NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard) is a pervasive form of discrimination against people experiencing homelessness, where housed community members typically target proposed or existing agencies, programs, or buildings that serve people experiencing homelessness. The purpose behind NIMBYism is to exclude unhoused people from public spaces. Housed community members who mobilize against homeless services in their neighbourhood often claim that these services attract disorder and criminality, a narrative that is fueled by the stereotype that people experiencing homelessness are inherently ill, irrational, or deviant.
Throughout my career, I have been deeply concerned with understanding the social basis of discrimination against unhoused people. We have abundant literature on the ideological roots of other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism, but our current understanding of where the vitriol towards people experiencing homelessness comes from left me unsatisfied. A common thread in homelessness research is the role of belonging since the experience of homelessness is marked with social marginalization. Research on bylaw enforcement and identity construction highlights the ongoing struggle unhoused individuals face in belonging to a community that consistently punishes them for their circumstances. A struggle for belonging is a struggle for membership to a community. As membership is one of the core concepts that define citizenship, perhaps further delving into theories of citizenship could reveal the ideological basis for anti-homeless discrimination.
In our article, “Citizenship and NIMBYism: Identities at the Juncture of Homelessness, Place, and Ideology,” we explore how people experiencing homelessness in three midsized cities in Ontario construct particular identities to help them manage public scrutiny and prejudice. We frame our analysis with theories concerning citizenship, dignity, identity, and stigma.
Thinking through the idea of “citizenship”
Canada can be broadly defined as a liberal welfare state, meaning that capitalism (or colonial capitalism in the Canadian experience) remains our primary mode of social organization. As observed by Polanyi, our lifeways are structured to be in service to capitalism. Our rights to citizenship are then contingent upon our participation in the economy as either workers or owners. Citizens are expected to perform their responsibilities throughout their entire lives, although expectations change at different life stages, such as for children or older adults.
Citizenship does not only provide rights; it also imparts responsibilities. Citizens are expected to obey the law and contribute to the economy, among others. It is rational to pursue the dignity of citizenship, as it provides security and comfort. To not “want” to live in dignity would indicate irrationality and potentially deviance. People experiencing homelessness are often viewed as a threat to the social order, in large part due to their non-conformity to the responsibilities attached to citizenship. We refer to and challenge this notion as a pathologized citizenship.
In our 29 interviews with people experiencing homelessness across three midsized cities in Ontario, a common theme emerged: participants described that they had to put on a ‘performance’ in public spaces to manage stigma. The kind of city they were living in impacted what kind of performance they had to put on. Transformative cities are made up of people trying to renew their city and static cities are places trying to retain the character of their city. Participants discuss three types of public performances they enact to avoid being stigmatized or discriminated against:
- People keep themselves and their property completely out of public view in the hopes of making themselves invisible.
- People display acts of civility or speak of their acts of civility, such as picking up litter or being a friendly community member.
- People minimize their public presence by not drawing attention to themselves.
These performances are survival strategies to preserve one’s dignity while navigating public spaces that are designed to exclude them. We found that transformative cities compel people experiencing homelessness to make themselves invisible, while the second two performances are more likely to occur in static cities. The findings suggest that unhoused people try to position themselves with modern notions of citizenship, but have to do so in public spaces that were not designed for them and where laws, policies, and practices actively work to punish them.
As unhoused people spend their days simply trying to survive, they also have to navigate the deep complexities of making their way through public spaces and around housed community members who often do not appreciate the challenges they are facing, and who actively work against them. One of our goals for writing this paper was to call for greater protection of unhoused people’s dignity as they navigate services that assist them in transitioning into permanent housing.
People experiencing homelessness should not be expected to live up to these ideals of citizenship while facing extreme hardship. Instead, they should inherently have the same rights of citizenship as housed community members because they are human beings. Our findings highlight the need for a rights-based advocacy movement that affirms the dignity and citizenship of unhoused individuals, regardless of their housing status.
Read the full article here: https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/ijoh/article/view/17235