One of Ananya Roy’s stories in lecture recently struck me, in which a boy asked her why in America there are homeless; rather, why do we not allow informal housing of the extremely impoverished in America. Of course, I realize there do exist "encampments" hidden underneath seams of the urban fabric, such as in the brush at the Albany Bulb or under bridges, however there are still so many trying to sleep on the concrete around my warm, secure home. Often in the Bay I have witnessed despicable verbal and physical violence toward bodies trying to rest on the streets. I wonder how, after being exposed to all the noxious elements of life on the streets throughout the day, these individuals also manage to survive sleeping on the cold concrete unable to lock out the dangerous, bad, or drunk people out that scare us all. I feel like the reason we don’t allow informal housing, is that cities feel compelled to be able to say the individuals without homes on their streets are just transients, and thus not reflective of the city, nor responsibility of the community. Do we not allow informal housing because we think the homeless are easier to regulate and police when they have no privacy? No running water, no mirror, no place to store their things, no toilet, no refrigerator or stove? Do we refuse to allocate space for makeshift dwellings, because it is easier to pretend like the problem doesn’t exist? Is it that we fear a built environment exposing the raw and inhumane conditions of Americas most poor would render the problem visible? I know many individuals who would build themselves a makeshift house in a dangerous slum on the outskirts of town and feel blessed to have walls surrounding them, as temporary, fragile, and illegal as they may be. I understand that slums pose many unimaginable dangers, but I wonder if they could possibly be worse than what we already have in America. How can we have so many people in this country of abundance wealth living in a culture of conspicuous consumption yet suffering from such extreme poverty that they cannot even afford a place to call home? My best guess is that we don’t allow anyone access to free land, due to the fear that it would be unfairly taken advantage of. Nonetheless I can’t help but wonder sometimes if "third world" slum establishments in fact might serve society better than how the poorest are forced to live in Berkeley.
I think Dani brings up a really good point when she says that cities don't have cheap and informal housing because of an unwillingness to accept the homeless as part of the community. It's an exclusionary tactic and an effective one at that because it forces the homeless into the periphery of civilization.
ReplyDeleteWhen they are excluded from the community and deprived of shelter, it's easier for the "community" to target and criminalize outsiders which can be seen in the high arrest rates of the homeless. This inevitably causes hardships when the homeless try to find employment and perpetuates the cycle of exclusion that the homeless must live through.
It's easier to dehumanize those we already don't view as equals and the lack of physical shelter is only one of many ways in which the system serves to strip the dignity of the homeless.
This issues about homelessness in America also hit me, and not because I was not aware about it, but how the image of homelessness had become such a natural idea to me. I come from across the border, and I never see homeless in the nights, I see poor people during the daylight, trying to work in the informal sector, but never have I witnessed this American image of homelessness in Mexico. Even when I traveled to Costa Rica, poverty was and continues to be prominent, but homelessness is not. Is it possible then that even though immense poverty and inequality exist allover the world, but the image of homelessness if too often embedded in American negligence to support their homeless citizens? It seems that this issues requires a change of mentality not only from those in Congress, but also ourselves, until we start realizing and questioning our daily thoughts about poverty and its causes.
ReplyDeleteDani, the idea that you have about considering how third world mechanisms of coping with poverty would function in Berkeley is fascinating. There are two main differences that I see between Berkeley and third world states, particularly Latin American states like Colombia that you posted a link to, which make it more challenging to consider how slum encampments could come about here and last over time. I can talk about how this issue in light of the information that I know about Latin American governments that I have learned through researching and writing a senior thesis on Latin American penitentiary systems.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it seems like the United States has more coercive, organized and rigid police enforcement that is willing to take on civil issues, such as property issues. In Latin America, more emphasis is placed on police dealing with criminal matters and drug matters. What is more, police forces here have lower levels of corruption as compared with Latin American countries, which would prevent a person living in a slum from bribing off a police member and allow them to continue living in the illegal encampment. By contrast, police members here are responsive to complaints that they find important and are not shy about giving out tickets and taking other actions to make people follow the law. In the United States in contrast with Latin American countries, people have a reasonable expectation in thinking that a police member will follow up with them and make sure that they have followed their orders (such as to leave an encampment).
Secondly, it seems that the United States has stricter regulation about property. Full property regulation is correlated with a strong rule of law, because it is necessary that members of society respect law and order in order to follow land boundaries. As we talked about in our discussion about forms in class, our society hinges on legal language and contracts. Thus, it would go against social norms for there to be illegal encampments. There would not be much public support for them and negative attention would be associated with them. Rule of law is notoriously absent in many third world societies, which allows slums to exist.
One thing that may be unique in the United States as compared to developing countries is that we have homeless shelters here, which may act in the place of slums. This is not to say that there are enough homeless shelters for those that need them, because it is a common problem in the East Bay for those seeking homeless shelters to have to go hours away if they are full. What is more, homeless shelters are not accessible for all homeless people, because there are intake processes that end up restricting homeless shelters to a relatively “good” portion of homeless people- those that are not under the influence or have disruptive mental disabilities. Even more, homeless shelters have time restrictions that prevent people from ever fully settling into them and feeling like they are truly their home. However, homeless shelters and in general, a welfare state as large as what exists in the United States, are essentially unheard of. Thus, for me, one way of understanding why slums do not exists in the United States is in noticing that they would not function well with our legalized society and that they may be replaced, albeit poorly, with welfare programs such as homeless shelters.