The Homelessness Conversation: Time for a Change?
March 1, 2011 at 2:32 pm salfordgareth 7 comments
Over the last year or so, I have tried to keep pace with the debates, conversation, news, and information about homelessness. A growing familiarity with the debates, coupled with the pressures of completing this project work among others, has left me with a feeling of apathy about continuing participation in these conversations. I have blogged and commented less frequently and felt less inspired by what I have read about homelessness issues.
In addition to this, I have learned from writing this blog that there are significant restrictions on what I can discuss in it. The blog, as you may know, is primarily about our research project into the life stories of homeless people. But as I have discovered, this requires the challenging act of balancing two objectives: firstly, writing an engaging blog post which is deserving of the readers time and attention; and secondly, maintaining the confidentiality of the sensitive and personal issues that have been shared with me during the research interviews. There are many insightful stories about the lives of the homeless people that have been shared with me, but reformulating these into anonymous accounts for the purpose of public consumption is somewhat more difficult. Perhaps a more skilful or imaginative writer would have tackled these challenges better than I have.
However, as we are currently working through an analysis of these interviews, I am provoked into thinking about issues of homelessness that I see dominating public discussions and how these are matched to what I ‘see’ in our research. These two ways of perceiving homelessness do not match each other.
The common, public conversations of homelessness are usually formed in the following ways: homeless people are presented as victims of their circumstances and of the state (inadequate policy and service provision – particularly due to cuts in public spending), and homeless people with high-level needs (evidenced by the presentation of extreme case examples). These are important debates and discussions, but do they serve their intended purpose in the public domain? Personally, I think these discussions are easy to ignore. Extreme cases, by their nature, do not represent the entire spectrum of homelessness circumstances; what’s more, service cuts will take place in the context of much wider cuts in public spending. And who is participating in these debates anyway? Is it the individuals and organisations with a clear, vested interest? Or do these debates include the general public, too?
These are points of interest because I can see from our own interviews there is a different kind of conversation to be had about homelessness. Indeed, there are stories of intolerable abuse and neglect and there are stories of poverty and disadvantage. But there are also stories of individuals navigating a pathway through their lives often in ordinary ways and frequently where homelessness is depicted as an incidental period of their lives. This is not to say that homelessness is not a serious and challenging problem, but it is to say that there is much more to understand about the lives of homeless people than that which can be obtained through the public discussions about the issue. One example I have observed is someone who I follow on Twitter: @vendazero. @vendazero, a Big Issue vender but no longer homeless, does tweet about homelessness and associated issues, but he also tweets about the ordinary aspects of his life – these are the things that highlight the commonalities between us all. This is, for me, a compelling and accessible way in which I can understand more about, firstly, the man, and secondly, the homelessness. This is where I see, as I have witnessed in the interviews, grounds for a common understanding.
I guess the point of this blog post is to ask the question: are there different ways of having the conversations that we need to be having about homelessness? I have mentioned what I perceive to be the public discussions that frequently highlight extreme cases and worst-case scenarios. And I have suggested that these are more difficult to understand and to engage with than the kinds of conversations that are had by undertaking a more – dare I say it – ‘holistic’ view with those who are affected the most. By diversifying the conversations we are having about homelessness can we increase our understanding of it? Can we bring more people into the discussion? By doing this, can we open up new forms of tackling the issue?
What are your thoughts?
Entry filed under: Discussions. Tags: analysis, Big Issue, blog, Conversation, Discourse, diversification, homeless, homelessness, participation, poverty, public debates, Research, Twitter.
salfordgareth
lisascullion
1.
john bloggs | March 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm
As you quite rightly say are their different ways,drop the labels when talking about.or talking to peope,everybody if different,and have had different life experiances,in this case its about homelessness,but the sector love the labels,thats part of the problem,thats how they work in single issues,its all around if care too look…..Holistic is the way forward !
” SEE THE PERSON ,NOT THE LABEL”
regards team homeless uk
2.
salfordgareth | March 3, 2011 at 11:27 am
There is a problem, I think, in the forms that these labels take. When we talk about ‘homelessness’ and ‘homeless people’ the words conjure up certain images and ideas about what they are. The words have a predetermined meaning. But the labels are also a convenient way of helping us to communicate to each other about it; they reduce complex issues and experiences into a simple, understandable format. We need to have some way of communicating about it, but is it possible to change the every day language and meanings of homelessness so that a holistic view of individuals and their experiences can be viewed?
3.
john bloggs | March 5, 2011 at 10:02 pm
hi gareth,as you must be aware there is much jargon used within the homeless sector.which if you are not part of,by this meaning someone who works within the sector,the language can make you a outsider if you are person seeking support with homeless issue related problems…A good example is engagement,what does this really mean? engagement to what? We wonder what the next new “buzz” word will be,or words…
So a “holistic approach should cut through the gargon,and keep things plain and simple,” a level playing field” term used not so long back…read a few reports also,service user said this,said that, he,or she said that,spoke this,which is not direct..
And dont forget when report finished,dont let PR departments cut it to bits,produce a few stats,and release without meaning
but just to give their own status a boost…
This most important as you have the trust of all the people you have interviwed,….
regards team homeless uk
4.
john bloggs | March 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm
A topical example “sector” call them soup runs,but are known and called “handouts” by users..another example…dont say to someone on streets you homeless..better to say ” you in,or out ” could be homeless,but actually have somewhere to stay at a homeless hostel..there are many overlaps on the streets,which most people have contact with daily,even if it means just going to the office each day to work,and the best observers are people who are on the streets daily…..
regards team homeless uk
5.
john bloggs | March 7, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Hi gareth…
Diversifying conservations on Homelessness….
How can you have good quality research when only one section of homeless people involved,by this we mean service users,and by definition of Multiple Exclusion Homelessness,one would have thought people who are excluded from services,or have a mistrust of services,for what ever reason,could have insights on exclusion..
Will research bring about change,or is it more concernred about knowledge production…..
regards team homeless uk
6.
salfordgareth | March 8, 2011 at 9:52 am
I would agree that it would be logical to interview people who are excluded from services completely to get an insight into exclusion. However….
Speaking from the perspective of our own research, the aim was not to interview people who were completely excluded from all services. This can be linked to the tenuous definition of multiple exclusion as it currently stands. I would argue that there are people are ‘in’ services, i.e. staying in a hostel, but still experiencing some forms of exclusion because they may not be accessing all the services they need, for example, alcohol or drug cessation services, employment or training, counselling, etc. Perhaps they have not been assessed for these needs; perhaps the services are not fully availlable and responsive to them if they have. But from this perspective, they could be considered ‘multiply excluded’. Also, I would like to suggest that perhaps the problem is not that many people mistrust services, but that they trust them too much. I was re-reading an account yesterday of an individual who believed that those around him in the hostel were relying too much on what the workers could do for them instead of taking control for themselves. He believed that others, like he had done, could move themselves on by taking more responsiblity for themselves. On the other hand, I have interviewed people who are in services but still maintain a degree of suspicion and mistrust of the services. Therefore, to suggest that those who are in services are trusting of them, and those who are not in services are mistrusting of them is, in my view, far too simple a way of looking at the issue.
A second point would be to look at the political and cultural meaning of the definition ‘multiple exclusion’. It is only used by certain professional groups and interested parties who have created it to serve their own ends based on their own values and ideologies about how people should live in the UK in the present day. Although they would label certain individuals as multiply excluded, does an individual living in a squat somewhere in Stoke (presumably minding his own business and not wanting any interventions from services) consider himself multiply excluded? This point is debatable too.
And thirdly, in our own research we have reached as far as we can in accessing people and there are limits to where we can go and what we can do. Researchers do not have an infinite amount of options as to who we can interview, and I am satisfied that we have made every effort to speak to as wide a range of individuals as possible.
Finally, research ought to be concerned with both knowledge production AND bringing about change, not simply one or the other. But researchers exists within a much larger structure of social action which also includes policy-makers at both national and local level, practitioners and service providers, excluded indiviudals themselves, and the general public. This is why the four research projects are currently working together to gain the maximum influence on the relevant government departments with their findings, and here we are working with our partners in Stoke to ensure that they can obtain the maximum benefits from our research and to disseminate that information in the local area.
I hope that answers some of the good points you have raised!
7.
john bloggs | March 9, 2011 at 12:24 am
Many thanks Gareth, a full and comprehensive answer to our questions,with regard to definition of “multiple exclusion” your second point,one could say from whos perspective…
regards,all the best..
team homeless uk