Vulnerability arises when a person lacks control over events that threaten what matters to them (Anderson, 2014). It is commonly associated with adverse situations—events that individuals experience as undesirable or that are socially construed as such (Scully, 2014). As such, vulnerability is closely tied to power relations. When individuals gain greater control over the forces shaping their lives, vulnerability is reduced; when such control is diminished, vulnerability intensifies (Anderson, 2014). In this sense, pandemics such as COVID-19 have had profound and disproportionate impacts on people with disabilities, as pre-existing social injustices and discriminatory structures have exacerbated vulnerability and constrained access to protection and support (Scully, 2020).

A broader, sociopolitical conceptualization emerges in Butler’s (2004) theory of precarity, which reframes vulnerability as a structurally distributed condition rather than an individual deficit. Butler (2004, 2016) argues precarity is embedded in the social fabric—shaped by societal and structural inequalities that leave some groups more exposed to suffering. That precarity is not universal but differentially allocated through normative frameworks that determine whose lives are grievable and whose are disposable. Precarity operates at the intersection of bodily dependence—the inherent need for care, assistance, and social support that sustains life; social recognition—the extent to which individuals are acknowledged as valuable, legitimate members of society; and state regulation—the institutional and policy frameworks that allocate protection, rights, and welfare. When these interdependent dimensions fail to provide adequate support, certain populations (e.g., women and people with disabilities) become systematically exposed to harm, exploitation, and exclusion (Butler, 2004). This framework can explain how, in China, the interplay of gender norms, disability stigma, and welfare exclusions produces forms of structurally induced precarity for women with visual impairments. In Frames of War (Butler, 2016), Butler posits that precarity is politically induced: neoliberal governance, labour deregulation, and welfare retrenchment deliberately produce precarious subjects whose survival depends on precarious work, conditional aid, and familial obligation.

Critics, however, highlight the abstraction and universality of Butler’s account. Fraser (2013) and McNay (2014) argue that it underplays material hierarchies of class, gender, and race, whereas disability theorists such as Goodley (2014) and McRuer (2018) caution that framing dependence as vulnerability risks reinscribing able-bodied norms. Integrative perspectives, such as Kafer (2013), call for embedding Butler’s ethical ontology of vulnerability within intersectional and material analyses of capitalism, patriarchy, and ableism.

Scully (2014) further distinguishes between two types of vulnerability related to disability: inherent and contingent vulnerabilities. Inherent vulnerabilities stem from an individual’s physiological or biological traits, such as physical weakness or chronic pain. While social environments can be adjusted to accommodate these vulnerabilities, it is impossible to eliminate them through such changes (Scully, 2014). In contrast, contingent vulnerabilities arise directly from the social environment and are shaped by social factors that create and sustain situations of vulnerability (Scully, 2014). For instance, if a workplace is not accessible for a person in a wheelchair, that individual must rely on someone else for assistance to navigate the space. This dependency creates vulnerability, as the person in the wheelchair is subject to the other individual’s actions and may face potential exploitation of that power. In this context, inherent vulnerability linked to biological traits aligns with the medical model (Llewellyn and Hogan, 2000), which views disability as a medical issue. On the other hand, contingent vulnerability can be understood through the social model (Oliver, 2018), where vulnerability depends on social barriers, such as an inaccessible environment.

Perceptions of vulnerability are closely tied to issues of autonomy and the recognition or denial of legal capacity (Arstein-Kerslake, 2019). Women with disabilities or people with disabilities, in general, are often disproportionately categorised as inherently vulnerable (Butler, 2016), leading to the perception that they require more protection than other groups. This has resulted in a loss of autonomy across various contexts. The denial of autonomy exacerbates contingent vulnerability, frequently misinterpreted as an inherent vulnerability. This creates a cyclical pattern of labelling, reinforcing the idea that women with disabilities or people with disabilities generally need special protection and are incapable of making independent decisions or exercising legal rights on par with others (Arstein-Kerslake, 2019). However, recognising the agency and autonomy of women with disability is a critical step toward breaking this cycle and reducing both inherent and contingent vulnerabilities. In line with Savaş et al. (2023), the analysis of vulnerability also requires attention to empowerment. The authors argue that vulnerability and empowerment are interlinked: while vulnerability may seem to signify powerlessness, it also creates opportunities for collective action and resistance.

As mainstream schools rejected most participants, nearly all attended special education schools, highlighting systemic barriers that produced early contingent vulnerabilities (Scully, 2014). Ling persistently sought enrolment in a local preschool and repeatedly told her parents, “I must go to school,” but faced rejection due to the lack of adapted entry assessments. She vividly recounted her failed preschool registration:

The preschool registration system was designed primarily for children without disabilities, meaning that visual impairments were treated as exceptions or deficits. The absence of accessible assessments demonstrates structural mechanisms that constrain autonomy, reinforcing the educational system itself as a source of vulnerability. Nevertheless, Ling’s persistent efforts to attend school, despite repeated rejections, illustrate early agency in negotiating structural barriers, signaling her potential for empowerment—a dynamic that will be further analysed through Butler’s (2004) precarity and Scully’s (2014) contingent vulnerability framework in 4.2.

Access to schools for the blind, although formally available, was limited and frequently required long-distance travel. Regardless of whether participants were born in urban or rural areas, all reported the need to travel substantial distances to attend such schools, as schools for the blind were typically established at the provincial rather than city level. As Lili explained:

Similarly, Lisha’s primary school was 500 kilometres from her home. Ling experienced a 2-year wait for a new class of students with visual impairments, and Kaili was restricted by household registration policies from attending a school for the blind in another city. These experiences demonstrate how geographic and bureaucratic barriers create structural precarity (Butler, 2004), making access to education contingent upon economic resources and family support. Such constraints illustrate how contingent vulnerability interacts with inherent vulnerability (Scully, 2014), as physical impairment intersects with structural and institutional exclusions.

Early medicalisation often displaced opportunities for educational and social development, particularly for those participants (Lili, Tina, and Kaili) who were born in urban areas and grew up in relatively advantaged financial conditions. Instead of entering the preschool, Tina and Lili continually saw doctors seeking treatment for their eye conditions. Tina, who was partially sighted and now with no vision, said she seemed to live in the hospital when she was a kid. When talking about her experiences with eye treatments at that age, Tina kept repeating, “I had no childhood”:

Routine medical interventions limited autonomy, framing her as a medical subject rather than an individual capable of agency. Similarly, Lili was told by a doctor that she “should never have been born,” reflecting deeply entrenched ableist medical attitudes. Experiences such as these exemplify the interplay between inherent vulnerability (Scully, 2014), arising from biological traits, and contingent vulnerability (Scully, 2014), arising from social practices that restrict autonomy and participation. These medicalized childhood experiences set a precedent for later structural exclusions in education and work, demonstrating early precarity in life trajectories.

Parental attitudes reinforced systemic barriers. Three participants (Lisha, Le, and Ling) reported that their parents believed formal education was not worth pursuing for children with visual impairments, viewing it as a waste of time compared to practical skills like massage. This attitude influenced Lisha and Le’s decisions to abandon formal education and pursue massage training instead. Lisha, for example, was not allowed to continue her education beyond Grade 2 due to her father’s patriarchal beliefs, which prioritised skills that would enable her to support herself in the future rather than completing her compulsory education. This decision, although deeply hurtful to Lisha, reflects a common belief in certain communities that education for girls, particularly girls with disabilities, is unnecessary or impractical (Zhou, 2012):

Lisha’s father’s view toward a girl with visual impairments reflects compounded vulnerability caused by gender and disability. On the one hand, Lisha faced obstacles to accessing formal education because it was considered useless for a child with disabilities to go to school; on the other hand, she was not taken seriously and cared for well by her family as a daughter. Her two intersecting identities made her father not allow her to continue going to school. Her experience illustrates how vulnerability was produced through the intertwined effects of disability and gender, with discrimination and marginalisation mutually reinforcing one another and shaping her life trajectory (Davis, 2008).

Similarly, Le’s belief that she was “useless” due to her disability and gender, instilled by her parents. Le internalised the perception of being “useless,” reflecting the personal and social construction of vulnerability. These examples illustrate contingent vulnerability (Scully, 2014) at the family level, where social norms and expectations intersect with gendered assumptions about disability to restrict access to educational opportunities. The intersection of gender and disability intensified vulnerability, limiting participants’ capacity to challenge exclusionary decisions and reinforcing structural precarity in both educational and later occupational domains.

However, Kaili, who was born into relatively advantaged families, reported different experiences. Kaili’s mother believed that her daughter could develop skills beyond massage and therefore arranged private lessons in piano and English during childhood. Distrusting the educational quality of the school for the blind, she withdrew Kaili from special schooling for several years and instead provided home-based education.

Vocational training, particularly massage, was introduced in primary school and emphasized throughout compulsory, secondary, and tertiary education. Ling and Haidi mentioned having massage courses as early as Grade 5 or 6 in their special primary schools. The current academic literature discusses little about when students with visual impairments are expected to engage in massage-related activities, but Ling explained this situation:

Different admission ages influenced which courses students received, with massage training positioned as a practical route into the labour market. This early vocational focus reflected prevailing assumptions that people with visual impairments were best suited for caregiving or manual roles, while simultaneously narrowing educational trajectories at an early stage. Rather than supporting exploration or skill diversification, these arrangements set students on predetermined pathways, shaping future options long before meaningful choice became possible. In this sense, early vocationalisation exemplifies contingent vulnerability, as institutional decisions—not individual preferences—played a decisive role in structuring educational and occupational futures (Scully, 2014).

Autonomy was further constrained at the level of tertiary education. Tina and Lili reported that only a limited number of universities offered specialised entrance examinations for students with visual impairments, and that available programmes were largely confined to massage or music (Ma, 2014; Ma and Ni, 2023; Zhang, 2021). These higher-education gatekeeping practices did not merely channel students into particular fields but also imposed an upper boundary on aspiration, qualification, and mobility. Such institutional constraints illustrate how precarity is reproduced through restricted access to recognised credentials, with long-term implications for employment security and social positioning (Butler, 2004).

More than half of the participants reported that social pressures—from family, friends, and local communities—played a significant role in their decision to pursue massage training. Le’s experience illustrates this dynamic: Despite having no formal education, she was introduced to massage training by a fellow villager who had seen a person with visual impairment working in a massage parlour. Her story highlights how individuals with visual impairments are often funnelled into specific career paths, reflecting both the limited employment options available and the lack of autonomy in career choices for people with disabilities.

Lili’s experience further underscores the weight of family expectations. Despite her deep-rooted passion for playing the piano, her family pressured her into massage work, reinforcing the gendered and economic vulnerabilities faced by women with disabilities. The assumption that people with visual impairments are best suited for massage not only constrained her choices but also exemplified how cultural norms and familial expectations can override individual aspirations, leaving limited room for alternative career paths.

Lisha and Le’s experiences illustrate that not all massage parlours, despite being seen as an industry where people with visual impairments could thrive, are barrier-free. In large massage parlours, they faced considerable challenges, such as difficulty identifying clients and rooms, and struggled to integrate with colleagues without disability. Lisha described feeling isolated as the only employee with visual impairment, which compounded her vulnerability in the workplace. Moreover, the inaccessible work environment—including issues like travelling (the accommodation provided was outside the massage parlour)—led Lisha to leave a job where she faced social and logistical barriers. These working experiences highlight how the workplace environment itself is structured in ways that exclude employees with disability. Despite the expectation that massage parlours should be accommodating, they often fail to provide basic accessibility features, which leads to contingent vulnerability (Scully, 2014). Moreover, Lisha mentioned that massage work might not be a suitable job for women with visual impairments, as females are more likely to have less body strength than men, and their massage effect is at a relatively disadvantaged level.

On the other hand, Lili and Kaili, who has the chance to learn piano during their childhood, encountered another vocational stereotype for people with visual impairments—the creative industries, particularly music. Their experiences highlight systemic challenges within this field. Lili aspired to be a piano teacher and studied piano for 20 years, eventually graduating from a special college. However, when she sought employment at a local piano shop alongside a classmate with low vision, she was rejected. Unlike Lili, her classmate could travel and work independently, while Lili, who was completely blind, required assistance. Her reliance on her grandmother as a personal assistant gave employers the impression that she lacked independence, leading to their decision not to hire her. This shows that employers in the music industry often hesitate to hire women with visual impairments due to perceived travel difficulties, further limiting their employment opportunities. Workplace inaccessibility and lack of accommodations produced structural barriers that heightened vulnerability and limited independence. Such conditions exemplify precarity in the workforce, where institutional arrangements constrain employment options and reinforce societal assumptions of incapacity (Butler, 2004).

Sexual harassment emerged as a significant workplace and educational risk. Four participants (Le, Lili, Ling, and Lisha) mentioned that sexual harassment happened to them, either in special schools or in massage parlours. For three of the five female participants who worked in massage parlours, experiences of sexual harassment were frequent, often involving male clients engaging in inappropriate physical contact:

Ling’s experience of being punished by the boss for refusing inappropriate customers illustrates the power dynamics at play, where workers’ safety and dignity are often subordinated to economic goals. Additionally, Le’s response to harassment, where she asserted her boundaries by refusing to continue the massage and informing the boss, shows an attempt to regain some degree of agency in a difficult situation. However, the fact that she had to act independently without institutional support reveals the lack of protection for women with disabilities in the workplace. More importantly, Le also said sexual harassment is not only caused by the clients but also sometimes by her male colleagues with visual impairments. None of this has ever come to light previously. This suggests that sexual harassment is not confined to interactions with people without disabilities but can also stem from within the disabled community itself, where gendered power imbalances and internalised stereotypes play a role in perpetuating harmful behaviours.

Lisha indicated that harassment largely ended only after establishing her own business with her husband. These experiences highlight how economic dependence, lack of protective structures, and gendered dynamics converge to create structural precarity and reinforce contingent vulnerability (Scully, 2014; Mustaniemi-Laakso et al., 2023). These patterns also underscore the importance of autonomy, self-advocacy, and ownership over work environments as protective factors against exploitation.

Overall, the findings suggest that the women participants in this study experienced multilayered barriers rooted in cultural norms, institutional constraints, and gendered expectations within specific institutional contexts in China. These intersecting forces shape their educational and employment trajectories, reinforcing structural inequalities and limiting agency. While participants demonstrated resilience and adaptability within these constraints, their narratives underscore the systemic nature of vulnerability rather than individual deficiency. The following discussion situates these findings within existing scholarship and theoretical frameworks to deepen understanding of how gender, disability, and social structures intersect to produce and sustain vulnerability.