What Really Makes a Homeless, "Homeless"?
Development of the world economy has not had equal effects on all people. Some countries with strong governance and suitable policies grew much faster than those that do not, leaving massive wealth gaps across national borders that are still now being enlarged. And within national boundaries, those with the right social connections, high education, and access of economic means of production benefit disproportionately from growing wealth, leaving behind many compatriots who are still struggling to cope with economic changes.
And at the bottom of those coping with economic changes are who the society ruthlessly calls the "homeless," those too poor to afford permanent housing even in the shabbiest of the neighborhoods, scrapping by what little wealth they can find on the street-sides of the world's wealthiest and most developed cities. Furthermore, the municipalities that these homeless reside generally have relatively well-established social welfare systems. It only adds to the puzzling increase of the homeless over the past few years.
To be honest, defining the "homeless" as simply unemployed people somehow excluded from the local social welfare benefits is perhaps a bit antiquated. While indeed most homeless have no jobs with stable incomes to afford permanent housing, whether they are truly "neglected by society," as proclaimed by so many in the self-proclaimed world-saving NGO sector, is perhaps a little exaggerated. At least a significant portion of the homeless have enough physical and intellectual capacity to be employed (even in the lowest of lowly lower-class jobs) and thus could afford themselves the cheapest of the cheap shantytown homes available.
Yet, in my experiences talking to the homeless, during volunteering and random travels, and according to news reports, these seemingly normal people always resort to stories of hardships in personal life, emotional trauma, supposed discrimination, and most important of all, "there are no jobs out there." In a day and age when even Ivy League graduates are grudgingly taking up dead-end part-time jobs, there simply cannot be any excuse for people to cite minor reasons while continuing to sleep on the streets. There has to be reasons other than economic ones to rationalize the existence of these homeless.
One of these reasons is socio-cultural. When a family knows one of its own is living on the street, would its members take in the homeless? Modern society, with its individualistic concerns for financial self-preservation, has seen "no" become the dominant answer. Families, and along the same logic, clans, neighborhoods, and ethnic communities, have become increasingly indifferent toward the sufferings of one member. The self-help functions of these social groups have, in essence, disappeared as some members became wealthy through individual means.
And as individuals of such indifferent attitude become political leaders, the socio-cultural reason also becomes a political one. Many people are so convinced that the equality of opportunities for education and employment is sufficiently well-enforced that they refuse to believe homelessness of a mentally capable person can be caused by anything other laziness. And that maintain that using taxpayer money to financially support "lazy people" are not politically justifiable in anyway.
Increasingly, public opinion turn against the homeless themselves rather than the society that is allowing the homeless to stay homeless without really asking why. And the entire situation is turning into a vicious cycle making reintegration of the homeless into mainstream society increasingly difficult. The strong public belief in moral wretchedness of the "lazy bums" makes it increasingly difficult for families, communities, and employers to help them without receiving certain criticisms themselves.
As sources of potential help dwindles, ultimately it is the homeless who become even more financially and emotionally troubled, giving others the chance to call these "social scums" not only "lazy" but also "crazy" and must be socially isolated and shunned by any means. Public opinions become even more intolerant of the homeless as the cycle continues...perhaps we should ask, are we the not homeless really causing the homeless to become homeless?
And at the bottom of those coping with economic changes are who the society ruthlessly calls the "homeless," those too poor to afford permanent housing even in the shabbiest of the neighborhoods, scrapping by what little wealth they can find on the street-sides of the world's wealthiest and most developed cities. Furthermore, the municipalities that these homeless reside generally have relatively well-established social welfare systems. It only adds to the puzzling increase of the homeless over the past few years.
To be honest, defining the "homeless" as simply unemployed people somehow excluded from the local social welfare benefits is perhaps a bit antiquated. While indeed most homeless have no jobs with stable incomes to afford permanent housing, whether they are truly "neglected by society," as proclaimed by so many in the self-proclaimed world-saving NGO sector, is perhaps a little exaggerated. At least a significant portion of the homeless have enough physical and intellectual capacity to be employed (even in the lowest of lowly lower-class jobs) and thus could afford themselves the cheapest of the cheap shantytown homes available.
Yet, in my experiences talking to the homeless, during volunteering and random travels, and according to news reports, these seemingly normal people always resort to stories of hardships in personal life, emotional trauma, supposed discrimination, and most important of all, "there are no jobs out there." In a day and age when even Ivy League graduates are grudgingly taking up dead-end part-time jobs, there simply cannot be any excuse for people to cite minor reasons while continuing to sleep on the streets. There has to be reasons other than economic ones to rationalize the existence of these homeless.
One of these reasons is socio-cultural. When a family knows one of its own is living on the street, would its members take in the homeless? Modern society, with its individualistic concerns for financial self-preservation, has seen "no" become the dominant answer. Families, and along the same logic, clans, neighborhoods, and ethnic communities, have become increasingly indifferent toward the sufferings of one member. The self-help functions of these social groups have, in essence, disappeared as some members became wealthy through individual means.
And as individuals of such indifferent attitude become political leaders, the socio-cultural reason also becomes a political one. Many people are so convinced that the equality of opportunities for education and employment is sufficiently well-enforced that they refuse to believe homelessness of a mentally capable person can be caused by anything other laziness. And that maintain that using taxpayer money to financially support "lazy people" are not politically justifiable in anyway.
Increasingly, public opinion turn against the homeless themselves rather than the society that is allowing the homeless to stay homeless without really asking why. And the entire situation is turning into a vicious cycle making reintegration of the homeless into mainstream society increasingly difficult. The strong public belief in moral wretchedness of the "lazy bums" makes it increasingly difficult for families, communities, and employers to help them without receiving certain criticisms themselves.
As sources of potential help dwindles, ultimately it is the homeless who become even more financially and emotionally troubled, giving others the chance to call these "social scums" not only "lazy" but also "crazy" and must be socially isolated and shunned by any means. Public opinions become even more intolerant of the homeless as the cycle continues...perhaps we should ask, are we the not homeless really causing the homeless to become homeless?
Comments
Post a Comment