Homelessness in America: An Incurable Disease?

Homelessness is a disease that shows no immediate sign of being cured. "Homelessness can be caused by a variety of problems. The main cause is unaffordable housing for the poor" (www.homeless.org 1). In addition, homelessness may be caused by mental illness, physical illness, substance abuse, poor work ethics, and even lack of incentives to work. It must be stated at the outset that, "most people, including the homeless, are not inherently lazy. But the U.S. economic system does not adequately support those at the lowest skill levels" (www.homeless.org 2). So, once one moves past the unfortunately ill- mental or physical- it is America's topsy-turvy economic system that seems to be the primary cause of people being homeless. We are now finding, within the last two or three years, that industry downsizing or moving even supervisory jobs to lower wage workers overseas has put even middle class management types and their families literally out on the street.

There is no doubt that homelessness, regardless of past social or economic status has serious social as well as psychological effects. Perhaps a naïve on-looker could say that the mentally ill are the "lucky" ones, not aware of their plight, while those who have tried and somehow failed now find being without a job or a roof over their heads as some sort of curse over which they have little or no control.

From society's impact (or lack) what causes homelessness? It is easy to point the finger at a lack of affordable housing, but the problem needs a solution. Properties are run for profit, with very few exceptions, and low-rent or no-rent units are neither profitable nor desirable in many neighborhoods. This is the NIMBY approach (Not In My Back yard). The fact remains that "Homelessness is a culturally specific phenomenon. Homelessness is a social condition" (Goodnight 2). In short, society sees anyone without a regular place to live, eat, and sleep as homeless. Goodnight (1991) states that, under society's current accepted definition, Diogenes would be considered homeless by the Bush administration.

The sad fact remains that today's homeless in America are considered (by the non-homeless) as America's outcasts. There is a current definition for "homeless" which comes from a study of HUD (Housing and Urban Development). This study "defined the homeless as 'people in the streets, whom, in seeking shelter,, have no alternative but to obtain it from a public or private agency" (Rowland 21). This is, at best, a very generous definition, since it eliminates those who cannot, will not, or do not seek shelter, but end up sleeping in doorways, alleys, or in subway stations. New York City has hundreds of homeless living somewhere under the tracks of Amtrak and Commuter trains coming into Grand Central Station. We are flooded with different definitions and boundaries of what constitutes a homeless person. For example, Goodnight cites Rosenthal as suggesting "the category should include anyone lacking enforceable rights to occupy accommodations for at least one week ahead" (Goodnight 3). Perhaps one of the problems of homelessness is that so many pompous sociologists and pseudo-intellectuals create definitions from the warmth of their middle class homes, without understanding the problem of WHY, rather than WHO.

Still, given the plight of millions of homeless in America, once we take "economic reasons" out of the mix, and understand that there are mentally ill men and women who refuse any sort of shelter, we still have various groups of homeless that society has responsibility for: The drug culture is not going away. But, most Americans turn their backs on victims of substance abuse (drugs, alcohol, etc.), figuring that it is their responsibility to "clean up" their acts. "Approximately one-third of the adult urban homeless population suffers from alcohol abuse" (Hurley 79).

Another group which is often either overlooked, disregarded or merely discarded are homeless young people. Some may be substance abusers, others runaways, still others with behavioral problems that does not seem to allow them to "fit" into society's preconceptions of what teens (and in some cases sub-teens) should be like. It is flight from abuse that creates many homeless women and children. "Shelter providers in Virginia report that 35% of their clients are homeless because of family violence" (Hurley 85). Does society (you and I) have a responsibility toward these victims? Or, for that matter to help solve the homeless problem? This is a question not easy to answer, since government and society as a whole are reluctant to step in. In some cases, rather restrictive laws have been passed in order to eliminate the homeless population. By eliminate, it would seem, get them off one community's streets and move elsewhere (NIMBY in municipal ordinances). Former mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York was one of the foremost proponents of strict laws. In fact, in 1999 he "threatened to arrest anyone sleeping in the street, saying 'Streets do not exist in civilized societies for the purpose of people sleeping there. Bedrooms are for sleeping" (Hurley 144). The very phrase "civilized society" should give Americans great concern about the welfare of what some refer to as our "underclass".

There is little for the average American to do but, perhaps commiserate, with the homeless. However, what may be frightening to us is the continuing assessment and reassessment by clinical psychologists and sociologists trying to figure out who is, or even who deserves to be homeless and why. James Wright (1991) refers to "The Worthy and Unworthy Homeless" (Goodnight 88). Wright sees the fact that poverty and homelessness is so much more VISIBLE and gets so much media attention, as being part of the overall problem rather than the solution. Wright, as others before him, categorizes the homeless "The economically distressed who would work if they could find work' (2) the mentally ill, who can't work, and (3) the alcoholic, the drug addicted, and others who won't work" (Goodnight 89). So, other than mental illness, the dividing line is work (ability to) and non-work (inability or no desire to).

What is interesting about this so-called "work" ethic is that Wright (1991) cites a survey where 84 percent agreed that anyone who wants to work can succeed, but 80 percent also agreed that even if people try hard, they often cannot reach their goals. So, we come to a sort of psychological divide among the homeless and those who judge them: You should not be homeless if you can, and want to, work. If you can't work, you are either mentally ill (and need to be hospitalized) or you are an substance abuser (and should be taken off the streets and rehabilitated and sobered up). In other words, the "worthy" are the homeless who cannot help it. The "unworthy" are those who can or could do something about their homelessness.

One also has to look at another divergence of opinion about the homeless. If a city plans to get them off the streets, keeps them from riding subways or buses all night, or loitering in stations, or alleys or doorways, is their removal a violation of their civil rights? This is a question that continues to arise: Trying to "clean up" the streets and do something about the homeless (nothing more than getting them out of sight, or even offering them public shelter) may imply depriving them of their civil rights to be, stay, even sleep, wherever they want. Civil Libertarians claim that this is a criminalization of the homeless. However, leaving the homeless alone is no solution, either. Many want some sort of help. Others do not. We are again left with the decision of "worthy" or "unworthy". The dilemma American society (and local and federal governments) faces is, knowing the causes of homelessness, what efforts and dollars can be spared to solve the problem.

Congress has just appropriated $87 BILLION to rebuilt Iraq. How much more good for AMERICANS here in the fifty states that sum, or even a small percentage of it, would do to eradicate the hopelessness of the homeless who are trapped in a social disease not of their own making.

The decision (despite conservative efforts) to criminalize the homeless is wrong: Imagine, in Orlando, panhandlers must wear a special laminated license to ask for spare change. Affordable housing, no matter how desirable it is to solve the homeless problem, will not be quickly achieved. Public opinion still sees the homeless as an eye-sore, a group of undeserving slackers who need to be out of sight. If we can eradicate cancer, MS and AIDS, we can surely solve the social disease of involuntary homelessness. Homelessness cannot be easily solved through welfare handouts, or make-work projects. Knowing the causes, should now make it possible to speed at least some of the solutions: work, health care- whether mental or physical, and affordable housing. The goal should be to eliminate not merely homelessness but hopelessness.

WORKS CITED:

Goodnight, G. Thomas: Homelessness: A Social Dilemma

Chicago: National Text Book Company (1991)

Hurley, Jennifer A. (ed.) The Homeless: OpposingViewpoints San Diego: Greenhaven Press (2002)

Rowland, Robert C.: The Plight of the Homeless Chicago: NTC Publishing Group (1991)

"The Homeless" on website www.homeless.org (2003)