What fresh hell is this?

It's rare for me to deal with the issue of homelessness. For one thing, there are too many people with far more knowledge and experience who can address it with more authority.

Jen, as an example, wrote a post in the weesmas about the final night at a cold weather shelter that is closing for the season. Obviously I pay attention to what she says. She has the bonafides, has done her time in the trenches and knows more in ten minutes than I will in a lifetime.

At the same time, we come from different approaches. Her educational background is in psychology. Mine is sociology. I read what she says and my head automatically looks at it from a very broad perspective, the perspective of one who has studied societies.

That will automatically cause us to view the same thing through a different lens, even though we share the same visceral reaction.

I don't have practical solutions. I don't understand the labyrinth of social service agencies and government programs. While I have a yeoman's understanding, the actual mechanics of getting something done is completely beyond me.

I'd like to give a picture of this problem through my lens. Just something else to consider.

Western societies hold the functionalist view. Homelessness is part of the natural order of social organization. There will always be those who have more than others and that hierarchy defines natural order.

Lenin wrote a lot about this view of society in his book The ABCs of Historical and Dialectical Materialism. I don't agree with his conclusions but he did write a decent analysis of it.

American culture, given its Puritan underpinnings, specifically holds the judgemental view that only "bad" Americans become homeless because they are lazy, drug-addicted or careless about their own lives. That gives permission to ignore them, to pretend there is no obligation to do anything about it. At the root of the belief is that most people, given the choice, would sit back and do nothing, stop working and let the government support them. The homeless are effectively used as a social scare tactic.

There is also an element of the conflict theory. The basis of that theory is that social order is determined by power and coercion. The only way to change our social status is by power struggle through competition.

This view holds that the homeless are simply too weak to climb the ladder.

The third view is called symbolic interaction. This theory holds that individuals give meaning to social behavior and that creates society. The society as a whole is created by the collective of individual beliefs. It is more subjective than the other two. Social status is demonstrated through symbols. Status symbols. The society determines what those status symbols might be. As an example, being fat used to be a status symbol. It meant you had enough to eat.

The relationship between the individual and society is that the individual and society are both interdependent. This perspective views the homeless through symbols. These symbols can be anything. The clothes they wear, the way they act and the foods they eat.

This view, in my opinion, combined with the other two creates a real problem for the homeless in this particular society.

If we believe they are a part of the natural order, we need them to remain homeless to reinforce that view.

If we believe they are simply weak, then they become disposable. We can relegate them to non-personhood.

If we believe they are a symbol, what is that symbol?

That is the root question, in my opinion.

I am interested ~ as always ~ in hearing your thoughts and opinions.


Peace,


~Chani