Abstract
The article analyzes the categories “at risk” and “vulnerable” that is currently utilized as a justification for State intervention on poor childhood and adolescence. It discusses the contributions of Psychology as a power-knowledge device that produce the above-mentioned categories and presents a historical overview of child care interventions. The residential care proposed by the existing legislation as a child protection measure is pictured as a biopolitics intervention device. In this scenario, the words “risk” and “vulnerability” has been associated with a moralistic and criminalizing nature, conferring a selective and palliative character to State interventions. It is proposed that these categories act in the service of a double containment: of the bodies, which are restricted to a provisory space - the shelter -, and the subjectivity, now associated to risk and vulnerability, ends up seized and prevented from exercising its power.
Keywords:
Social Psychology; childhood; public policy; social vulnerability; residential care