Social relations and experiences of social isolation among socially marginalized people

Abstract

We aimed to obtain a greater understanding of the characteristics of social relations and experiences of social isolation among homeless people, substance users and other socially marginalized users of shelters and drop-in centres in Denmark. Based on in-depth interviews with 46 shelter/centre users, we created a typology of five groups: the socially related and content, the satisfied loners, the socially related but lonely, the socially isolated and the in-betweens. The characteristics of the groups did not seem related to interviewees' degree of social marginalization. Professionals played a pivotal role, providing social support and help to improve interviewees' life circumstances. The findings provide insight into the social lives of shelter/centre users that is useful for developing initiatives to improve their social wellbeing.

Social isolation from extended family members and friends among African Americans: Findings from a national survey

“…What is generally agreed upon, however, is that social isolation is multi-dimensional and is conceptualized as having two domains: objective and subjective (Cornwell & Waite, 2009a, 2009b; Elder & Retrum, 2012; Nicholson, 2009; Pedersen, Andersen & Curtis, 2012). Objective social isolation is defined as the tangible measures of isolation and physical separation from others (Cornwell & Waite, 2009a, 2009b; Elder & Retrum, 2012).…”

Marginalization and Associated Concepts and Processes in Relation to Mental Health/Illness

“…There will be differences in knowledge, style, and resilience within any marginalized group or individuals and workers' skills and strategies that are effective in some milieu may not transfer smoothly to other locations (Hall, Stevens, & Meleis, 1994). Relationships and networks are important to overcome lengthy and diverse experiences of disconnection, social isolation, apathy (learned helplessness), or cynicism (Pedersen, Andersen, & Curtis, 2012).…”

Belonging and Inclusivity Make a Resilient Future for All: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Post-Flood Social Capital in a Diverse Australian Rural Community

“…Because of these issues, people in financial hardship generally avoid social situations perceived as challenging, tending instead to socialise with others experiencing the same marginalisation. As a result, they generally have commensurately smaller and less reciprocal networks [ 60 , 61 ]. Places of belonging for the financially marginalised tend to be community support agencies or drop-in centres due to the economic and social support they provide.…”

“…While relationships generated with service providers (e.g., providing food, housing, employment support, etc.) are beneficial, they are not spontaneous relationships but are ‘deliberately constructed’ and do not necessarily meet the social needs of marginalised people [ 61 ]. Similar to Aboriginal people, bonding social capital is an important buffer against poor mental health while lack of bridging social capital can be detrimental.…”