At the Shalom community center, I observed all the ways that language, in its various forms, affects perceptions of people experiencing homelessness and why certain terms associate with more negative stereotypes are more commonly used than more factual and relatable terms. In my time at Shalom, I have come to appreciate the approach they use: they reframe suffering in the context of of strengths. "Those served by Shalom" are guests. Guests are referred to as "people experiencing homelessness." By using such language, Shalom recognizes the truth: that guests are people experiencing a difficult time in their lives that is most likely not their fault and not something they can control, which is something that every human being, housed or not housed, will have to deal with multiple times throughout life. They reframe suffering in the context of strengths. From "homeless people" to "individuals going through a rough time but who can bring themselves out of and overcome this temporary struggle."
[I elaborate on this subject much more below in my projects and writings.]
Shalom Community Center is, in my opinion formed from my time being there, taking all of the right steps toward changing perceptions associated with homelessness. I would like to pay them homage for their efforts and strides in the city of Bloomington, Indiana by concluding my blog with a final post for and about Shalom. I want to write about and make known the apparent and subtle steps they take every day to move forward to tear down the facade over homelessness that has been put their by negative stereotypes, the media, and a lack of information.
LANGUAGE
Two posts ago in my blog, I posted an essay about how language can mold perceptions of people experiencing homelessness and what a profound impact language has had on these perceptions since the 1970s. It is the "housed" community that has formulated such labels as "the homeless" and "homeless people" that imply a permanent state of being. "Homeless people" sets apart people experiencing homelessness from "housed people" and applies a one-size-fits-all bundle of stereotypes to anyone who fits into this "category."
Shalom Community Center is, as it says, a community. They are stripping away negative stereotypes from those that they help at the center by using appropriate, specific language in their literatures that they hand out to guests, in their newsletters that they mail out to organizations, on their website, in their volunteer manual, and most importantly, by word of mouth. Shalom uses "the language of strengths." They actually touch upon this in their volunteer manual:
That is exactly Shalom's approach with language. They reframe suffering in the context of strengths. Let me explain.
At volunteer orientation, Shalom Community Center instructs volunteers to refer to "those served by Shalom" as "guests." The term "guests" is pleasant, and implies a temporary stay or a visit. They are not residents because they do not reside in a homeless shelter because homelessness is a temporary experience. It is not permanent; it is solvable, and Shalom Community Center works toward solving this for every guest every day.
Shalom Community Center also refers to their guests as people experiencing homelessness. They instruct their volunteers to do the same. They recognize that homelessness is an experience, an unfortunate one. By using such appropriate language, Shalom recognizes guests as people experiencing a difficult time in their lives that is most likely not their fault and not something they can control, which is something that every human being, housed or not housed, will have to deal with multiple times throughout life. They reframe suffering in the context of strengths. From "homeless people" to individuals going through a rough time but who can bring themselves out of and overcome this temporary struggle.
Take a look at what appears on the front page of the Shalom Community Center... Analyze the language they use and image they put out about homelessness:
They write, "people experiencing homelessness and poverty." Again,we see here that homelessness and poverty are "plights," as Shalom has written. Plights are "unfortunate situations" according to the Oxford American Dictionary. As I explained previously, that is what homelessness is, and everyone is susceptible to unfortunate situations. People experiencing homelessness are no different than any other people on the planet. Their stories are unique, they do the best they can, and we all need to help each other out. The way that Shalom uses language in even this small excerpt from their website is so powerful. With words such as "vulnerable", they destroy negative stereotypes and make it known that homelessness is most often not a choice. Using words such as "respectable" reminds the reader that every human being is deserving of respect, and that is a basic human right. The paragraph finishes with "...empower people to develop their potential and to take responsibility for their own lives." Exactly. Shalom is there to, as I wrote in my fieldnotes in my previous post, to hold the rope fromt he other side of the barrier and help pull those climbing over to the other side.
SYMBOLISM
I wanted to include this because I am so enthusiastic about Shalom's logo. I think it is so appropriate and it says so, so much and yet it is simply made of 3 lines, 2 circles, and a sun.
It is, of course, two people under one sun.
They share one line which makes up both of their two arms. I think that this one painted line is the most powerful and symbolic part of Shalom's logo. Why are the arms made to be one, to be connected? Perhaps they are holding hands, a familial, friendly gesture. Perhaps one person is pulling the other along--making sure the other person does not fall behind when things get tough. What really matters is that they are connected. It is not one lone person standing by him/herself. It is not two people standing separately. It tells whoever may be looking at Shalom's logo that this is a place where no one is alone, everyone has someone, there is no such thing as alone. We've got you, we won't let go until you're ready. We're all in this together.
They share two separate lines as legs in the logo. I think this is important. It tells the observer, we help people stand on their own two legs. We help give people the strength to take steps forward on their own, but we still will be there for you to hold on to (the arms) when you cannot stand alone.
And then there is the sun. This piece adds excellence to this logo. It could have simply been two people, as I just described the logo, but it is not. They stand together, under one sun. I think this is an important symbolization. It shows that we are all human beings and the same sun the rises and sets every day. It also simply symbolizes a sunny day, good spirits, light, hope, the fact that tomorrow is another day, a fresh start, another chance, and the sun will keep on rising. Nothing is so awful that it will keep the sun from rising, and this logo is saying nothing can keep Shalom's guests from rising above.
INFORMATION
Shalom makes information about homelessness and the causes of homelessness readily available. Shalom is ready to fight assumptions and stereotypes with facts. Outsider perceptions of homelessness in America have long stressed laziness, immorality, wanderlust, heavy drinking, and other character deficits as reasons for descending the social class ladder (Lee, Barrett A., Sue H. Jones, and David W. Lewis. "Public Beliefs about the Causes of Homelessness." Social Forces 69.1 (1990): 253-65.). Contrary to to this image given off by the media and culture, recent studies have shown that more and more Americans who are not experiencing homelessness are more likely to cite forces out of one's control and mental illness as top underlying causes of homelessness (Lee). Perhaps this shift in paradigm of the American people is due to such information as the kind Shalom Community Center makes available being made known to the public from reputable sources, such as shelters, community centers, and volunteers themselves (rather than biased media sources.)
Shalom has on their website:
These are facts from a reputable source. The problem is that these facts are a bit outdated, since it is now the year 2011. But no worries! My classmates and I are working on updating these statistics, facts, and more in the volunteer manual for Shalom, which will hopefully be transferable to the website as well.
OUR PROJECT
In my post of homage to Shalom, I think it is important that I let my readers know what WE, the students of ENG-W240, are doing for the agency, Shalom Community Center. I hope that by including what we are working toward in out time here, perhaps we can inspire or spark ideas in others who may come across this blog. Also in our final project, we will be providing our blog addresses so that others may read or browse our blogs and get an idea what it is like volunteering at Shalom and understanding homelessness from our point of view. We hope that by providing our blog addresses, we can help others understand homelessness from a reliable insider and outsider point of view as well as create incentives to make some sort of change or difference, no matter how great or how small.
Michael will be updating the statistics listed by Shalom in the volunteer manual, as well as expanding upon the causes of homelessness. He is going to highlight how homelessness is a truly complex issue with a multitude of causes, which exceed the information currently provided in the volunteer manual.
Talia is going to write about what it would take, in terms of works hours and minimum wage, to afford an apartment in the surrounding county area. She is going to describe the cost of raising a family, whether it is a family with younger or older children, because may individuals either do not provide for a family or may take it for granted, so they do not understand how hard it can be.
Samantha is going to research and update the causes of homelessness in Bloomington in particular. She is going to rewrite the information currently provided in a way that will help newly orientated volunteers understand and utilize this information in the best way possible.
Jack is going to include more information on homelessness and poverty in order to make this section of the volunteer manual more well-rounded and rhetorically effective. He is going to help write about what we believe is the most important information to tell new volunteers.
*
Some food for thought that I discovered in my time at Shalom:
Want to know more? Curious to see what the final project outcome will be? Just want some more information on homelessness or even volunteering at a center like Shalom?
I came in early today to speak to Joel Rekas, the Shalom Community Center director. I am writing a paper for [ENG-W240] that focuses on language associated with homelessness and how it shapes perceptions of people experiencing homelessness. I walked through the main room where guests socialize and greeted a few familiar faces :)
I went upstairs to find Joel. He was at his desk. As soon as I mentioned what my paper would be on, Joel's eyes lit up and his mouth dropped open. He was so eager to talk about this with me. Language associated with homelessness was something he felt very strongly about and worked so hard to change it for the better. He immediately jumped to the Herald Times, a local paper that frequently covers Shalom and other centers and shelters in Bloomington. He had a large printer paper cardboard box full of articles in which the Herald Times covered Shalom and the similar surrounding areas. Joel explained to me that so much of the images that the Herald Times puts out there are negative. He said they associate "low barrier" shelters with "druggies" and "drunks." Joel looked and sounded so disgusted when he was telling me about these articles. It was as if the stereotypes that these articles were reinforcing were not only hurting guests at places like Shalom, but also hurting what Joel has worked so hard for in his time at Shalom. Some shelters will have guests take sobriety tests before coming in if they deem it necessary. Low barrier shelters don't have such requirements (only that guests of course don't make any trouble.) Low barrier shelters will take guests for who they are, no questions asks. No judgements. And yet they get the bad reputation.
[Edit: I later researched some Herald Times articles and there are some that strongly imply or even outwardly make a connection between these negative stereotypes and low barrier shelters. For example in "More homeless choosing to stay at low barrier Interfaith Winter Shelter" on December 17, 2010 by Dann Denny, it is written, "...feel the shelter is enabling people to remain homeless and addicted by allowing them to find shelter after they have been drinking or taking drugs". And in "Addition of Interfaith Winter Shelter isn't reducing use of other shelters" on November 17, 2010 by Dann Denny, it is written, "...the community has a low barrier shelter -- because some people cannot free themselves of the stranglehold of addiction." Source: HeraldTimesOnline.com]
Joel spoke about how the new building had more room for guests to mingle and eat and spend time with their children as opposed to the church basement in which they had the previous Shalom Community Center located. He said there is "more room for guests to walk around and guests now have more access [to areas within the vicinity], whereas in the church basement, much of the center was pretty 'hands off'." Then Joel added, "But it's still not perfect here. We're low barrier, but there's still barriers...." He sort of trailed off.
I thanked Joel for his time and for all of his input. I walked down the stairs.
Down the stairs.
Down the stairs and behind the front desk.
Behind the front desk.
I thought about what Joel had said, "We're low barrier, but there's still barriers." I come here every week to help people get their mail, their bills, their belongings, applications for phones, for loans, for assistance, for employment, for living... And I do it from behind a desk, behind which guests are not allowed. Listen to me... writing about barriers and how awful they are... and I am reinforcing these barriers every time I put on my name tag and stand behind a front desk at Shalom Community Center. I feel sort of... conflicted. I remember I wrote in a paper for [my ENG-W240] class where I said that we need to break down barriers. Let me find it...
Okay, in my positioning essay I wrote,
"There is no single answer, there is just breaking boundaries between conventionalized classifications and building bridges over these demolished boundaries. As for the many complications that may arise, especially the previously discussed predicaments, we will have to cross those bridges when we get to them."
Today made me rethink these statements. What would we do without the front desk? We are low barrier, we will not judge you. But we don't trust you not to take any of the center's things or any of the other guests' belongings in storage. So we have this front desk up here and we will serve you from it.
But what would we do without the front desk? We need it. But it is probably the biggest and most obvious "barrier" between the community of people experiencing homelessness and the volunteers and directors in the center. And I stand behind it. I am on the side of a big barrier that guests approach every day, but do not dare cross.
I wrote in my paper: "demolished" boundaries. We can't... demolish the front desk. It serves an important purpose. But how can we help our guests completely overcome barriers and boundaries from across a barrier/boundary? Maybe... Maybe I was wrong before? We cannot demolish boundaries. We cannot destroy boundaries and then build bridges over them. That almost seems like these easy, not-thoroughly-thought-through way out. Throw some TNT on the boundaries, they explode, there's a big mess leftover, but we just ignore the mess, build a big bridge over the mess, and have everyone cross. No.... Barriers will always be there. What we need to do is overcome them. This sounds harder... not the easy way out. Climbing over the barriers that will still exist despite all efforts to eliminate boundaries. Climbing. This sounds like hard work. No one said it would be easy though. Maybe I'm not reinforcing the separation. I am on one side of barrier, but I am on the other side of boundary, holding onto the rope that was thrown over from the other side so that the climber can hold tight to the rope, without having to think we'll let go on the other side, so that they can climb over. Over the boundary, over the barrier. I feel like I've been looking for an easy solution this whole time and maybe I am too naive to realize that there isn't one. Do I need to realize that there is a solution, but it is a complicated, complex, difficult solution and it's not one-size-fits-all? My job isn't to change the world single handedly. It's to help people help themselves. It's not just one person who can change it for everyone. It's everyone helping each other and it. is. not. easy.
I asked Melissa if instead of being behind the front desk today, I could be on the other side, talking to and listening to and socializing with guests in the main room. She said it was okay and really encouraged me to go speak with the guests. I wanted to be on the other side today.
I saw Harley again today! He introduced me to his "lady friend" from Wales, whose....}
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Samantha Adams Professor Graban ENG-W240 Critical Bibliographic Essay Due: 25 March 2011
Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Form Your Perception of Me
“People are tired of homelessness. … It’s affecting who we are and how we look—and we look terrible” (qtd. in Pascale). This quote is taken from a newspaper that quoted a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development representative. Now, who, exactly, do you think is tired of homelessness? Surely it would be most logical to assume that those individuals experiencing ‘homelessness’ are the ones who are tired of living it. Did you assume that the speaker was talking about the housed community before you knew these were the words of a HUD representative? Or did you realize that the people who should be rightfully tired of homelessness and whose self-images are affected by it are those who are actually living it, experiencing it? However, there was nothing in this newspaper’s article that suggests that the people who are tired of homelessness are those who are living without shelter (Pascale 261). The word “we” implies that the HUD representative being interviewed is speaking for a larger group or community of housed people. The speaker is establishing audience identification with the use of the word “we” and is, at the same time, placing people who cannot afford housing outside this circle of identification. The words of this HUD representative are just one of countless demonstrations in our society of how language, whether written or spoken, places people into categories from which results in stereotypes, loss of identities, and subsequent dehumanization. Much of the language that shapes the ideas about, images of, and common inclinations toward the people commonly referred to as “the homeless” is not given a second though. Housed people read about “homeless people” in the newspaper. They hear about “homelessness” on the news. They donate to charities that provide basic resources to “the homeless.” Not once do most of these “housed people” give a second thought as to how the words they read, speak, and hear are possibly defining and dehumanizing the individuals experiencing homelessness. I, however, have second thoughts about how these forms of language not only report the news or tell a story, but how they define certain human beings and how this, in turn, shapes the attitudes toward those experiencing homelessness, which can ultimately attenuate genuine efforts to support these individuals. I want to explore all the ways that language, in its various forms, affects perceptions of people experiencing homelessness and why certain terms associated with more negative stereotypes are more commonly used than more factual and relatable terms. First it is most important to understand how certain labels such as “the homeless” have come to be. According to Celine-Marie Pascale in There’s No Place Like Home: The Discursive Creation of Homelessness, the term “the homeless” is a fairly recent discursive formation (250). In the 1980s, “the homeless” actually referred to hardworking people who had lost their homes due to economic changes that caused them to lose their jobs. The term “the homeless” recognized the unexpected distress families were experiencing and that losing their houses was not a result of their own choices, but of economic decline. During this time, newspapers would publish articles highlighting the hardships the new “homeless” were experiencing by writing short personal stories about families such as Mrs. Culley and her children (254). Unfortunately, these insightful articles were short lived. Eventually newspapers and even high profile officials started to attribute homelessness to noneconomic causes, such as mental illness, substance abuse, and personal choice (254). Newspapers started to suggest that perhaps people’s compassion toward “the homeless” was misplaced (255). During this time, homelessness was transformed from an acute recent problem to a chronic issue. Along with the creation of the term “the homeless,” there is a subsequent separation by applying this label: there is “the homeless” and then there is everyone else. “The homeless” or even “homeless people” implies a permanent state of being. These labels simply say that homeless people are homeless; it’s who they are. As previously described, terms such as “the homeless” have become linked with issues such as substance abuse and laziness. When these terms are constantly used by popular news sources or spread by word of mouth, their association with negative stereotypes is reinforced. Olusola Olufemi explains this in Barriers that disconnect homeless people and make them difficult to interpret: by exercising the power to name, we construct a social phenomenon, namely homelessness, the criteria used to define it, and a stereotype of the people to whom it refers (462). Perhaps it is, in fact, not those experiencing homelessness who have earned their label associated with negative connotations, but simply it is the housed community that has labeled them as such. It seems as though perhaps it is the “housed people” who have defined “homelessness” even though most of them have never even experienced such a situation nor worked directly with it. Why are the “housed” and the media defining “the homeless?” Why do they get choose a one-size-fits-all façade for a “group” of countless unique, individual people that happen to be experiencing the same misfortune? Since when does anyone mold anyone’s identity other than his or her own? Jo Phelan et al. writes in The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label “Homeless” on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons that the poor and homeless are stigmatized, which in turn spoils their identities and disqualifies them from social acceptance (323). The labels bestowed upon people experiencing homelessness, such as “the homeless” or “homeless people,” carrying negative connotations, are destroying the identity of these associated individuals. She suggests that the label of being homeless is judged more harshly than just being poor housed because there is more inequality to be justified (325). These harsh labels not only destroy identities, they erase them. They take away the one thing that makes a human being a person: one’s identity. This grouping and subsequent loss of identity is not simply an outsider observation. Individuals experiencing homelessness are aware of the dehumanization that is a result of being grouped into the one-word category of “homelessness.” A study done by Check K. Wen et al., Homeless People’s Perceptions of Welcomeness and Unwelcomeness in Healthcare Encounters, is an illustrating example of this. Participants—that is, people experiencing homelessness—perceived experiences of unwelcomeness in healthcare as acts of discrimination, with the perceived basis of discriminatory treatment being the fact that the participants had to admit that they were “homeless.” A constant pattern was seen where participants felt dehumanized when healthcare providers related to them in “I-It” ways, that is, the healthcare provider reduced them to an object, was unwilling to know and empathize with them, ignored or failed to listen to them, or made them feel disempowered. However, participants described welcoming experiences that were consistent with “I-You” ways of relating with the healthcare provider, that is, the healthcare provider made the participants feel valued as a person, listened to them, and made them feel empowered (1013). So, why do we so often use “I-It” terms such as “the homeless” instead of an “I-You” term like “people experiencing homelessness”? Saying instead “people experiencing homelessness” loosens the ties between homelessness and negative stereotypes. It recognizes “the homeless” as people simply experiencing a hard time. It makes “the homeless” seem more like people to which “housed” people can relate, because, doesn’t everyone experience difficult times their in lives? But why don’t we use this term in our everyday speech and literature? Why don’t we give people experiencing homelessness the benefit of the doubt? Denny Taylor writes in Toxic Literacies that we (referring to the housed community) do not want to know it was, say, Jerry who died. We don’t want to know it was Pauline who got a degree but still lives in poverty (7). He writes, Don’t tell us [his or] her name. Why don’t we want to know their names? Is it easier that way? Is it because saying “people experiencing homelessness” is too relatable to “housed people?” Because, perhaps, people experiencing homelessness are actually people experiencing some sort of difficulty in their lives that may not be their own fault, which in turn may make the housed community feel vulnerable? Or does the housed community give people experiencing homelessness a simple label as “the homeless,” a term of unsympathetic rejection (Olufemi 460), because a label makes it easier to feel less guilty about not doing more to help this “group?” Would housed people feel more guilty about the fact that people experiencing homelessness are suffering if they called them “people experiencing homelessness,” a term of sympathetic acceptance (Olufemi 460), which may actually attribute personal identities to these people? Is the housed community of the United States afraid of facing some sort of failed American Dream by trying to understand the plight of Americans experiencing homelessness? The answers to these questions that we must ask ourselves in order to inspire any sort of change are unclear. What is clear though is that materiality—of homelessness in this case—is culturally produced through language, writes Pascale. If there is anywhere we must start to implement a change for the better and find a permanent solution to the overwhelming issue of homelessness, we may first begin by changing our choice of words. So back to that first quote, “People are tired of homelessness. … It’s affecting who we are and how we look—and we look terrible.” Whose look is really affecting? With all of the associated negative stereotypes and loss of identities that are tied to the objective label “the homeless,” who is it that looks terrible? Who is tired of homelessness? People experiencing homelessness are tired of homelessness.
Works Cited
Olufemi, Olusola. "Barriers That Disconnect Homeless People and Make Homelessness Difficult to Interpret." Development Southern Africa 19.4 (2002): 455-66.
Pascale, Celine-Marie. "There's No Place Like Home: The Discursive Creation of Homelessness." Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies 5.2 (2005): 250-68.
Phelan, Jo, Bruce G. Link, Robert B. Moore, and Ann Stueve. "The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label "Homeless" on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons." Social Psychology Quarterly 60.4 (1997): 323-37.
Taylor, Denny. Toxic Literacies: Exposing the Injustice of Bureaucratic Texts. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann, 1996. Excerpts.
Wen, Chuck K., Pamela Hudak, and Stephen W. Hwang. "Homeless People's Perceptions of Welcomeness and Unwelcomeness in Healthcare Encounters." J. General Internal Medicine 22.7 (2007): 1011-017.
I want to focus in on some common perceptions and assumptions about homelessness and use my sources to complicate these perceptions in unique and perhaps unheard-of ways that will give a whole new outlook on homelessness (to whomever I am able to reach through my presentation.) I am not sure if I should focus in on one thing or multiple things. Personally, I would like to look at all of these things, as they all fall under the category of perceptions of homelessness and I think they are the most important topics to highlight and complicate. My challenge is just figuring out how to integrate them into each other or into one bigger idea.I think I have made it clear that homelessness is a complex issue (and you can even see this in my post below, which is my Verbal Portrait.) I am leaning toward looking at how "forms of literacy" and forms of literature as well as use of language may shape perceptions about homelessness and about the causes of homelessness.
I want to highlight some topics such as forms of literature on homelessness by using Toxic Literacies (Taylor) to look at how forms and applications of "the system" control the lives and limit the choices of the homeless who are actually trying to work their way out of homelessness. I am also going to use different forms of literature from Shalom Community Center in order to integrate my agency into my paper and in my final project.
I also want to examine how language used in these two different types of literature can reinforce or complicate perceptions on homelessness. I am also going to examine the language used in my sources that describes those experiencing homelessness and also that describes those who are not experiencing homelessness.
"Causes of homelessness" is one of the most commonly discussed aspects of homelessness among "the housed" (a.k.a. those who are not experiencing homelessness) and there is so much that can be brought to light here (even though bringing these issues to light may only further complicate things.) I also think it is important to see how those experiencing homelessness talk about themselves and others in their situation and perhaps cite, using statistical data, what the most common causes of homelessness are. Using real people is the best source in my opinion. My interview for the Verbal Portrait will be one example of this type of situation. I have sources that have a negative view of people's own choices leading them to homelessness (i.e. "laziness".) These sources are some of those that I used in my Verbal Portrait, such as Public Beliefs About Homelessness (Lee) and Perspectives of Employed People Experiencing Homelessness of Self and Being Homeless: Challenging Socially Constructed Perceptions and Stereotypes (Shier). I even found an article that has President Reagan reinforcing such ideas that laziness and poor choices are what lead people to homelessness, not his presidency nor the economic state at the time. Another interesting source I found, Housing Patterns of Homeless People: The Ecology of the Street in the Era of Urban Renewal (Wasserman) shows those experiencing homeless as key stakeholders in urban communities with goals, concerns, and desired boundaries similar to those who “legitimately” live downtown.
Obviously, there are countless different views on homelessness and, of course, different forms of language to go with each of them. There's American pop culture and media perceptions, perceptions of middle class individuals, perceptions of political figures in high positions, perceptions that agencies like Shalom try to put out into society, and these are all molded to some degree by language use. I want to use my sources in two ways: as pieces of information about perceptions of homelessness and about certain statistics, and forms of literature in order to analyze the language used in each one. In this way I can integrate use of language and forms of literature and the information presented in Toxic Literacies into my interest in how perceptions are formed about the causes of homelessness.
“What is the best part about being homeless?” The paradox this question brought forth actually caught me by surprise and I found myself feeling a bit sheepish after the words left my mouth. I became aware of myself silently wondering, What could possibly be positive, let alone “the best,” about being homeless? In fact, I had just assumed that I would not be given an answer at all. Nonetheless, before I could even consider retracting my question, Mike McNabb, a man experiencing homelessness along with his wife, April, was already feeding me an answer. “Freedom from responsibility,” he began assuredly and quietly, “I would say is the best thing.” I was a bit taken aback at how quickly Mike responded to my question, without hesitation. Why was I so surprised that Mike was able to answer my question, and so promptly? Would any other informant in Mike’s position have answered the same way? These silent questions raised as repercussions of my voiced question were some sort of indication of a clashing of worlds, some sort of misunderstanding along the line. Mike’s answer to my question, his responses to my other questions, and his attitude toward his own situation draw attention to the complex mismatching between self-perceptions (inside perceptions) and common other-perceptions (or outside perceptions) associated with individuals experiencing homelessness. What is often not realized is that there is a large gray area that does not lie between ‘homelessness’ and ‘housed,’ but rather this gray area is homelessness.
Mike sat across from me at a small table in the Shalom Community Center for those experiencing homelessness. We were in a communal sitting area: a room with gray cement floors and walls with a few gray tables scattered around accompanied by small gray plastic chairs. The room was chilly and a little damp, but the sun shone through a nearby window and glass door from the entrance. There was little company today, as the weather was on the warmer side and everyone was most likely out enjoying the sun. The few other guests who stuck around sat at other tables observing us and listening to our conversation. Mike did not seem to notice the spectators, or perhaps he did not care if they were listening. I tried not to let it intimidate me. Mike was wearing a worn-down gray hoodie and jeans that were faded from wear, not from style. When I looked at him, he looked so tired, but this exhaustion seemed to be much deeper than just from lack of sleep. I offered him one of the two cups of coffee that I brought, but he insisted that his wife, April, have it instead. April sat to my left at the table, wearing a Native American style cloak, and eagerly accepted the coffee. Her hair was gray and braided; her eyelids hung heavily, but there was life to her blue eyes. April was louder than Mike when she spoke, but Mike did most of the talking—quietly. Mike was very soft-spoken and calm. He had a sort of unwavering patience that seemed as though it had been painstakingly tested, and had not faltered even yet.
A soft smile crept across Mike’s face when he uttered those three words: Freedom of responsibility. My own unspoken questions that were provoked by Mike’s unexpected answer still prevailed and were creating a cascade of new questions: Why am I even asking all of these questions in the first place? Why is Mike’s answer so seemingly controversial? Perhaps because even since the Middle Ages, Anglo-Americans have stigmatized poor persons in ways that were demeaning and separated them from society (Phelan 323). There were negative attitudes toward those in poverty and a tendency to blame the poor for their circumstances. Even in recent times, although much less harshly, there still exists an inclination in the public to blame the poor for their condition (Phelan 323). Public perception during the early and mid-20th century considered the homeless man living in “skid row” districts of America’s major urban centers as “lazy” and uninterested in permanent work (Shier 14). So it seems the term “homelessness” rarely conjures up any positive emotions, at least not in those who have only “seen and heard” homelessness rather than actually having suffered from it. And yet, on this very day, a man experiencing homelessness tells me, with a smile, that one of the greatest rights humans have fought for throughout history—freedom—is the best thing about homelessness.
Mike’s take on homelessness may very well be the sole result of actually living and experiencing homelessness. That is not to say that he is content with his current situation, but he remains hopeful rather than overwhelmingly defeated. It has been shown that the stigma associated with homelessness negatively influences the emotional well-being of those in society who are homeless (Shier 14). Mike’s ability to find positivity in his all too commonly stigmatized situation may very well be an indication that his own perceptions of homelessness are separated from other-perceptions by a gap that can only be filled through actual experience or directly working with those experiencing homelessness.
The conversation continued on to what, exactly, led Mike to this place in his life. He had not always been homeless, he told me. He came from a family with a mother who was a doctor and a stepfather who was an air traffic controller. This fact in itself challenges other-perceptions (which are often based on common trends), seeing as people in poverty tend to stay poor (Beegle 12). In this case, however, Mike was the first generation in his family to experience poverty, despite his background of a financially comfortable upbringing.
How could Mike have ended up where he is today? Other-perceptions of homelessness in American society and media have long stressed laziness, immorality, wanderlust, heavy drinking, and other character deficits as reasons for descending the social class ladder (Lee 254). Contrary to this negative image given off by the media and culture, recent studies have shown that more than half of Americans not experiencing homelessness are more likely to cite forces out of one’s control and mental illness as the top two underlying causes of homelessness (Lee 257). I asked whether Mike believed that he was experiencing homelessness due to his own choices that he had made leading up to this point or whether he thought homelessness was a burden forced upon him. He did not seem displeased in any way when I confronted him with this inquiry—rather he looked at me thoughtfully, as if no one had ever asked him this before.
Mike explained to me that his homelessness was a result of his “tastes” exceeding his budget. My attention was caught, again, by his seemingly unexpected answer. Mike was claiming responsibility for his own circumstances. Mike’s perception of his own causes of homelessness was agreeing with American media. I thought he would have been more defensive, since he had told me earlier that the view others and the media have of homeless individuals is “so unreal and so negative—they think we are all thieves, criminals, lazy people.” I think what many forget—myself included in this instance—is that homeless individuals are not deviant, so they do not need to be coerced; they are not so socially excluded that they need to be re-skilled (Radley 274). Outsiders often set the homeless apart and make assumptions about how they will act or respond, which perhaps may be why I was so surprised that Mike did not respond defensively. Coming from a seemingly normal background, why should he act any different than a housed person would?
Mike also brought up a motorcycle accident he was in before becoming homeless that resulted in a head injury that required hospitalization as well as symptoms such as lack of attention, inability to focus, and forgetfulness. He told me that he was unable to keep a steady job due to these mental deficits. This underlying attribute to what led Mike to his current situation corresponds with the aforementioned growing other-perceptions of Americans that cite forces out of one’s control as a main cause of homelessness.
Clearly, the relationships between insider perceptions and outsider perceptions—and even between outsider perceptions from different sources—do not unite piece by piece to create any one big picture. There is no simple two-way contradiction between perceptions from homeless individuals and perceptions from housed individuals. We see that Mike falls into step with the conventionalized imagery of his situation. And yet he steps out of line from long-standing assumptions and contributes to the growing awareness that homelessness is not always self-generated. In the midst of an overwhelmingly downtrodden outlook on the causes and experiences of homelessness, this man smiles and savors a freedom of the so often called “burdens” of a financially stable or privileged life. His own life and perceptions demonstrate that there is no black and white translating to ‘homelessness’ and ‘housed.’ There is a vast gray area that exists and it is homelessness.
Works Cited
Beegle, Donna M. "Overcoming the Silence of Generational Poverty." Talking Points 15.1 (2003): 11-20.
Lee, Barrett A., Sue H. Jones, and David W. Lewis. "Public Beliefs about the Causes of Homelessness." Social Forces 69.1 (1990): 253-65.
Phelan, Jo, Bruce G. Link, Robert E. Moore, and Ann Stueve. "The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label "Homeless" on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons." Social Psychology Quarterly 60.4 (1997): 323-37.
Radley, Alan, Darrin Hodgetts, and Andrea Cullen. "Visualizing Homelessness: A Study in Photography and Estrangement." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 15 (2005): 273-95.
Shier, Michael L., Marion E. Jones, and John R. Graham. "Perspectives of Employed People Experiencing Homelessness of Self and Being Homeless: Challenging Socially Constructed Perceptions and Stereotypes." Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 37.4 (2010): 13-37.
Referring to the original image, I thought it was so powerful that I knew it would be my chosen piece immediately when I saw it. It holds so much power because it is not just an image, as we often see, of a homeless individual on the side of a brick building holding a sign asking for "change" (whether it is literal or metaphorical.) This image is about the man holding this picture and it is about the person walking by, the person viewing this photo, the person who is reaching out.
Figure 1 The first image brings attention to the sign the man is holding. We would assume from this image that he wrote on this piece of cardboard. His message is so strong, because he is not just asking for someone to help him with some food or money, but he is drawing the reader in. He is asking for an end to "this." He wants to stop doing "this." He wants a permanent shift in his life and situation. He is asking for a change on the bigger scale. What is "this"? I believe "this" is homelessness. He is asking for help to end the vicious cycle that is his current life. He is asking for a change in his own life and, I believe, in the lives of others like himself. In Figure 1, the sign is made difficult to read to not only draw attention to his words and their meaning, but also to show a blurring and erasure of his words, which symbolizes an elimination of all evil and unhappiness in his life and in the lives of others like him. This image represents the gradual elimination of homelessness.
Figure 2 This image symbolizes the man's life being consumed by his current situation. The words transparently written all over his clothing and body (I think) bring out the fact that his head is down and his face is covered. The words make the man's hopelessness and sadness (which are not concrete things) really stand out. I have worked with the homeless population before, and they are consumed by poverty. Poverty can be defined as a lack of basic resources. You must really think deeply about this to understand. Don't just superficially read my sentence "consumed by poverty." Think of your own life. Think of waking up in a bed, brushing your teeth, pouring a bowl of cereal, sending a text to a friend, watching your favorite television show, taking a shower, decorating your room, going to dinner. People in the same situation as the man in this photo do not even have these things. Think of how your life would be without them. Really, right now, think about it. And there are people who have even less than that. They are consumed by their situations, emotionally, physically, financially, and in every way. I think the overlaying words on the man, as I mentioned before, really bring out a sense of hopelessness and sadness and allow the viewer to sympathize, if not empathize. I think because the image invokes this feeling in the viewer, it symbolizes how poverty consumes its victims, especially emotionally.
Figure 3 This image sends a direct message to the viewer. The sign now reads "stop this." This is a more active and direct type of speech. It could even be received as a command. I chose to manipulate the image in this way to not only grab the viewer's attention with a more straightforward sense of speech, but also as a way to embody the fact that direct action must be taken. Donating money is charitable and a wonderful act. Serving food in a kitchen is also an amazing act of kindness. But what needs to be done is to teach the man to fish, not to simply bring him a fish. "Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life," right? The sign now reads "stop this." Change needs to happen and it needs to happen now. Yes, we must plan if we want to do as much as possible in the best way for everyone and make a permanent change. But we need to begin now. We can plan while we act. Perfection is not an attainable state of being and it never will be. So even though planning may be preliminary as we begin to act, waiting is not an option in the fight against homelessness and poverty. Another day without action is another day even deeper into depression, lack of shelter, and much more for the victims of poverty.
Figure 4 In this image, there is no background and no sign. The words "Help Me" that were written on the piece of cardboard were relocated to where the man's face is hidden in this picture. His jeans are colored bright blue, his sweatshirt is bright green, and his gloves are a glowing orange. I wanted his clothes to look brighter, less tattered, and more common. I want to bring to light the fact that those suffering from poverty and homelessness are not some "other" community of people. By volunteering and getting involved in community service, we do risk reinforcing stereotypes and conventionalized social statuses. Someone plays the role of "the giver" and someone plays the role of "the receiver." We need to work to improve the lives of the "receivers" while breaking down boundary lines between 'social classes' and building bridges across these broken boundaries to connect us all as one. This image, again, puts more color into the man's apparel and makes the photo seem less dark. That is not to say that it makes his situation any less grim, but it is emphasizing the fact that most people like this man are good people in a bad situation. They are like you and me and they want to be seen and treated this way. Poverty is not who they are, it is only what they are experiencing. We need to fix this.
Figure 5 This effect on the image was supposed to be more of a comic-book type style. It is supposed to make it seem as if the image is fabricated, not taken from real life. This represents the view many people who are not in poverty have on poverty. It is often seen as "other worldly" or as some sort of legend at times. I honestly do not like the image of Figure 5 because, to me, it does make this man seem distant and unreal. Unfortunately, many people who have never experienced poverty or dealt with it in any way see victims of poverty as distant and unreal. This last image is a powerful one, but, to me, a dangerous one. It is powerful because it exposes the flaw in the system-- the stereotypes, the views of those in poverty as "the others", the distance that is created by the "givers"-- and it is dangerous because it poses the risk of reinforcing that distance by portraying this man in a graphics-design fabricated way.
“Sometimes, givers benefit as much as much as receivers,” writes Lillian Bridwell-Bowles in Service-Learning: Help for Higher Education in the New Millenium? “In a perfect world,” as goes the common phrase, the givers and receivers would both equally benefit from a charitable experience, perhaps the receiver benefitting even more in order to counterbalance our social stratums. It is crucial to notice that Bowles begins her statement with “sometimes.” Bowles subtly nudges us in the ribs to point out that America’s outwardly projected vision of being the perfect philanthropist is either nonexistent, flawed, or both within our own land and among our own people. That is not to say we have not made progress. However, we still have not reached the homestretch in our quest for equality in America. Such an affair begins, as it often does, in the classroom. For the people of our country to make any remarkable change, they must be thoroughly educated on the issues and histories we are combatting; they must be taught how to handle these issues in a professional manner while at the same time becoming an independent member of our society, integrating their own ideas and solutions. This must start in academe as there is much history on certain issues such as poverty, homelessness, and disability that is indispensable as a resource for counterpoising these issues that cannot be found anywhere else other than in texts and published works. One may think that from this starting point, moving forward is only natural and will just “happen.” Knowledge is power, and with all of this knowledge about the underlying problems we want to solve, young, energetic, innovative, empowered students will have all the information they need to come to the rescue. Right? Well, we are not quite there yet. What must be considered when integrating service learning into higher education? Technology is now a staple in our everyday lives with assignments being given and completed on the Internet, etc. This allows for more time for intimate student-teacher discussion. However, writing in such a one-on-one manner may hold a student back in that he or she may write according to only his or her view of the world. To meet the need for more service-learning education, bigger classes may be seen as the solution financially. But large classes and their typical end-of-term papers may end up focusing on a blurry “big picture” rather than on individual experiences. Making service learning a requirement in academia may also reinforce social statuses or stratums among the givers and receivers, which in the end may push the two worlds apart even further, rather than indoctrinate a balancing act. How can we integrate efficacious service learning into our increasingly demanding contemporary academe while adequately preparing students for “real world” experience and similar future initiatives without reinforcing conventionalized standards and classifications?
The first problem that comes to most minds in the academic environment is finance. With the already increasingly expensive baccalaureate degree having less and less impact in the employing world, how can and will we be able to afford integrated service learning courses? For as much as students and parents pay now, they ask, as Bowles writes, “What kind of marketable ‘value-added’ skills and abilities can be guaranteed by increasingly expensive baccalaureate degrees?” Many would agree that the best resolution would be to have larger service learning classes so that more students have access to these types of experiences upon which they can build their “marketable ‘value-added’ skills and abilities.” Another author, Betty Smith Franklin, writes in Reading and Writing the World: Charity, Civic Engagement, and Social Action in Service Learning, sees a few flaws in the larger class two-for-one scenario. In a large class, simply “tacking service learning onto a curriculum” and basing it on the “unexamined claims of merit” may not have much of an effect other than to provide a façade for the inadequacies in our “curricular vision.” Another issue Franklin highlights is the all too common end-of-term papers and projects assigned in large classes. Not only are these assignments not long enough or in-depth enough to for students to truly reflect and write something pivotal or influential for their peers or community, this type of work “forecloses opportunities for students to revisit their work from a standpoint informed by multiple peer perspectives,” writes Franklin. Such a class would probably serve merely as a resumé builder and reinforce what students already know about poverty or disabilities, e.g. these problems exist. Also, as a single semester project, it would only be a short-term solution to the problems we are trying to fix through service learning: simply bringing a man a fish rather than teaching him how to fish.
In too many classrooms in large universities, students in classes of hundreds often criticize the lack of student-faculty connection. This fact and the aforementioned disadvantages of large classes might lead to the belief that smaller classes and student-faculty ratios may be the solution. Bowles quotes Mel Elfin, who reaffirms that, “such one-on-one relationships are becoming increasingly important as colleges place more emphasis on so-called experiential-learning programs that take place outside the classroom.” Bowles writes, in response to a two-for-one larger scale approach, that students learn writing skills more rapidly when they are highly motivated in an environment where personal communication matters to them personally. Indeed, the large-scale approach would either not allow for this or make it a very difficult scenario to adopt in the classroom. Bowles also focuses strongly on the imposing role of technology in academe and ties it in with service learning, saying that technology has made the need for a smaller student-faculty ratio even “more dramatic,” as technology makes the connections to the world more withdrawn and unsentimental, which is not a circumstance we want to adapt to if we want to experience truth and counteract adverse truths in our community. So perhaps a smaller class and smaller student-faculty ratios are the answer to integrating efficacious service learning into the modern academe? Then there is the issue of writing assignments and texts within the smaller, more intimate classroom setting. Franklin reveals that assigning papers that become the “private text of the teacher and student” may turn the work back around to the starting point from which we would be trying to grow away from: where the “reading of the world” and the student’s writing is “primarily attuned to one’s own status within it.” Smaller classes may hold the answer, but they may be holding students back with unshared personal writings that reflect only their own thoughts and views, rather than receiving critique from peers or integrating a clear, complex view of the ‘bigger picture’ and the student’s place within it.
Smaller classes and ratios provide benefits when “direct involvement in something increases motivation,” therefore leading to “better learning when the contexts for new ideas are ‘authentic,’” proposes Bowles. She quotes a student from the University of Michigan who writes, “Simply invite someone to see the world as it really is through community service combined with critical reflection and people change themselves.” This is a powerful assertion and it exudes philanthropic perfection in very few words. It however, as Franklin indicates in her writings, it is too superficial a statement. Franklin recounts the story of one girl who, after becoming earnestly involved in her own service-oriented experience with the elderly, felt a deep sense of disconnect from her own age group and peers as she related more to the elderly’s sentiments. The girl did not feel comfortable divulging her feelings of disengagement with her friends and feared that this was “only the beginning of a large, painful transformation.” This circumstance is just one of the many that lie much deeper than the ‘make a change and everyone benefits’ mentality. Franklin discusses how the efforts to balance out the extremities of the social stratums may actually create a negative feedback loop where these collective roles are further engrained. She explains that historically, acts of charity were a concept of moral improvement in which those of higher status demonstrate good character to those “beneath” them. This “improvement by contact” ideal is reproduced today in community service programs across income or race. When one person, the giver in this case, takes time or money to help another, especially in the academic setting for course credit, he or she is probably unaware of the eminence he or she building in the relationship with the receiver. The giver enhances his or her privilege and status as an individual or representative group member. Franklin proclaims that if these social practices and power relations are not challenged, then the “fault” for suffering lies only on the sufferer. The giver, in this case, sympathizes for the sufferer, but does not empathize, and learns to “adjust” to this actuality, which in turn, leads us back to apathy, lack of action, absence of change, and therefore social statuses are begrudgingly restored.
Philanthropic perfection in academe and in communities across our country may seem out of reach or seem to be a fantasy. With all of the complicating issues having been brought into light, immediate actions needs to and should be taken. Often the question is: how can we adjust to the changing times? Even as this paper is written, our world and social norms are changing dramatically day-to-day. Instead of constantly trying to solicit answers and write documents, we need to get these documents out into the world and into academe so that something can be done. Perfection is not an attainable goal, but it is a good philosophy. However, all that can be done is to have a starting point and move forward from that point and address issues as they come along. There is no single answer, there is just breaking boundaries between conventionalized classifications and building bridges over these demolished boundaries. As for the many complications that may arise, especially the previously discussed predicaments, we will have to cross those bridges when we get to them.
References
Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. “Service-Learning: Help for Higher Education in a New Millenium?” Writing in the Community: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Composition. Eds. Linda Adler-Kassner, Robert Crooks, and Ann Waters. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. 19-27.
Franklin, Betty. “Reading and Writing the World: Charity, Civic Engagement, and Social Action.” Reflections 1.2 (Fall 2000): 24-29.
