Perspective

In my last posting, I stated that I wanted to discuss the issue of perspective. Obviously, it is an important concept to keep in mind when talking about homelessness. Our society is ostensibly constantly seeking accountability. When a problem arises, blame is quickly laid and to no great surprise, it is often contradictory and counter-effective. That is, there are two sides (at least) to every story. Homelessness is no exception. Generally, from what I have read and heard, there is an agreement that homelessness in the form that I am discussing is indeed problematic. One could argue, if one where to approach it from that perspective, that there is nothing wrong with being homeless. But one could also argue, as most do, that the consequences of homeless are detrimental enough to both the individual and society to warrant a general agreement that homelessness is bad, or wrong, or problematic or whatever. Again, however, this is a matter of perspective.

One of the main features of academic discussion of homelessness comes from an exploration of this idea of perspective. From this, two main theories emerge; theories that unsurprisingly centralize around accountability and blame, First, there is the individual model, which theorizes that personal failings – some problem with the individual – cause homelessness. In this model, difficulties caused by physical disability, mental illness and substance abuse, to name a few, lead to homelessness. Other factors include family break-up, delinquency, criminal behaviour, domestic violence, the inability to work, or poor job skills. The second model does not separate the individual from society, and explains homelessness as “an inevitable outcome of the main structural features of modern capitalism, such as unemployment, high rents, wage inequality, uneven development, and a housing system set up to benefit homeowners at the expense of tenants” (From Canadian Cities in Transition, 3rd ed. pg. 421). However, both models lack the ability to adequately describe the causes of homelessness, and “recently, a number of authors have sought to provide more holistic perspectives on homelessness and housing that link the individual agency and structural models” (Ibid.). These holistic perspectives combine these models, or arguably better yet, do away with them all together and focus on specific, practical problems. In other words, due to the complex nature of the condition, a multi-faceted model can be used, whereby the shortcomings of one model are often explained by the strengths of another.

I have a problem with theory. In university, I studied politics, which is a decent enough venue for learning some things political, but in reality, I learned very little about politics, and instead learned what a select few writers and academics think about politics. For obvious reasons (perspective, for example!) there is a distinction between these two. One of my most frustrating classes, and probably the root of my problem, was an international relations political theory class, in which I learned absolutely nothing that I can apply to my life, someone else’s life, or the world. I learned about men and women who bicker amongst themselves, and then proceed to label these arguments as “Great Debates,” as if the gears that run the world suddenly halted and waited anxiously for the outcome of the battle between neo-realists and neo-liberalists. My beef with theory, to say it succinctly, is that it is too far removed from reality and too self-righteous and sure of itself.

However, part of my problem is that I also see the value of theory, especially when it has the ability to predict real world events and foresee possible solutions. Coming back to homelessness in Victoria (or any city for that matter), I am trying to get a grasp on the myriad perspectives that exist in this city. When I walk down the street, I see both structural and individual models at work. I can look at one man sitting on the sidewalk asking for change and depending on what perspective I use, what lens I look through, come up with an opinion 180 degrees different from the previous one. For example, I might think, Oh look, there are marks on his forearms from shooting heroin, it must be his fault he is sitting there. But if I change my perspective just a bit, I might think instead, Oh look, there are marks on his forearms from shooting heroin, he must not be able to access services that can help him with his problem because they have been cut by the government; it must be the government’s fault that he is sitting there.

Because we are dealing with a situation that is so human, we are inherently overwhelmed by both the simplicity and the complexity of the problem. I don’t want to say that there is no right answer, but it would be extremely challenging to formulate one, because perspectives would always differ. Indeed, even this post has left me with more questions than answers. Perhaps this isn’t a bad thing.