If you close your eyes and picture “homeless,” what would
it look like? Do you see a person? What does this person
look like? What is this person wearing? Is the person
female or male? What is she/he doing?
Some of you may have seen that person who regularly
rummages through the dumpsters at their place of employment
or their favorite restaurant. Still others think of the
person who asks them for a few bucks as they walk down
Walnut Street. Some may see an entirely different person,
perhaps a friend or a relative, an image that differs from the
mainstream portrayal of “homeless.” Alas, the homeless figures
that many of us see are simply artificial ideas of “homelessness.”
These static views live in our minds as untested
stereotypes and beliefs. In some powerful ways, this figure
of “homelessness” also serves as a false excuse to turn away
from the structural injustices and inequalities that shape our
lives, allowing us instead to chalk up homelessness to “individual”
problems—a plight of the mumbling, crazy woman
or the drunk guy on the bench.
In reality, the person asking for change on the street is
only a tiny part of an ambiguous group generally termed
“homeless.” The National Law Center on Homelessness
and Poverty estimates that there are 3.5 million people who
experience homelessness in the U.S. in a given year. And as
a result of current economic policies, we are seeing a rise in
the number of people living in cars, on the streets, and in
shelters not designed for housing. Grandmothers and
grandfathers are sleeping in their cars because the money
from their pensions and Social Security is not enough.
First-time homebuyers are being tossed out on the street
because of sub-prime mortgages from unscrupulous lending
companies.
Unfortunately, these are not new issues; we simply see
more clearly now how people become homeless. In reality,
people experiencing homelessness are often indistinguishable
from the housed working poor in the U.S., save one
factor, the lack of housing. Many of the working poor,
however, are also very close to slipping into homelessness,
often with only one paycheck standing between them and
eviction. Hence, living on the edge is not the result of individual
decisions—it is a policy-driven economic reality
perpetuated by years of pro-business policy.
U.S. labor history exposes decisions made in the late
1800s to solidify the use of wage labor, separating people
from subsistence labor associated with the home. We also
know that decisions were made to keep people at the
mercy of employers, as laws were passed to criminalize the
movement of “tramps” from place to place, securing them
as a relatively immobile, yet unhoused, body of workers.
These measures established an expendable workforce that
we see in place today, embodied in the figures of the working
poor, both housed and unhoused.
It is only when we acknowledge this history that we can
begin to create effective solutions with those who are most
in need. One obvious policy would be to increase availability
and accessibility of affordable housing. Funding should
be made available on a federal level so that cash-strapped
cities and regions could provide for this need. Job security
would also be improved through stricter regulation of
employment practices. Homelessness and transient movement
between regions should be supported or at least
decriminalized, with the recognition that personal mobility
is necessary to secure employment. These are but a few of
the multiple avenues through which U.S. policy could support
the interests of people rather than capital. These
avenues represent a structural response to a structural issue.
Yet, in Champaign-Urbana, as across the country, we persist
in trying to “end homelessness” through programs that
promote “personal” change and transformation; interventions
that seek to heal the individual, not the system. For example,
service recipients are asked to improve themselves through
classes, counseling, and money savings programs. This individualistic
approach is a result of a persistent misconception
of homeless individuals as the “undeserving poor,” a group
marked by their difference from other people living in poverty
and seen as responsible for their “condition.”
As a result of this misconception, shelters and transitional
living centers assist individuals in molding themselves to
fit back into capitalist ideals, so they can “make a living” and
“get by,” without ever disrupting the economic system of
injustice. But these programs are largely unable to provide
individuals with a space to define their own conditions of
life. Instead, they operate under sets of rules which are
designed to deter behaviors seen as deviant or destructive.
But real change requires an investment in humanizing
processes that allow those who have been disempowered
to define their own conditions for living. This is not a
novel idea; for example, in 1966, the United Nations
declared a Human Right to Adequate Housing, stating that
“[Housing] strategies should reflect extensive genuine consultation
with and participation by all social sectors,
including the homeless and the inadequately housed and
their representatives and organizations.” Nowhere is this
recognition of the human right to participate more needed
than in the work to end homelessness.
Here in Champaign-Urbana, for example, service
providers are often forced to offer services that coincide with
governmental beliefs about what is considered the “best”
way to address homelessness, rather than offer services that
arise from the real needs of people who use the services. This
detachment from needs exhibits itself on multiple levels. For
example, an individual who receives a disability check that is
too small to pay the rent cannot simply walk into the welfare
office and ask for more money. Similarly, a cursory glance at
available grants reveals which groups of people are currently
privileged by the government as “deserving”. Women with
children, in general, receive much of the available funding,
while single men, not labeled as “veteran” or “disabled” are
eligible for little to no funding. Yet, this doesn’t change the
fact that there are single men who also have basic needs and
should have a right to services.
What this points to, clearly, is that we need to change
our methods of addressing poverty and homelessness.
However, this change requires that we first transform our
notions of “deserving” and “undeserving,” as we seek to
humanize our understanding of poverty and homelessness.
Our current methods of funding are based on this
notion of deserving/undeserving, which eliminates the
question of need and the question of rights, such as
whether people have a right to housing.
What would policies based in human rights look like? For
one, we know that the interests of capitalism are for cheap
labor, which is antithetical to the interests of laborers. Thus,
we must strive to regain the economic safety-nets lost as a
result of the economic policies of the last two decades. Along
with this, we must work to bring those who are most exploited
to the decision-making table. And we must become proactive
as service recipients, service providers, and community
members, instead of waiting for federal and state governments
to dictate who is deserving of having their basic needs met.
Get Connected
Search Public i
Public i
Get Connected
Archives
- October 2024
- July 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- June 2005
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- November 2002
- October 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001