Abstract:This article explores the field of homelessness research in relation to the dynamics of contemporary inequality and governmentality, arguing that the dominant perspectives within this field have developed in ways that can converge with the demands of neoliberal governance. The article discusses the causal focus of much homelessness research, the emergence of the ‘orthodoxy’ of homelessness research and new approaches emphasising subjectivity and arguing for a ‘culture of homelessness’. We suggest that homeless… Show more
“…Social workers who give aid to homeless persons often work with highly ambiguous goals (Ravenhill ; Smith‐Carrier and Lawlor ; Stonehouse, Threlkeld and Farmer ) as they must sort out the complex troubles of the homeless persons’ situation as well as negotiate with them what a better life might entail (Dwyer, Bowpitt, Sundin and Weinstein ). This moral enterprise is about deciding the ‘moral culpability or pathology of homeless individuals’, which then becomes the centre of the explanation (Farrugia and Gerrard : 260, 270). For example, Snow and Anderson’s () classic study suggest three other kinds of talk than the sin‐talk, sick‐talk and system‐talk that Gowan () found: distancing, embracement and fictive storytelling by homeless people.…”
Section: Related Empirical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The agency of vulnerable groups such as homeless people is a much debated theme in sociological research (Parsell and Clarke ). Often researchers try to derive agency from social structure (Farrugia and Gerrard ; McNaughton ) without taking the vulnerable groups’ own situated explanation and sense of agency into account (Parsell and Clarke : 2). Approaches that illuminate the social structures of homelessness (Sommerville ) and why individuals end up without a home are important, not least for policy making.…”
This article seeks to develop our understanding of the agency of vulnerable groups who at first sight may not seem to have much agency in their lives. It explores the co‐constructed nature of agency in three Danish homeless shelters. Unlike earlier interview‐based studies, our research is based on naturalistic data drawn from 23 video‐recorded placement meetings. Using concepts from Goffman, we examine how versions of the neediness and worthiness of homeless people are negotiated verbally and bodily between staff and clients. We find that homeless people have to juggle two partly contradictory roles when they are given or take the roles of either a (active) citizen or a (passive) client. Clientship is actively negotiated by both parties and demonstrates the agency of homeless people: they can collaborate with (as clients) or challenge (as citizens) the staff’s attempts to formulate solutions to their troubles. We further examine how the professional ideology of client centredness affects the meeting between the two parties. However, we show that, like any discourse, client centredness has no intrinsic meaning and is played out by actors in very different ways. In work with the homeless, the discourse of client centredness is related to discourses of ‘neediness’, ‘worthiness’ and ‘value for money’ that define agency in different ways and make three different client positions available: the resolute client, the acquiescent client and the passive client.
“…Social workers who give aid to homeless persons often work with highly ambiguous goals (Ravenhill ; Smith‐Carrier and Lawlor ; Stonehouse, Threlkeld and Farmer ) as they must sort out the complex troubles of the homeless persons’ situation as well as negotiate with them what a better life might entail (Dwyer, Bowpitt, Sundin and Weinstein ). This moral enterprise is about deciding the ‘moral culpability or pathology of homeless individuals’, which then becomes the centre of the explanation (Farrugia and Gerrard : 260, 270). For example, Snow and Anderson’s () classic study suggest three other kinds of talk than the sin‐talk, sick‐talk and system‐talk that Gowan () found: distancing, embracement and fictive storytelling by homeless people.…”
Section: Related Empirical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The agency of vulnerable groups such as homeless people is a much debated theme in sociological research (Parsell and Clarke ). Often researchers try to derive agency from social structure (Farrugia and Gerrard ; McNaughton ) without taking the vulnerable groups’ own situated explanation and sense of agency into account (Parsell and Clarke : 2). Approaches that illuminate the social structures of homelessness (Sommerville ) and why individuals end up without a home are important, not least for policy making.…”
This article seeks to develop our understanding of the agency of vulnerable groups who at first sight may not seem to have much agency in their lives. It explores the co‐constructed nature of agency in three Danish homeless shelters. Unlike earlier interview‐based studies, our research is based on naturalistic data drawn from 23 video‐recorded placement meetings. Using concepts from Goffman, we examine how versions of the neediness and worthiness of homeless people are negotiated verbally and bodily between staff and clients. We find that homeless people have to juggle two partly contradictory roles when they are given or take the roles of either a (active) citizen or a (passive) client. Clientship is actively negotiated by both parties and demonstrates the agency of homeless people: they can collaborate with (as clients) or challenge (as citizens) the staff’s attempts to formulate solutions to their troubles. We further examine how the professional ideology of client centredness affects the meeting between the two parties. However, we show that, like any discourse, client centredness has no intrinsic meaning and is played out by actors in very different ways. In work with the homeless, the discourse of client centredness is related to discourses of ‘neediness’, ‘worthiness’ and ‘value for money’ that define agency in different ways and make three different client positions available: the resolute client, the acquiescent client and the passive client.
“…This latter point reflects previous research showing that some disadvantaged clients endorse interventions that augment their capacity for self‐governance, particularly when they are accompanied with support (Flint, ; Parsell & Clarke, ). As we discuss in the conclusion, this complicates claims that initiatives foregrounding client vulnerability are a neoliberal ruse that perpetuate broader inequalities (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
Section: The Supportive Turn As “After Neoliberal” Governancementioning
confidence: 89%
“…The idea that the seemingly progressive developments in housing support are in fact part of a permeable and ongoing neoliberal project is shared by other critical scholars. Using homelessness research as their example, Farrugia and Gerrard () argue that the focus on the discrete needs and vulnerabilities of people experiencing poverty is actually a function of neoliberalism, as it separates the consequences of systemic inequalities from their structural causes and instead constitutes them as products of “problem subjects” who require discrete, tailored interventions. A similar point is made by Jacobs (, p. 63), who criticizes what he calls “Managerial ‘solutions’ in the provision of housing”:Attention is focused on individual shortcomings and the recommendations that are often proffered are to provide forms of bespoke assistance for those in distress.…”
Section: After Neoliberalism As a Theoretical Lensmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst this shift in bureaucratic engagements has demonstrably benefited these clients, questions exist over whether or not it constitutes a true departure from neoliberalism. Indeed, some argue that it actually bolsters the broader operations of neoliberal governmentality by ameliorating its worst effects and by focusing on client vulnerabilities in isolation from the structural processes that produce them (Farrugia & Gerrard, ; Jacobs, ).…”
It is well established that encounters between welfare bureaucracies and their clients have been reconfigured under neoliberalism to address the problem of “welfare dependency.” Contemporary bureaucratic encounters therefore entail measures to activate clients’ entrepreneurial/self‐governing capacities, and conditionality/sanctioning practices to deal with clients who behave “irresponsibly.” Despite the dominance of the neoliberal model, recent research has identified a counter‐trend in the practices of housing services away from entrepreneurializing and punitive strategies and towards a more supportive approach. This paper examines this counter‐trend and its implications for neoliberal welfare governance. To do this, it presents findings from research into social housing governance in Queensland, Australia, where the neoliberal focus on welfare independence, conditionality and sanctioning has been tempered by a new supportive approach focused on assisting vulnerable clients to maintain and benefit from access to welfare/housing support. Following Larner, we argue that this shift signals the emergence of an “after neoliberal” governmental formation, wherein key features of neoliberal governmentality are replaced by, or redeployed in the service of, progressive initiatives that address neoliberalism’s failings at the street level, but leave broader neoliberal policy settings undisturbed. We also challenge recent sociological accounts that construe supportive welfare practices as a function of an all‐encompassing neoliberal project, arguing instead for appreciation of the contingency of these developments and the progressive political affordances that they entail.
This article explores the performance of agency within the context of unequal power resources and structural constraint. Based on 23 video‐recorded placement meetings in three homeless shelters, we find that participants' agency is the outcome of both collaboration and resistance. To avoid interaction that fails to empower, social actors engage in “repair work” and face‐saving practices. When clients display “wrong face”—that is, bring problems to the table that are not considered “reasonable”—then the service providers engage in “repair work.” Participants turn conflict into collaborative agency because interactions that fail to deliver mutually empowering forms of agency have costs for both: clients' problems are not solved, and service providers fail to reach organizational goals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
