by Joe Bauman
Published in September 2015
Homelessness is a problem. And it turns out that the physical, mental and social ills associated with it are not only felt by the individual sleeping outside, but also by the public in the form of taxation toward the over-use of certain public services. Hospitalizations and police involvement drop considerably when someone who was homeless finds an apartment. This is a win-win. People have housing and the system is saving money. With the help of academic research and political attention, ending homelessness is now not only a moral responsibility but a fiscal one, too.
The Upside of Homelessness
Although the goal of ending homelessness might be a good one, it should not be assumed that living inside and in one place is always better than living outside and moving around. Assumptions like this have been made over and over again by people wishing to bestow their version of civilization on others. To the original inhabitants of North America, the benefits of western civilization came at a great cost. That is, the loss of autonomy and identity, land and culture. But to the colonizer it was seen as a win-win. The adoption of western civilization, and along with it fixed agriculture and settlements, was believed to bring prosperity and progress, and it would also free up huge swathes of hunting ground for the coming European immigrants.
The comparison is not at all perfect. The similarities are not so much between members of the homeless population and the First Nations but rather the attitudes towards them embedded in the dominant culture and its assumptions about the lives that they are living. Europeans, usually in association with Christianity, who saw their native neighbors as victims and not enemies, pushed for reforms resulting in the reserve system and residential schools. It is easy to look back and criticize the arrogance of these policies that at the time were considered progressive. But the outlook that made them possible is similar to that of today’s middle class majority toward a small, seemingly victimized homeless population: a complete confidence in what is personally familiar and comfortable and an unwillingness to concede that someone else might want to live differently. It’s one culture failing to recognize the legitimacy of another.
Thinking About Distinct Cultures
Distinct cultures are born out of common practices, beliefs, history etc. The culture of homelessness grows out of a pool of common experiences unique to people living outside. These experiences include battling the elements, knowing how to live far below the poverty line, being the object of discrimination in the form of classism and condescension that is often accompanied by charity.
These shared experiences serve to strengthen qualities such as self-sustainability and an acute sensitivity to inequality and control. Someone who has experience living outdoors can identify as one who survives, rather than the more popular public view, one who suffers. This person can rightly claim that their lifestyle is one most people would not be able to live, at least not with his level of ease and endurance.
In the same way, someone who is not paying rent or working a regular job can claim that she does not answer to a landlord or boss, an autonomous position that many would admit at least in private to be desirable and a goal that someone with more disposable wealth could understandably try to achieve by owning her own home and being self-employed.
A Rich, Functioning Community
There is a sense of belonging that comes with sharing experiences and in turn, sharing a perspective. It’s worth noting here that any well-meaning attempt to bring community to this population from the outside will find a rich and fully functioning community already there. A clear example is the concept of family on the street, which can be fluid and by choice, bringing different people together in mutual respect and care, signified by the designation mother or brother. Countless acts of radical generosity distinguish this community’s philosophy from mainstream individualism, and at the same time, individual freedom is highly valued. When comfort and stability are sacrificed in favor of autonomy and identity, like when an apartment is abandoned for a season of camping, the decision is often more fully understood and supported by the street community then by anyone else. And even if ideal housing is attained, many people never leave the street. It remains a front porch, at times a source of busy entertainment and at times a place of quite contemplation, and hosts a community whose members belong simply because they continue to be there.
There is the risk in an article like this of romanticizing homelessness. This is not my intention. Life on the street is difficult and, as an outreach worker, when I talk to people who are experiencing homelessness they will often say they would prefer to have a place to stay indoors. Affordable, adequate, and if need be, supported housing should be available to all, with a concerted effort made towards accommodating the wishes of the tenant.
But until this moves from being a good idea to a practical reality, the choice of some to live outside and to move around, a choice made in the context of a housing market that does not suit their needs or desires, should be seen as a logical decision. To be sure, the goal of ending homelessness can only be realized through the strengths and values honed by a culture of homelessness. Autonomy, identity and belonging will always determine the sorts of places we decide to call home.
Joe Bauman has worked as a Downtown Street Outreach Worker for eight years.
