Hannah Hunter
Professor Martin
12 October 2015
IDIS 400
Our Forgotten Neighbors
Throughout the United States homelessness is an epidemic, which affects people of all
ages, genders, and race. The homeless population is consistently ignored because of negative
stereotypes and stigmas. When Iris Young, a political scientist, began developing her model of
plural justice, she trademarked the five “faces of oppression”. These faces she believed,
encompassed the types of injustices faced by members of oppressed social groups. They include:
exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence. Through these
five faces of oppression, I will be examining literature identifying the barriers the homeless face
in their communities and in turn how these communities and local governments address the
homeless epidemic.
Exploitation uses capitalism to oppress by exacerbating and reinforcing socioeconomic
differences. Darren Noy writes that while there have been individual and systemic focused
remedies to homelessness in San Francisco, localities “have also used punitive measures and
‘quality of life laws’ for dealing with homeless people” (Noy 1). These laws include the
criminalization of activities needed for survival by those that live in public spaces including
sleeping, panhandling, and even sitting. By 1998, 85% of cities surveyed by the National Law
Center of Homelessness and Poverty had imposed laws to prohibit or restrict begging, and 73%
had passed laws to restrict sleeping in public. By passing these laws, local governments eliminate
homeless individuals’ ability to sleep somewhere safe, and acquire money that may aid in their
escaping their homelessness. This exploitation makes it harder for the homeless to create better
lives for themselves and continues to feed a system that perpetuates and buttresses class
differences (Young 1).
In San Francisco, homelessness is often ranked as one of the most important issues that
the city faces, and has been a pivotal concern during mayoral elections throughout the final two
decades of the 20th century. Noy suggests a series of ways San Francisco can implement change,
including supportive housing, which combines the “provision of affordable housing with on-site
support services by placing caseworkers and other support staff in buildings with subsidized
housing units” (Noy 41). Noy explains that this conflict requires the balancing of social tensions
and conflicting social demands through generosity, respect, and mutuality (Noy 50). He theorizes
that through “social stability without domination [that] would also require that humans learn to
balance the inevitable experience of social tension and resolve the inescapable arising of social
conflicts with hearts of nonviolence and respect, compassion and simplicity, contentment and
frugality” (Noy 50) the exploitations the homeless face and the class divide between those who
are and those who are not homeless can be changed.
Marginalization involves the confining of a group of people to a lower social standing,
effectively pushing them to an outer limit or edge of society (Young 2). Marginalization often
expels whole categories of people from participation in social life, and the homeless are some of
the most frequent victims of this kind of oppression. Authors Don Mitchell and Nik Heynen
explore the geography of survival and the right to place in their journal. The “geography of
survival” describes the spaces and spatial relations that structure not only how people may live,
but whether they may live (Mitchell, Heynen 2). Homeless people survive because they have
created their own geographies of survival, whether that includes a place to sleep, somewhere to
eat or forage food, or hidden corners of security and safety like shelters and churches. Through
automated surveillance in cities, the gaze of police power, trespass laws that make survival for
the homeless difficult, and the criminalization of public food giveaways, these new legal
restrictions and governance make the geography of survival almost impossible. Even police
forces, who are charged with the duty to protect and serve, often do the exact opposite when
interacting with homeless members in their communities. Instead for the homeless, “the cops’
role is far less to assure their safety, but to move them along, to prevent them from sleeping in
this park or on that sidewalk, and even to keep advocates and activists from providing them the
food that may allow them to survive for the day” (Mitchell, Heynen 617). In Minneapolis in
2006, City Council considered passing a law that would have outlawed “strangers” from setting
foot in any of the more than 450 miles of alleys in the city. The possibility of passing a law like
this gives a perfect depiction of the marginalization of homeless people. By legally excluding
homeless people from alleyways, Minneapolis would be pushing them out of the bounds of
society. Mitchell and Heynen detail how the geography of survival has become more restrictive.
The idea of secure urban space is checked by monitoring alleyways and dumpsters behind
restaurants, closing off alleys to “strangers,” eliminating regulations that require complaints of
trespass before a citation is issued, arresting the media covering demonstrations, and
criminalizing free food in public. These types of restrictions view the homeless as less than
human (Mitchell, Heynen 627). The marginalization of homeless people grows because it pushes
them down to a lower social standing and eliminates their ways to survive.
According to Karl Marx’s theory of socialism, “the powerless are dominated by the
ruling class and are situated to take orders and rarely have the right to give them” (Young 2).
There are many theories to why homelessness exists, and there are a number of individual factors
including mental illness, behavioral problems, substance abuse, and family estrangement that
contribute to the population. But there are also structural conditions, like changes in the job
market, increased poverty, widening income inequalities, decreased affordable housing, and
gentrification play a critical role in creating homelessness (Noy 1). Public action tends to focus
more on the individual factors than the long-term structural conditions. In the United States,
people are deemed responsible for their own socioeconomic fate (Lee, Jones, Lewis 253).
Popular culture inaccurately portrays the source of homelessness as laziness, heavy drinking,
wanderlust, and other character deficits. Decades of exploitation and marginalization of
homeless people have in many ways left them powerless.
Through a survey of 293 people in Nashville, Tennessee, authors Barrett A. Lee, Sue
Hinze Jones, and David W. Lewis, investigated the incidence, organization, antecedents, and
consequences of public beliefs about homelessness (Lee, Jones, Lewis 255). Forty questions
were asked, in an agree or disagree format, about five possible causes of homelessness including
personal choice, aversion to work, alcoholism, bad luck, and structural forces. Personal choice
and aversion to work were items led to depict traditional individualistic thinking about the
sources of poverty, while bad luck and structural forces were to reflect the conviction that
homelessness is an involuntary, externally induced state. Alcoholism was a category completely
different, hinting at both individualistic thinking and externally induced states, because
alcoholism is seen throughout culture as a disease, but is also highly stigmatizing (Lee, Jones,
Lewis 256). Of the surveyed individuals, only 8.9% believed homelessness was due to a single
cause. Of the remaining 90.1%, three of the five most frequent combinations include the
structural forces variable, and two include bad luck. The researchers also took into account who
they were interviewing in terms of sex, age, race, education, and region of birth. Personal
exposure to homelessness was also evaluated as a predictor of the causal beliefs. Fascinatingly,
respondents who reported having been panhandled were more likely to regard homelessness as a
function of personal choice, reinforcing the stereotype that homeless people, who may have been
exploited and marginalized, are lazy. When researchers shifted to policy-based questions, they
categorized them into five items. Two referred to restrictive actions, two others inquire about
government programs like providing housing for the homeless, and the fifth item measured
respondents’ willingness “to have a social service agency use a house in your own neighborhood
to put up five or six homeless people” (Lee, Jones, Lewis 261). Through these five categorized
items, researchers surveyed the respondents and then analyzed what they found.
Those who believed in structural or external causes considered few social issues more
important than homelessness and thought Nashville’s response to the problem had been
inadequate and supported proposals to increase taxes and provide additional housing. Those
believing in individualistic or internal causes were more likely to devalue homelessness as an
issue and to favor restrictive measures over service provision. This interested me leads me to
believe that those who think that homeless people are responsible for their situation or have an
aversion to work, believed this because of the decades of exploitation and marginalization that
stereotype the homeless as lazy and/or primarily responsible for their circumstances. Those who
recognized homelessness as a structural or external cause, would be more likely than others to
also understand that the homeless had been exploited or marginalized, making them powerless
and unheard. These respondents might better understand that a shift in policy is necessary in
change is to be effective.
The exploitation and marginalization of homeless people creates an arena in which the
homeless are seen as less than equal and stereotypes are reinforced, making homeless people
powerless to change their fate. Cultural imperialism, as defined by Iris Young, “involves the
groups that have power in society controlling how people in society that do not hold power
interpret and communicate” (Young 3). This kind of imperialism involves taking the culture of
the ruling class and establishing it as the norm (Young 3). In cities across the country, the
homeless are often left out of local government and community discussions about important
policy decisions that affect them. More than 5,000 people in the Charlotte region are homeless.
The Urban Ministry Center, a nonprofit interfaith facility, has leveraged community volunteers
and resources to provide temporary shelter for these individuals through a program called Room
in the Inn. Each Room in the Inn site offers a warm and safe place to sleep and serves three
meals a day. Their greater goal is to create a personal relationship with the homeless, even if it is
just for a night, and to teach how intricate and complex the issue of homelessness is to their
volunteers. In 2008, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte became a Room in the Inn
partner and began hosting neighbors at nearby off-campus sites. In their first year, an estimated
75 students, faculty, and staff members hosted 45 neighbors overnight, served 135 meals and
raised money and donations for all operating costs (Buch, Harden 50) The idea behind this
program was that service-learning can also reduce student belief in stereotypes, facilitate cultural
and racial understanding, and build a sense of social responsibility that may foster future
community service (Buch, Harden 45).
The program became known as the “Niner Neighbors” and while their initial focus was to
provide homeless people with a safe place to stay and eat, their goal grew to raising awareness
about homelessness, undermining stereotypes and negative attitudes toward homeless
individuals, and promoting positive civic attitudes (Buch, Harden 51). Through a study of 114
students who participated in Niner Neighbors as part of their service-learning requirement, it was
found that, prior to their service, students’ opinions on homeless people included that homeless
individuals tend to be unmotivated and work-averse, abuse alcohol or drugs, or be mentally ill
(Buch, Harden 56). At the end of the study, themes seen throughout the results included that
students found the work to be hard but fulfilling, it helped them appreciate their own lives and
opportunities, and it helped them feel good to help others in need (Buch, Harden 57). Because of
the work with Niner Neighbors, the evaluations made it clear that participation “helped dispel
negative stereotypes and foster more positive attitudes” (Buch, Harden 58). Through
organizations like Niner Neighbors, it is clear that people want to help, as over 80% of
participants agreed that adults should give some time for the good of their community. It is
important to break down stereotypes. Organizations like this, followed by studies analyzing what
those who participated gained from the experience, do just that. These students could see that
alcohol or lack of motivation were not accurate forces behind the homelessness epidemic. These
organizations are vital because they teach how homelessness has deep-rooted structural and
external causes and that communities often exploit and marginalize those who are homeless due
to stereotypes, leaving this population powerless and oppressed.
The most visible face of oppression is violence. Young explains that these attacks “do not
necessarily need a motive but are intended to damage, humiliate, or destroy the person.” Authors
Barrett A. Lee and Christopher J. Schreck look at data from a national survey examining the
relationship between marginality and criminal victimization among the homeless. The results
show that homeless people are victimized disproportionately. Homeless people suffer from
residential and spatial marginality (Lee, Shreck 1056), and without stable housing or any source
of protection, their exposure to victimization is enhanced. A report by the National Coalition for
the Homeless looked at hate crimes and violence committed against homeless peopl. In the data
collected over a span of fourteen years, 1,437 acts of violence against homeless individuals were
documented. These crimes were not purely random acts, but crimes “believed to have been
motivated by the perpetrators’ biases against homeless individuals or by their ability to target
homeless people with relative ease” (Stoops 4). The reasons behind these acts of violence
underpin the lack of power homeless individuals possess. Through exploitation, marginalization,
and stereotyping it has become clear that the homeless population is particularly vulnerable to
acts of violence. Out of the 1,437 reported acts of violence committed against homeless
individuals, 375 of the victims lost their lives. The main objective of the National Coalition for
the Homeless is to educate lawmakers, advocates, and the general public about crimes and
violence against homeless people, “in order to bring about change and ensure the protection of
civil rights for everyone, regardless of economic circumstances or housing status” (Stoops 5).
Through their research and the breakdown of case descriptions nationwide, the coalition found
that 85% of perpetrators were under the age of 30, and were commonly teenage boys. “In light of
these recent trends, it is important that the government focus on how to prevent such attacks,
rather than enact policies that criminalize the homeless simply for existing” (Stoops 45). The
coalition concluded that the structural and external forces were the critical factors that needed to
be addressed.
Oppression creates injustice for non-dominant social groups in numerous ways. Whether
it be through exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, or violence,
homeless people are victimized and neglected throughout their communities across the country.
The homeless population is exploited through the creation of classes, they are marginalized
through confinement, made powerless through laws and surveillance, stereotyped and made to
feel invisible, and finally, they are the victims of violence meant to humiliate and dehumanize.
Throughout the literature I read, common themes included the implementation of policies meant
to take away safe spaces from homeless people and push them out of their cities. Without the
acknowledgement that the homeless are often driven into their situations through structural and
external forces, the five faces of oppression continue to hinder the perception of homeless people
and what can be done to remedy their situation.
Bibliography
Buch, Kim, and Susan Harden. "The Impact of a Service-Learning Project on Student Awareness
of Homelessness, Civic Attitudes, and Stereotypes Toward the Homeless." Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement 15, no. 3 (2011): 45-59.
Lee, Barrett A., Sue Hinze Jones, and David W. Lewis. "Public Beliefs about the Causes of
Homelessness." Social Forces 69, no. 1 (1990): 253-65.
Mitchell, Don, and Nik Heynen. "The Geography of Survival and the Right to the City:
Speculations on Surveillance, Legal Innovation, and the Criminalization of Intervention." Urban
Geography 30, no. 6 (2013): 611-32.
Noy, Darren. "Stable Conflict in the San Francisco Homeless Policy Field." 1-39.
Schreck, Christopher, and Barrett Lee. "Danger On The Streets: Marginality And Victimization
Among Homeless People." American Behavioral Scientist 48, no. 8 (2005): 1055-081.
Stoops, Michael. "Vulnerable to Hate: A Survey of Hate Crimes and Violence Committed
against Homeless People in 2013." 2014. Accessed October 8, 2015.
Young, Iris. "Five Faces of Oppression." 1-4. Accessed October 9, 2015.
https://mrdevin.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/five-faces-of-oppression.pdf.