Keywords: Homelessness, Stigma, Poverty ... 14% increase in laws that prohibit sitting or lying down in specific public ... aggressive panhandling (National Coalition for the Homeless and National Center on. Homelessness & Poverty, 2006).
“THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE”: HOW HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS COPE WITH STIGMA
Rachel Rayburn Nicholas A. Guittar
The definitive version of this article can be accessed at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02732173.2013.732876#.U-riFvldXTo
1
Abstract This paper is based on 20 ethnographic interviews, two focus groups, and observation conducted with homeless individuals in a Southeastern U.S. City between 2007 and 2009. It examines individuals’ tactics used to manage the stigma that is usually linked with homelessness. Men and women regularly meet with disapproving labels regarding living on the streets or in shelters when they interact with others. The analysis of their stories highlights the ways in which homeless individuals try to save their character. Throughout this paper we make the case that homeless individuals handle spoiled identities in comparable and unique ways judged against how other marginalized groups manage stigmatization.
The conclusion discusses larger
sociological implications of this research in understanding stigmatization. Keywords: Homelessness, Stigma, Poverty
2
Introduction For over twenty years, homelessness has been an important social issue in the United States (Burt et al., 2001; Rayburn and Wright, 2009). Researchers trying to estimate the number of homeless individuals in the United States have come up with varied estimates, with some approximations as high as 3.5 million (Glisson et al., 2001). Due to this high number of individuals with no home, shelters often fill to capacity leaving men, women and children living on the streets (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2004). Many of these individuals go from shelter, to street, to institution, to being housed cyclically (Deward and Moe, 2010). This cycle of homelessness becomes a total institution, “a place…cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii). With these large numbers of families and individuals living on the streets, many cities have enacted legislation that prohibits behaviors common among homeless individuals which has led to a criminalization of the condition of homelessness. Compared to 2002, there has been a 14% increase in laws that prohibit sitting or lying down in specific public spaces, a 3% increase in laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, or vagrancy, and an 18% increase in laws prohibiting aggressive panhandling (National Coalition for the Homeless and National Center on Homelessness & Poverty, 2006). Perhaps now more than ever, intolerance for poverty and the homeless is acceptable (Barton, 2003), leading towards violence against these marginalized individuals (Saewyc et al., 2006). For these reasons, studying homelessness and understanding the lived experience of homelessness from the perspective of the homeless is of critical importance.
3
Social scientists have used Erving Goffman’s concept of stigma (1963) to explain the treatment of many socially condemned individuals, such as the homeless. The attribute of stigma is defined as having a discrediting characteristic that spoils one’s identity. A social identity, consisting of a person’s category and attributes, is noticed when a stranger first enters our presence (Goffman, 1963). The rejected in the social world are disqualified by stigmatization and excluded from fully participating in social life. Stigma has been studied among many different social groups such as members of the gay community, the mentally ill, mobile home residents, individuals with body modifications and exotic dancers. Although some of these identities have become less stigmatized over time, being homeless has remained a negative, deviant identity (Herrera, et al., 2009; Kaufman and Johnson, 2004; Phelan et al., 1997). Stigmatized individuals, with limited options to fully engage in society, devise ways to manage their identities. Within everyday social interactions, stigma causes individuals who are homeless to change how they portray themselves to other homeless and housed individuals. Whether it is through changing their speech, how they stand, or what they wear, they try to reduce and avoid stigma. Many homeless individuals continually inhabit public space, a powerfully socially discrediting force. Due to homeless individuals inhabiting public space, their stigma is very visible to the public, which Goffman refers to as discredited stigma. So, in which ways do homeless individuals manage this stigma? Goffman emphasized the social constructionist nature of stigmatization. In other words, stigma is not inherently associated with an individual’s qualities, but with a stereotype. This is certainly the case among homeless individuals, reinforced by popular misconceptions about the homeless as drunk, lazy men. Goffman refers to the moral career of stigmatized individuals, explaining that individuals go through different stages of thought about their predicament. How 4
exactly do homeless individuals carry on their lives with this stigma? How do they discuss their homelessness with someone who is not homeless? By using Goffman’s theory of stigma, this paper seeks to explore how homeless individuals try to negotiate more acceptable identities through stigma management. Through their own narratives, homeless individuals show how they construct a valuable sense of self. How do homeless individuals seek to “normalize” themselves, or portray themselves to other homeless individuals or housed individuals? Literature Review Previous studies of homelessness and stigma find that blaming the homeless for not having shelter is a historical fact and is still present in modern themes of homelessness (Phelan et al., 1997). Stigma among homeless populations has been studied for over two decades (Snow and Anderson, 1987). In Snow and Anderson’s early writings of identity work among the homeless, they found three emerging themes: distancing, embracement, and fictive storytelling (Snow and Anderson, 1987). The purpose of Snow and Anderson’s research was to move past the simple study of demographics, the problems homeless individuals have or pose (criminality, alcoholism), and work to understand life on the streets (Snow and Anderson, 1987). Snow and Anderson found that a substantial number of homeless individuals tried to distance themselves from other homeless. Homeless individuals are evaluated negatively, so they often created distinctions between themselves and other homeless individuals. Snow and Anderson further found two ways in which homeless individuals distance themselves: disassociation from the general category of homelessness and disassociation from specific groups of homeless individuals. Individuals in this category usually had only been on the streets 5
for a short period of time and said things like, “I’m not like the other guys” (Snow and Anderson, 1987:1349). Individuals who had been living on the streets for longer periods of times distanced themselves from homeless individuals who used social services; they liked to be seen as more independent and resourceful. Also originally developed by Goffman, Snow and Anderson’s study of stigma also points out evidence of role distancing and institutional distancing (1987). Role distancing is the attempt to show a lack of commitment or attachment to a role, in this case, being homeless. Role distancing, in Snow and Anderson’s study, often manifested itself by homeless individuals turning down menial jobs because they found them to interfere with what pride they had left. Institutional distancing involves homeless individuals putting down institutions that serve the homeless (in Snow and Anderson’s study, the Salvation Army). Individuals in their study pointed out how the institution was corrupt and frequently pointed out what was wrong with the Salvation Army in an attempt to distance themselves from it. The second theme Snow and Anderson found in their study was embracement, the verbal acceptance of being homeless. Some individuals in the studywould embrace their roles by immediately announcing themselves as bums or calling themselves “expert dumpster divers” (Snow and Anderson, 1987: 1355). In their study, homeless individuals also defended their friends, shared belongings (associational embracement) and committed themselves to a particular religion (ideological embracement). In addition to distancing and embracement, Snow and Anderson (1987) also found homeless individuals to give narratives with some sort of fictional component to them. Embellishment and fantasizing were common themes among their sample of homeless
6
individuals. Stories of becoming rich and gaining the favor of attractive members of the opposite sex are a few examples from this theme in the study. Snow and Anderson conclude their findings by arguing that we need to be careful about making inferences about the causes of homelessness, for these were not discussed in the study (1987). Finding self-worth and meaning are imperative for survival among this sample of homeless individuals. The “conception of self and identity” are not always “assigned or bestowed” upon the actor but also negotiated and constructed on occasion (Snow and Anderson, 1987:1368). Therefore the authors caution sociologists on adopting “overly structuralized” views of the homeless (1987:1368). The findings of this Snow and Anderson piece have been influential on subsequent studies they conducted (1993, 1994) and also on various other studies of stigmatized identities. A study of panhandlers on the streets found this population to display various stigmatizing characteristics that make them particularly susceptible to public harassment and disgrace (Lankenau, 1999). Other previous studies of homelessness and stigma found homeless individuals to manage shame by using street smarts (Harter et al.,2005). Simultaneously, these researchers also found communities using social control functions (such as hiding homeless shelters as far away as possible) to contain homelessness. This process of hiding homeless individuals, trying to make them invisible, consequently is thought to further stigmatize homelessness. Individuals who have reduced ties to society may not feel the need to behave conventionally, becoming further detached from society (Stickley et al., 2005). Researchers have shown that personal and professional contact with stigmatized identities reduces stigma; therefore isolating homeless
7
individuals seems to be an ineffective strategy (Alexander and Link, 2003). Also, studies of homeless street youth found it unlikely that youth fear stigmatization and societal rejection (McCarthy and Hagan, 2005) – more often, they crave it. Many studies have been conducted on managing stigma, not just among the homeless but among other marginalized groups as well. One previous study on managing stigmatized identity found that individuals managing HIV-related stigma were very diverse. Specifically, some individuals felt highly stigmatized and others (even after experiencing discrimination) did not (Block, 2009). Another qualitative study found that exotic dancers manage stigma by either defending their occupation, accepting shame, or selecting romantic partners in a way that reduces stigma (Bradley, 2007). A similar study of prostitutes identified ten umbrella themes in stigma management, most notably the practice of questioning the legitimacy of stigmatization and focusing on positive attributes of prostitution (Tomura, 2009). In a 2009 study of how mobile home residents manage stigma, Kusenbach found both similarities and differences to stigma management among residents of public housing, homelessness, and temporary mobile housing. Mobile home residents used techniques to create boundaries. They ignored stigma, covered it up, made jokes about it, resisted it, tried to fit in as “normal”, and rationalized it. Similar to homelessness, mobile home residents realized that there was little to be gained from challenging stigma; therefore they just tried to resist it (Anderson et al., 1994; Kusenbach, 2009). Perhaps homeless individuals have developed new ways to manage stigma since Snow and Anderson’s original study over two decades ago. Or, perhaps homeless individuals are still using the same stigma management techniques as the original study found. This paper explores
8
the stigma management techniques of homeless individuals through Goffman’s writings. Specifically, how do homeless individuals present themselves? Do they use the same techniques as other stigmatized groups or have they developed their own ways to depict being homeless? Research Methods Qualitative Studies of Homelessness Unstructured qualitative interviews and focus groups have been important methods of study in various social worlds such as religion, criminology, substance abuse treatment and homelessness (Mohatt et al., 2008; Rayburn and Wright, 2009; Sampson et al., 2006). Perhaps one of the most observable differences between the qualitative and quantitative approaches to studying homelessness (or anything else) is the underlying theoretical assumption about how we know what we claim to know. For example, in qualitative studies of homelessness, researchers tend to place emphasis on how individuals who are homeless understand their lives (Loates and Walsh, 2010). The current manuscript began with a similar theoretical standpoint; we sought to understand how homeless individuals view themselves and manage their stigma. Although we have been researching homelessness for several years now, we do not assume we know what homeless people need, how they feel, or in this case, how they manage their identities or the stigmas attached to them. Therefore qualitative interviewing became the chosen research method for this project. Specifically, we conducted detailed narratives and began to understand more about how homeless people navigate their everyday worlds as homeless individuals and what types of stigma management tools they employ. As a researcher, we were equipped with a strong knowledge of substance abuse recovery and homelessness, but only a small amount about stigma 9
management at the beginning of this project. By employing unstructured interviews as a research method, we were able to learn about the lives of these individuals with little presumption (Gubrium and Holstein, 1999). Respondents The participants in this study were housed inside two facilities supported by the Coalition for the Homeless of Central Florida, in Orlando, Florida. The female participants were living inside the Women’s Residential and Counseling Center (WRCC) and the male participants in this study were housed inside the Men’s Pavilion. These facilities, which are both supported and operated by the Coalition, are several blocks apart from one another but both are administered by the same umbrella organization. The Coalition for the Homeless, founded in 1987, provides many services to homeless individuals and families besides shelter, including food, educational programs, job training, and case management. Along with providing these services to adult women and men, the Coalition also shelters approximately 200 children on any given night. In 2008, the Coalition provided approximately 211,000 nights of shelter (62,000 nights of shelter for children) and served almost 300,000 meals (Coalition for the Homeless of Central Florida, 2009). We were able to gain access to respondents at the shelter sites due to a long-standing relationship between the Sociology Department at the University of Central Florida and the Coalition. Rayburn and Wright (2010) originally began conducting interviews at the Coalition in order to look at the stories of homeless men as they entered into an alcohol and drug treatment program, but these interviews and focus groups led to additional topics of discussion. These original interviews involved homeless individuals engaged in a substance abuse recovery 10
program at the Coalition. The focus of the original study was to explore the sober lives of homeless individuals, and their reasons for wanting sobriety (Rayburn and Wright, 2010). The focus groups were held at a women’s shelter, also run by the Coalition, to evaluate how they felt they were being treated by staff and how they felt about the services they were receiving. The individuals who were interviewed discussed details of many other facets of their lives as well. Participants for the current study were recruited by asking if individuals would be willing to participate in a university study and share their story for research purposes. The research was conducted in whatever restricted space the Coalition had available including the children’s nursery, the recreation trailer, or the cafeteria. We did not offer these participants any type of compensation for their time other than the chance that this research could help influence policy sometime in the future. The data are based mostly on in-depth interviews conducted with each participant, focus groups of about 6-8 participants, and observations in the shelter. Initially, we just hung around the shelter. We wanted to get a feel for how things were done, where individuals spent their free time, where they ate, and other everyday types of living arrangements. Therefore a great deal of time was spent just “hanging out” at the shelter observing people, programs and interactions. A total of twenty individuals, from their mid-forties to late-fifties, participated in this study (eleven men and nine women). Twelve men were originally asked to be interviewed; however, one refused. Nine women participated in the focus groups that were held at a separate time and in another location (the women’s shelter as opposed to the men’s shelter where the interviews were conducted). Although not specifically asked, most individuals indicated in the interviews that they had been living in Florida most of their lives. Fourteen of the twenty participants are black, one is Hispanic, and five are white non-Hispanic. 11
Each interview and focus group generally each lasted for one-to-two hours. During the interviews, participants discussed any aspects of their lives they wanted, for as long as they wanted. Although we prepared guiding questions, we tried not to lead participants in any particular direction during the interview. The main aim of interviews and focus groups was to generally inquire about sobriety, homelessness and what it was like to live at a facility for homeless people, and through this, themes of stigma management emerged. This research therefore produced relevant data on how homeless individuals navigate their lives with spoiled identities. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded by a team of researchers familiar with the topic of homelessness. The focus groups were equipped with three note takers and these data were handled in the same fashion as the interviews. The data became 61 single spaced pages and we began by “open coding”, where themes and ideas were classified. For example: And we talked and we talked and the whole time we’re talking I’m thinking to myself, how am I supposed to tell this chick that I live in a homeless shelter? Or do I lie? And I mean, what do I do here? You know, we’re sooner or later if this gets any better she’s gonna find out that I live in homeless mission and that I’m homeless.
Stigma Management. Here the respondent does not know whether he should disclose his homelessness or keep it hidden. Difficulty making the decision.
We then summarized and analyzed our transcripts and notes from front to back multiple times to ensure reliable and complete accounts. Several themes emerged from these data, (see Rayburn and Wright 2009, 2010 and Rayburn and Corzine, 2010 for other themes) one of which was stigma management tools. The initial coding process began with a simple full reading of transcribed data. The next step was to look for any instances where stigma, shame, or stigma management techniques were described. From this point, we started grouping these occurrences 12
into tighter categories which resulted in the development of four themes describing what we refer to as stigma management tools. Reflexivity On several occasions over the last several years of being involved in research among the homeless population, we have questioned and critically inspected our presence in the interview in the focus group, on on-site doing observation work. In the majority of instances in our qualitative fieldwork, we are noticeably different than most homeless individuals. Homeless shelters frequently provide temporary housing to men who belong to minority groups. While the average age of these individuals varies, it is almost always the case that we are quite a few years younger than those being interviewed. We are young, white, and well-educated - - and this is apparent to everyone at the shelter. Depending on who we interviewed or met with, each of us has additionally questioned how our gender might affect the interaction. Perhaps this is best explained by way of anecdote involving an interview between a middle aged African American man and our young female interviewer. One of the advantages of being a young female is that older men seemed to be very interested in opening up during the interview. On the other hand, the men often talked excessively and wanted to keep the interview going longer than necessary. Despite the often-excessive length of these interviews, we often later discovered things that the men neglected to tell me about themselves. On this one occasion, the man being interviewed had no problem telling the female researcher that he was a convicted felon -- for robbery. What he left out of his story were his numerous convictions for violence against women. The persona he wished to project was influenced by gender; another interviewer with different characteristics would have likely experienced a much different interview. To
13
understand an individual’s story, and further to make assumptions about the group and larger social structure, we must constantly remember that we are not independent actors under any circumstances. On a concluding note about our presence as interviewers, in many ways we perhaps stimulated the very phenomenon that I am currently writing about: stigma management and presentation of self. Using this anecdote as an example, we can see how individuals avoid stigma. In this case, the man just discussed specifically avoided the stigma of being labeled a sexual predator by not telling an attractive young woman he had convictions for sexual violence. Our presence, although reactive, reveals the exact process we hoped to observe. Findings Themes emerged from the data that reflect almost identical techniques of stigma management to those found in Snow and Anderson’s original 1987 study. We found many specific examples of distancing, embracement, and fictive storytelling. Distancing: “The” Homeless, Those People Generally when sociologists write about “the homeless” we are speaking about a group of individuals that we assume share certain characteristics, mainly a lack of housing. Homeless individuals also frequently talk about “the homeless” as if they were not part of the group either. Homeless individuals frequently used terms such as “them” and “those people” when talking about individuals they share shelter space with. “Those homeless people” often “stink”, talk too much, and are described in general as a “dirty, talking to themselves” annoyance. This theme is almost identical to the distancing of Snow and Anderson’s study (for example: “I’m not like the other guys here”). 14
Many people probably think that being without a home is the bottom - - the worst possible situation to be in. But it can always get worse, and this is the sentiment many homeless individuals shared. There are different types of homeless: hierarchies, an internal stratification, just like every other social group. On one occasion, we overheard a homeless individual making fun of another homeless man who was pushing his belongings in a shopping cart. Laughing, he said to his friends, “Look at that poor bastard, pushing his stuff down the street”. I was very confused by this, and inquired about this situation to someone who worked at the shelter. I found out that there is some status in being able to have a person watch your belongings, instead of having to push them around in a cart or carry them in a bag. For two or three dollars, one person will watch over the belongings of another, so they will not have to carry them everywhere they go. (The shelter is only open at night, and no one uses the lockers that are frequently broken into). It is also important for us to consider that the man who made this statement may have simply been engaging in some impression management in front of the outside observers (us). Another homelessness status level is program enrollment: homeless individuals enrolled in social programs and those not in programs. The type of program does not seem to matter; it could be an alcohol and drug program, a religious program, an educational program or any other type of program that is seen as something a person has to work for. Homeless individuals enrolled in programs talked about “the homeless people not in the program” and reported that non-program homeless teased them. On the other side, homeless individuals enrolled in programs assume that those individuals not in programs are lazy, and in a sense, more homeless. When discussing non-program homeless, one individual said, “you hear people cursing one another out, you hear people call 15
each other all kind of names.” From these types of comments, we can begin to see a class system among the homeless. This homeless individual attributed higher moral standing to individuals who were enrolled in social programs, like him. In explaining what he thought of how some homeless individuals lived, one man said, “people actually live like this? I’ll never do it.” One man distanced himself from “the homeless” by saying “I don’t care to hang out up under the tree.” At the Coalition, and probably at many homeless shelters, there are areas where homeless individuals congregate during the hours that the shelter is not open. At the main Orlando Coalition shelter, there is a large tree very close to the building where many choose to spend their time. Others see this behavior as lazy, and do not want to be associated with “those” homeless people. Some spoke of differences between street living and shelter living. One man began telling a story prefaced by “when I first got off the streets and wanted to get my life together,” showing how shelter living was a little above non-shelter homelessness. This trend of superiority is typical in interviewing non-sheltered homeless populations as well. Homeless people living in the woods consider themselves in a better position than the “bums” at the shelter (Wright and Donley, 2011). This is simply a stigma management tool: while both existences have their pros and cons, individuals indicate that one or the other is superior and chosen. Homeless individuals in this study also expressed disdain for panhandlers, who seem to occupy the bottom rung of the homeless status hierarchy. When speaking of those who ask for money, the views of our informants are similar to those of the general population, “I know what she’s going to do with it,” said one guy, speaking of a female panhandler. He explained: If a friend of mine stops and wants to talk and he don’t ask for money, we just talk, leave it alone. But if he come with a story like man I got to eat, I got to get 16
to work tomorrow, and I reach in my pocket and give him three to four dollars, he just opened the door for me to tell him something that he ain’t gonna like. Man you mean to tell me that you are still out here. You fixing to hear that kind of stuff when you go in my pocket.
Homeless individuals we spoke with did not presume to know why all people were homeless, but in some situations (although rarely their own!) they pointed towards bad choices. “Everybody have their reasons for being there. Running from the police, or running from a dope man they owe money to. Or they have some place to sleep you know, something like that.” In speaking of their own situations, homeless individuals that were interviewed often distanced themselves from the general homeless population by pointing out other homeless individuals’ shortcomings. This theme is again similar to Hefley’s (2007) theme of the ‘‘claim of relative acceptability” in which individuals in an adult novelty shop found some products okay to browse and purchase, but others off-limits. In this study, homeless individuals found some situations okay or “acceptable,” but saw other situations as “unacceptable.” This distancing technique is similar to a study of homeless children who distanced themselves from other types of homeless children in an attempt to detach from a deviant identity (Roschelle and Kaufman, 2004). Other recent studies have explored narratives of homeless men advising other homeless men not to go out on the street “looking like” a homeless person (Wright and Donley, 2011). Although it is difficult for these individuals to “pass” as not homeless (especially men), they try. One day while we were spending time with some of the homeless men in this study, the men were letting one another borrow a GQ magazine. This magazine is a “look sharp, live smart” guide for men, and the homeless individuals were reading it, taking note of current fashion trends and styles and then passing it on for another homeless individual to read. When describing how they became homeless, individuals oftentimes denied responsibility
17
for having any role in the process. Casually, in the mix of a story about themselves, individuals would regularly mention something along the lines of “this is what happened to me,” not something along the lines of “this is what I did.” Deflecting blame to external forces and factors alleviated some of the personal accountability they may have otherwise felt. This technique of stigma management is reminiscent of a study of deviance in an adult novelty store (Hefley, 2007). In this study, individuals entering the adult novelty store explained their presence by mentioning others (i.e., “I’m here picking up dildos for a friend”). Many of the accounts of homeless individuals we observed and talked with revealed these “deflections of responsibility.” Many told of becoming homeless “because of the circumstances” – excessive substance abuse, violence in the home, or other abstract “circumstances” that “could happen to anyone.” Even when the individuals we talked to did admit to making poor decisions, they definitely emphasized a lack of choices that went along with being homeless. When discussing why they did not finish school, or why they are unemployed, or why they are living in a homeless shelter, individuals noted their part. However, when they are discussing the homelessness of others, the theme of homeless by accident disappears and people become homeless because they make bad choices. The individuals we spoke with felt the need to explain to us that they became homeless by misfortune. There were also instances of institutional distancing in this study. One woman in a focus group stated that “societies and shelters tend to take care of the men,” and other women in the focus group concurred. They felt that “the men get more things than the women” at the shelter and this is one of the reasons they were homeless and not getting housed more quickly. One woman said that information about the shelter and the problems of women “weren’t out there” to the general public causing their plight of homelessness to continue. The key theme of this 18
discussion is the blame-shift and the “homeless by accident” narrative; people are homeless for these larger impersonal reasons. However, this paper is about stigma management, not the reasons why people are homeless. By defecting blame, one manages the stigma associated with living on the streets. Embracement: “I Left Everything and Came Here” Almost all individuals in this study felt the need to disclose how they became homeless, even though they were not asked. A few individuals talked about winding up homeless as if it were an accident. Discussing his last job, one individual stated, “they wasn’t paying enough money.” This following quote is taken from an individual talking about the “obligation” of paying child support. He speaks of it in such a detached manner, as though one day he just woke up and this obligation was there waiting for him: “They was paying good money, but I just couldn’t make the hours I wanted to. So I opted to take another job and this job carried me all the way to Vermont. I stayed in Vermont until October of 2008. I didn’t really have too much money because of my obligation, which is child support, which rightfully belongs to them. Living situation had changed. I forgot when I left Orlando I didn’t make arrangements to retain a place to live. So I just woke up and went with a guy I knew. After a while, I noticed I didn’t have no more 200 a week to stay out there. So I came back to Orlando. I stopped by to see if they had any beds out there.”
Other individuals had similar inadvertent homeless stories. One individual said, “I didn’t know anything about the coalition. So I just stopped here to holler at some guys. I didn’t know how they operated.” This individual attributes his presence at the homeless shelter to wanting to talk to some friends, to see what was going on there. Another individual stated that he decided to come to the homeless shelter because “I still have my house, just walked away from my house, something I wanted to do”. “I left everything and came here. I been here like three weeks. It’s 19
okay so far. It’s okay you know.” In fact, later in the interview, the man said that he was “planning to be here for a little while” but then he hoped to “get to go back home; go back to my girlfriend,” indicating that he was asked to leave his home, forcing him into homelessness. Individuals such as these two men shifted blame where they could and then again shifted responsibility where they could in order to reduce the stigma of homelessness. One individual stated that he “got caught out there this time, to where I ended up homeless”. The term “out there” in this context refers to using drugs illegally. He went on to explain that he could have called a family member to stay with, but he didn’t want to “create bad blood”. In speaking of the homeless shelter, he said “I need to go somewhere I can get my head out of the clouds, and I can begin”. Many individuals I talked to said that they were tired of “beating up on” themselves for their current situations. One man confirmed the general feeling of confusion in becoming homeless. “It has been one thing after another.” Finally, the individuals we talked with were quick to point out what they have been doing right. “I’m not just sitting around” and similar statements were made frequently in interviews, as homeless individuals tried to convey that they were not indolent, that they had moral worth. In discussing the time he lost, one man indicated that it was very difficult to regain a life, “but right now I’m working.” Others stated similarly that they were just doing what they “got to do to survive.” This study also gives support to Snow and Anderson’s findings of religion as an embracement theme. Frequently, individuals in this study would tell us how difficult it was to live on the streets or in a shelter. This “hard core” life was discussed in terms of difficulties with sleeping, eating, and other basic functions every human being requires. “This is my first time
20
ending up on the streets, and boy that’s a rough life. I’m talking about nowhere to sleep, in the rain, that’s a rough life.” Note again that in this instance, the informant just “ends up” being homeless, does not enjoy or want the experience, and takes no direct personal responsibility for “ending up” where he did. Many of our informants discussed the rigors of street and shelter life, but then added something unexpected: specifically, they indicated their conviction that suffering now would benefit them later. “If you can make it, if you can make it here a week, two weeks…If you walk through it”, “the stuff I’ve been through” and similar sentiments are reminiscent of atonement and penitence in Christianity. Individuals talked about their toils and troubles and the better life they would have because of it. This was an unexpected affirmation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous and oft-bowdlerized aphorism, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Linking to the previously discussed theme of distancing, individuals also classified themselves in terms of the difficulties they had been through. ‘Facing danger’, ‘surviving’, and ‘making it through another day’ are looked upon with regard, or even as a mark of status or honor. Having to encounter danger and violence and living to tell about it are respected characteristics. For example, when discussing differences among the homeless one individual stated, “she ain’t never had to run from pistol shots,” pointing to dissimilar lives. In this situation, this homeless man was denigrating this woman because she had never been shot at. Some individuals told themselves “this is where you are supposed to be,” demonstrating acceptance and some control over the stigma of being homeless. One man specifically stated: “I’m paying homage,” another was “determined.” In virtually all of the interviews, there was some indication of this type of mentality. The homeless individuals we talked with believed that
21
if they suffered through this time in their lives they would be rewarded at a later date. Some discussed suffering through in hopes of stable employment, owning a home, or an abstract concept of reward. Some did not know what exactly they were suffering to gain, but were convinced that they would be compensated in some manner. Fictive Storytelling Snow and Anderson’s findings about fictive storytelling fall into two categories: 1) embellishment of the past and present, and 2) fantasizing about the future (Snow and Anderson, 1993, p. 223). Both of these types of storytelling were frequent in the interviews we conducted with this sample of homeless individuals. Individuals we spoke with were also quick to point out areas in their lives where they excelled in the past. They were careful to point out where they did well in life, for example, in dating or deviant occupations such as selling drugs. Many of these stories contained embellishments such as, “I’ve always dated beautiful women,” “I sold drugs for about 32 years just for extra money,” and “I was a street player hustler.” Individuals often embellished their deviant characteristics to show that they did have accomplishments, even if they were not recognized as such by mainstream society. Another man indicated that a few years ago he owned several hundred acres of marijuana plants and was paid to travel around the world starting “pot farms” on numerous occasions. However, some individuals told stories about conventional accomplishments. One man talked about how he was a talented musician, “I’m pro-education. I went to college for music. I wanted to go to Berkeley, excuse me, Julliard School of music in Manhattan. So I started researching music departments, then I found out that Bronx Community College has one of the 22
best curriculums.” The embellishment of past experiences was extremely common among individuals in this study. Fantasizing about the future took several forms. For example, one man fantasized about his future by indicating that he would like to be able to go on a cruise whenever he wanted, and purchase an entirely new wardrobe when he felt tired of the one that he had. If I wanna go and just up and go and take me a cruise, I wanna be able to do that. If I wanna decide one day, that stuff look kinda old, I’m tired of wearing that stuff, just clear my closet out, and come down here and donate it to some people and start all over with it except what I got on. If I wanna just do that one day, I just wanna do that kind of stuff without it being strain, or without it being stressful. Other individuals daydreamed about equally distended ambitions even though they were living in a homeless shelter. When asked questions such as: “what are your plans after you leave the shelter?”, most of the men revealed rather far-reaching goals. One man responded: That’s a good question. Short term goals is to get my life right, get my driver’s license straight, secure good employment, get into a training program, that would help me secure good employment, I keep talking about heavy equipment, crane operator, these guys get paid $75 an hour, work at that. Branch out and do things that I’m invested in real estate, stock broking, small town entrepreneurship within 5 years.
In summary, this brief discussion and demonstration of techniques to manage stigma including distancing, embracement, and fictive storytelling were part of the list of remedial measures of which homeless individuals made use. Homeless individuals use these strategies to boost their social status and recover their morality. Our presence in these facilities would be expected to generate efforts at stigma management, and seems to have engendered many experiences of these techniques. The people we interviewed most likely naturally assumed that we were making negative assessments of them, their lives, and their circumstances. As
23
university researchers, they probably thought we looked down on them, so it was easy for us to observe stigma management strategies on display. Conclusion This study suffers all the infirmities of any small-sample qualitative research project, compounded in this case by the fact that we did not set out to study stigma management, but other topics altogether. Nonetheless, this research does add to the larger body of sociological understanding of stigma and homelessness. The study exposed a number of methods homeless individuals employ in response to vilification – real or imagined – because of their living on the streets. These approaches serve to repel or counteract the harmful or negative images of homelessness that most people could be expected to harbor. Investigating the circumstances in which these four stigma management strategies are used is useful in understanding the interactional approaches of homeless individuals. It seems as though stigma management techniques are used in all circumstances where homeless individuals are interacting with others, even other homeless people, and maybe especially when interacting with other homeless people. These techniques were certainly present when homeless individuals were interacting with researchers such as us (young, white, educated, etc.). Goffman identified two main strategies for managing stigma: passing and covering. Passing, in this study, would explain efforts of homeless individuals to control the sharing of information themselves and thereby pass as normal. Covering would refer to the process of deflecting attention away from homelessness by making it less obvious. Among this sample of homeless individuals, covering was much more of a pervasive stigma management tool than passing. Goffman found that passing was only possible when a stigmatizing condition is
24
unknown. Some of the homeless individuals I talked with took showers, shaved, had some new clean clothes, and did not look that down and out. Some of the individuals look like they shouldn’t have even been there. These individuals (looking clean, intact, employable, etc.) may be passing and covering (i.e., managing the stigma of their public identity). However, they did show some indications of this type of tool when they were explaining previous situations in disclosing their homelessness. In conclusion, this research demonstrates how Goffman’s key conceptions and developments provide a more reasoned theoretical way to study homelessness. This study, as with previous studies of stigma management, has highlighted strategies of those on the social margins with structural constraints (Taub et al., 2004). In the case of homeless individuals, we found out that there is a hierarchy of homelessness; it is not just a sole status. Individuals in this study took the role of “the other” to try to separate themselves from homelessness. In other words, these individuals strive to put some distance between their sense of self and the stereotypes of homelessness that they confront daily. Homeless individuals in this study struggled with what to share and what to hide. In starting new relationships or new jobs individuals we spoke with expressed confusion about how and when they should disclose this or that bit of information, or if they should try to hide it. With increasing numbers of homeless individuals, and a greater criminalization of the condition of homelessness, the stigma management techniques of Snow and Anderson are important to revisit. As this study shows, homeless individuals are still finding it necessary to distance themselves from other homeless individuals, accept the condition of homelessness, and to tell stories about it to be able to manage the stigma associated with living on the streets. In recent years, tolerance for poverty and homelessness has dwindled, and violence has increased. For 25
these reasons it is imperative to continue to look at how we are treating those who are experiencing homelessness, and the techniques they are employing to manage their identities.
26
References Alexander, Laurel and Bruce Link. 2003. “The Impact of Contact on Stigmatizing Attitudes Toward People with Mental Illness.” Journal of Mental Health 12:271-290. Anderson, Leon, David A. Snow and Daniel Cress. 1994. “Negotiating the Public Realm: Stigma Management and Collective Action Among the Homeless.” In D. A. Chekki, S. E. Cahill and L. H. Lofland (Eds.) Research in Community Sociology: The Community of the Streets (pp. 121-143). Greenwich: JAI. Barton, Angela Calabrese. 2003. “Kobe’s Story: Doing Science as Contested Terrain.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16:533-553. Block, R. G. 2009. “Is It Just Me? Experiences of HIV-Related Stigma”. Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services 8:1-19. Bradley, Mindy S. 2007. “Girlfriends, Wives, and Strippers: Managing Stigma in Exotic Dancer Romantic Relationships.” Deviant Behavior 28:379-406. Burt, Martha, Laudan Y. Aron, Edgar Lee, and Jesse Valente. 2001. Helping America’s Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing? Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Deward, Sarah L. and Angela M. Moe. 2010. “Like a Prison!: Homeless Women’s Narratives of Surviving Shelter.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 37:115-135. Fothergill, Alice. 2003. “The Stigma of Charity: Gender, Class, and Disaster Assistance.” The Sociological Quarterly 44:659-680.
27
Glisson, George M., Bruce A. Thyer and Robert L. Fischer. 2001. “Serving the Homeless: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Homeless Shelter Services.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 28:89-98. Goffman, Eriving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein. 1999. “At the Border of Narrative and Ethnography.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28:561-574. Harter, Lynn M., Charlene Berquist, Scott B. Titsworth, David Novak, and Tod Brokaw. 2005. “The Structuring of Invisibility Among the Hidden Homeless: The Politics of Space, Stigma, and Identity Construction.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 33:305327. Hefley, Kristen. 2007. “Stigma Management of Male and Female Customers to a Non-Urban Adult Novelty Store.” Deviant Behavior 28:79-109. Herrera, Elsa, Gareth A. Jones, and Sarah Thomas de Benitez. 2009. “Bodies on the Line: Identity Markers Among Mexican Street Youth.” Children’s Geographies 7:67-81. Kaufman, Joanne M. and Cathryn Johnson. 2004. “Stigmatized Individuals and the Process of Identity.” The Sociological Quarterly 45:807-833. Kusenbach, Margarethe. 2009. “Salvaging Decency: Mobile Home Residents’ Strategies of Managing the Stigma of “Trailer” Living”. Qualitative Sociology 32:399-428. 28
Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999. “Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28:288-317. Lee, Barrett A. and Chat F. Farrell. 2003. “Buddy, Can you Spare A Dime?: Homelessness, Panhandling, and the Public.” Urban Affairs Review 38:299-324. Loates, Mandy and Christine A. Walsh. 2010. “Women Negotiating Sexual Identity in the Face of Homelessness: From Silence to Satisfaction.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 12:87-101. Lopes, Paul. 2006. “Culture and Stigma: Popular Culture and the Case of Comic Books.” Sociological Forum 21:387-414. McCarthy, Bill and John Hagan. 2005. “Danger and the Decision to Offend.” Social Forces 83:1065-1096. Mohatt, Gerald V., Stacy M. Rasmus, Lisa Thomas, James Allen, Kelly Hazel, and Alan G. Marlatt. 2008. “Risk, Resilience, and Natural Recovery: A Model of Recovery From Alcohol Abuse for Alaska Natives.” Addiction 103:205-215. The National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. 2006. Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. Palmer, Catherine, Anna Ziersch, Kathy Arthurson, and Fran Baum. 2004. “Challenging the Stigma of Public Housing: Preliminary Findings from a Qualitative study in South Australia.” Urban Policy and Research 22:411-426. Phelan, Jo, Bruce G. Link, Robert E. Moore and Ann Stueve. 1997. “The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label “Homeless” on Attributes Toward Poor Persons.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60:323-337. 29
Rayburn, Rachel L. and James D. Wright. 2009. “Homeless Men in Alcoholics Anonymous: Barriers to Achieving and Maintaining Sobriety.” Applied Social Science 3:55-70. Rayburn, Rachel L. and James D. Wright. 2010. “Sobering Up on the Streets: Homeless Men in Alcoholics Anonymous.” Society 47:333-336. Rayburn, Rachel L. and Jay Corzine. 2010. “Your Shelter or Mine?: Romantic Relationships Among the Homeless,” Deviant Behavior 31:756-774. Roschelle, Anne R. and Peter Kaufman. 2004. “Fitting in and Fighting Back: Stigma Management among Homeless Children.” Symbolic Interaction 27:23-46. Saewyc, Elizabeth M., Carol L. Skay, Sandra L. Pettingell, Elizabeth A. Reis, Linda Bearinger, Michael Resnick, Aileen Murphy, and Leigh Combs. 2006. “Hazards of Stigma: The Sexual and Physical Abuse of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Adolescents in the United States and Canada.” Child Welfare 85:195-213. Sampson, Robert J., John H. Laub, and Christopher Wimer. 2006. “Does Marriage Reduce Crime? A Counterfactural Approach to Within-Individual Causal Effects.” Criminology 44:465-508. Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. 1987. “Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities.” American Journal of Sociology 92:1336-1371. Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30
Stickley, Theodore, Ruth Hitchcock, and Gemma Bertram. 2005. “Social Inclusion or Social Control? Homelessness and Mental Health.” Mental Health Practice 8:26-30. Taub, Diane E., Penelope A. McLorg, and Patricia L. Fanflik. 2004. “Stigma Management Strategies Among Women with Physical Disabilities: Contrasting Approaches of Downplaying or Claiming a Disability Status.” Deviant Behavior 25:169-190. Tomura, Miyuki. 2009. “A Prostitute’s Lived Experiences of Stigma.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 40:51-84. United States Conference of Mayors. 2005. A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 24- City Survey. December. Wright, James D. and Amy M. Donley. 2011. Poor and Homeless in the Sunshine State: Down and Out in the World that Disney Created. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31
32
