thought, in order to achieve a graduate or master's status generally, and more specifically in social work) while contested ideas about policy and practice are treated and taught as unquestionable. Critique or deviation is dangerous to academic and professional progress. It is normal for universities and professions to change their teaching on the basis of data and evidence, but this new reality has been prompted by pressure from groups promoting a form of identity politics which prioritises "lived experience", and avoiding "offence". To question particular ideas is to promote "hate speech". As a result, new social workers enter the profession accepting particular ideas as obvious, and are unwilling to exercise critical judgement in complex and contested situations. The focus has moved towards individual and cultural recognition, and away from issues of redistribution. Empathy is valued over more appropriate characteristics such as rational compassion. How have the priorities of social work been changed in such fundamental ye<sup>t</sup> unacknowledged ways? Does the individualisation of the social work agenda further the purposes of neoliberalism? Why have both universities and the profession of social work permitted and colluded in these developments? While the focus of this article is specific, the concepts and argumen<sup>t</sup> are more generally applicable across disciplines and organisations.

Jens Stilhoff Sorensen and Erik J. Olsson, in their paper "Shadow Management: Neoliberalism and ¨ the Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy through Ombudsmen with Case Studies from Swedish Higher Education", challenge a frequently taken-for-granted trend in public sector management, which, while certainly mainstream, is arguably also unacknowledged and clandestine. Managerial and regulatory mechanisms presented as guardians of democratic transparency and the rule of law have quietly adopted practices which obscure what is happening: move on quickly, there is nothing to see here! While the material is largely drawn from Swedish higher education, the analysis and critique will spark a general recognition in many public sector staff and middle managers: "Ah yes! That's why I've felt uncomfortable for years." Managerial logic and practice intrinsic to neoliberalism have been imposed on public sector bodies without any formal acknowledgement that the resulting arrangements run counter to established norms, legal requirements, and professional behaviour. To avoid admitting to this fundamental change, key practices and mechanisms which should protect the law and professional activity have been subverted, even up to the work of sectoral and state ombudsman. The contrarian illumination of this bad faith and hypocrisy, and its negative consequences, is both valuable and timely. How should the identified contradictions be illuminated and inserted into public awareness and debate? Within the academy, how are senior managers and regulators to be held accountable for their failure to acknowledge or act on these shortcomings?

Else-Marie Buch Leander, Karen Pallesgaard Munk, and Per Lindsø Larsen, in their paper "Guidelines for Preventing Child Sexual Abuse and Wrongful Allegations against Staff at Danish Childcare Facilities" comprehensively describe one of the most substantial empirical research projects conducted on the multiple effects, unintended consequences, and contradictions resulting from the widespread adoption of documented guidelines for avoiding child sexual abuse (CSA). The work focused on Danish childcare settings, but the reported experiences and outcomes will resonate widely. Drawing on a number of theoretical frameworks, the project outcomes are discussed and illuminated. A theme of other articles here is replicated in that the adoption of a simplistic regulatory approach to avoiding CSA and protecting staff from suspicion, combined with what Foucault calls the "real procedures" limiting the professional behaviours of male workers. Guidelines specifically aimed at men actually breaks Danish law in relation to employment rights and gender equality. Can the pretence that CSA can be avoided, and staff-protected, by the imposition of essentially performative restrictions be sustained? While CSA must obviously be avoided, proscribing affection, spontaneity, and key elements of humanity in childcare settings is a high price to pay, for both children and staff. How are we to promote principles of intergenerational trust and affection, and professional responsibility, if relations between children and non-parental adults are treated as risky and potentially toxic?

Erik J. Olsson and Jens Stilhoff Sorensen, in "What Price Equality? The Academic Cost of ¨ Government Supervised Gender Mainstreaming at Swedish Universities", challenge what has become a taken for granted "good" in many societies and various institutional contexts: the authoritative encouragemen<sup>t</sup> or effective imposition of gender mainstreaming. With contextual exposition and reference to key documentation and practices, they outline consequential tensions in Swedish Universities. In particular, they question how this development is compatible with more long-standing, taken-for-granted principles: institutional autonomy and academic freedom. The national and institutional promotion of one "good" has had unacknowledged, unintentional, or perhaps insufficiently considered, negative consequences for others. Significant questions are raised. How explicitly should particular principles and targets be prioritised over others? Is it possible to avoid real or apparent unfairness to some when introducing new policies and practices to support greater equality for others? Do Swedish Universities rate so high in terms of gender equality essentially because they rate so low for institutional autonomy?

Gustavo Gonzalez-Calvo's article "Narrative Reflections on Masculinity and Fatherhood during ´ Covid-19 Confinement in Spain" is a response to a situation, and the resultant issues, which could barely have been predicted when the concept and brief for this Special Edition were developed. It crosses boundaries with subversive effect; while presenting as an exercise in narrative reflection, it challenges the reader to reflect on the experience of the body, the person, and their family, during a severe pandemic lockdown, in relation to more overarching individual, academic, social, environmental and economic questions. In doing so, it critiques orthodox assumptions and practices. What are the limits and implications of narrative research in this special context? Why are the limits of a biomedical approach so rarely acknowledged? Should the current hegemony of epidemiology be countered through advancing concepts such as "manufactured risk" and how it relates to individual experience? Should a reconsideration of societal, economic, and environmental policies and practices be required as a response to the pandemic? Have mainstream responses to our situation exposed a much more savage societal approach to the vulnerable, the poor, the elderly, than we would like to admit? While many wish for "a return to normal", and others prepare to embrace a "new normal", should we be pressing for something else entirely? Written very early on in the pandemic, the article will make for uncomfortable/apocalyptic reading for many.
