Braving the Street: The Anthropology of Homelessness

The four substantive chapters deal, in order, with the demography and sociology of homeless populations, with models for explaining the diverse causes of homelessness, with the social and cultural organization of survival by the homeless themselves, and with a review of processes and programs which...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anthropologica 2001, Vol.43 (2), p.292-294
Main Author: Christian, Douglass Drozdow-St
Format: Review
Language:English
Subjects:
Book Reviews / Comptes rendus
Complexity
Cultural differences
Definitions
Demography
Homeless people
Multiculturalism & pluralism
Needs
Neoliberalism
Policy implementation
Policy making
Politics
Rentals
Risk
Smith, Gavin
Social conditions & trends
Sociology
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The four substantive chapters deal, in order, with the demography and sociology of homeless populations, with models for explaining the diverse causes of homelessness, with the social and cultural organization of survival by the homeless themselves, and with a review of processes and programs which have been developed to enable and empower solutions to homelessness. In each, Glasser and Bridgman work from a fundamental assumption that approaching homelessness and making meaningful contributions to policy and program development requires a recognition that homelessness is a diverse and complex social problem which needs to be understood in all its diversity and complexity first. By focussing on a four part matrix of issues related to homelessness, the authors provide a carefully detailed and thorough "historical cartography" of homelessness which contextualizes and critiques the way homelessness has been understood and responded to. The first issue, and perhaps the most compelling, is how to define homelessness. Mainstream media, and neo-liberal politicians, have adopted a definition which ensures the lowest possible number be used to count the homeless. Glasser and Bridgman challenge the utility and explore the politics of this narrow definition by showing that homelessness needs to be understood as a condition of risk and not only the lack of shelter. By examining different definitions of homelessness world wide, they show that a more thoroughgoing and effective definition of homelessness needs to recognize that being at risk of lack of shelter, whether a family actually living on the street, or a group of street youths sharing living space in decayed rental housing, is a more effective definition. By arguing for a broadening of the definition of homelessness, they provide the critically historical context for understanding homelessness as a process which is ongoing and contingent, a key to more effective policy deliberations and implementation since it also broadens the points in the processes of shelter risk at which interventions can take place. By extending our understanding of homelessness to include an appreciation of the broader question of shelter adequacy, Glasser and Bridgman show the homeless problem to be larger and more complex than mainstream political models have been able to address.
ISSN:0003-5459
2292-3586
DOI:10.2307/25606052