Since the phenomena in the contemporary situation related to social vulnerability and uncertainty in the basic modes of experiencing time and space in the so-called “long 21st century” reveal to us the current forms of social suffering that swoop all members of society, it can be said that there is a shortage of scientific conceptual frameworks of understanding many of them. Therefore, by focusing our research attention on the problem of social vulnerability in this project, we rely on innovative interdisciplinary conceptual grids, both for its rationalization and for upholding its multi-dimensionality. This approach is fundamentally different from that of traditional disciplines such as classical sociology, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, or social psychology.
Many examples of social suffering, observable in the context of the situation in Bulgaria with regard to socially declassed groups such as the homeless, for example; the racially, sexually and age-stigmatized groups such as roma; the homosexuals or the elderly people; or even the refugees and the minorities; are different from those in Europe. On one hand, the specifics of the economic crisis, the political instability and the mistrust in democratic institutions lead to an increasing isolation of people from the economic and political life of the country. On the other hand, our everyday life turns out to be full of multiple vulnerabilities in the form of affective exchanges – accusations and excuses, insults and quarrels, gossip and intrigue, etc., all of them being characteristics of the so-called “pathogenic situations” which “block the “essential reflexivity”” of everyday social. Thus, in everyday life, very different and specific local forms of social “being hurt” or “woundedness” are observable. These are aspects of what ethnomethodologists have called “endogenous logic of practices”, and their differentia specifica is that they constantly re-update the need for reliable and flexible scientific methods for their identification and analysis. It would not be exaggerated to say that such methods are utilised by the socioanalysis of self-inheritance, which also gives a lot of chances not only for understanding and overcoming these forms of social woundedness, but also for redefining the attitude towards social vulnerability in public discourses.
We assume that forms of social vulnerability are aspects of wholly locally produced forms of social suffering experienced by traumatized individuals with fractal identities (i.e. ones losing their biographical illusio) which can be illustrated by the expression ‘I have no one to turn to!’, borrowed from Harvey Sacks’s lectures on Conversation Analysis. Thus, the focus on vulnerability is on the mode of singularity of social suffering as well as on that particular stage of experiencing it in which, through various forms of practical inference, the ‘injured’ one establishes, despite their desire to the contrary, their deprivation of anyone capable of ‘hearing’ their suffering. As a result, it is possible to experience the extremely intense ontological situation in which there really is ‘no one to turn to’ as in Sacks, and we add: ‘but I want to’. The quote illustrates not just the moment of recognition of one’s own suffering but also that the socioanalyst identifies as the sought-after Who (as an expert) capable of ‘listening’ to the suffering in the mode of its experiencing. This puts the stress not so much on the practice of conducting socioanalytical sessions as, rather, on the analysis of empirical data extracted through them. In this way we expect to develop the analytical effectiveness of the logic and methodology of human sciences, as well as to make progress in the field of socioanalysis, which has the potential to provide new chances in resolving problems of social vulnerability. Thus the project aims at exploring the research problem of practices of coping with different forms of social vulnerability through empirical data analysis, and is also oriented towards applying and developing methods for preclinical socioanalytical practice, maieutically supporting self-inheritance and a subsequent new ‘temporization’ of experience. In these situations, the world has ‘withdrawn’ and no longer offers objects of investment for those suddenly ‘rejected’ from the social game.