Youth homelessness: A social justice approach

Abstract

Social justice approaches that work towards eliminating youth homelessness with a sole focus on material needs overlook the significance of non-material aspects, such as the impact of social exclusion and stigma on individuals' subjectivities. The lack of social legitimacy associated with homelessness is exacerbated under neoliberal conditions, with the shift from social to individual responsibility positioning those unable to achieve the normative transition to adulthood as social failures. We draw on interviews with young homeless women in Australia to extend the emerging sociological focus on the relational aspects of homelessness through a social justice lens. We analyse the association between subjectivity, stigma and neoliberalism, and draw on Iris Marion Young's theory of justice to highlight how these shape experiences of homelessness. We conclude that overcoming homelessness requires policies and practices that give a greater focus to non-material aspects of homelessness through an emphasis on empowerment, self-respect and autonomy.

Coping amidst an assemblage of disadvantage: A qualitative metasynthesis of first‐person accounts of managing severe mental illness while homeless

“…The unpredictability, chronicity, and graveness that commonly characterize the experience of homelessness are likely to pose profound challenges to the effective coping with, and recovery from, SMI (Padgett et al, 2012;Yanos, 2007;Klitzing, 2003;Gottlieb, 1997). Several lines of research have demonstrated the profoundly negative effects of extreme poverty and homelessness on vital enablers of positive coping, including mental health recovery (Kirkpatrick & Byrne, 2009), a positive self-concept (Padgett, 2007), social connectedness (Padgett et al, 2008), hope (Kirst et al, 2014), self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Watson & Cuervo, 2017).…”

Redefining the Boundaries of Hidden Homelessness: An Examination of the Experiences of Women in Toronto and Barrie

“…Historically, there are two schools of thought that seek to explain the issue of housing and homelessness, namely, the risk discourse and the structural discourse. Whereas the risk discourse focuses on individual actions in the creation and maintenance of homelessness, the structural discourse focuses on how broader structures of dominance influence incidences of homelessness among various groups of people (Gerrard 2015;Kuskoff, 2018;Kelly, 2001;Mullaly, 2007;Watson and Cuervo 2017). Over the years, different approaches to ending homelessness have been suggested in various disciplines of public policy, sociology, social work, medicine, women's studies and urban planning.…”

“…Over the years, different approaches to ending homelessness have been suggested in various disciplines of public policy, sociology, social work, medicine, women's studies and urban planning. Most notably is the neoliberal govermentality approach (Kelly 2001) and the critical discourse analysis 7 approach (Fairclough,Mulderrig & Wodak, 2011), which encompasses the structural approach (Mullay, 2007) and the social justice approach (Watson & Cuervo 2017).…”

“…In attempting to understand homelessness, some researchers have used metaphors to describe various facets of homelessness, notably "sliding" into homelessness, "pathways", "revolving doors", "exit points" and homeless "careers" (Fopp, 2009, p. 272). Others have explored the importance of theory in the conceptualization of homelessness among various groups of people, and have argued that our understanding of social problems shape the way we respond to those problems, and the policy solutions thereof (Horsell 2006;Kuskoff, 2018;Watson & Cuervo 2017). Using theories of homelessness can help us to better understand how complex societal issues affect the lives of women experiencing homelessness.…”

Social Exclusion and Marginalisation of Homeless People: A Clarion Social Work Call for the Spirit of Ubuntu to Reign

“…Homelessness is a complex phenomenon (Singh, Koiri & Shukla, 2018;Watson & Cuervo, 2017) with no singular definition, largely because of the diversity of contexts that homeless people face (Eissmann & Takeuchi, 2020). However, both academics and policymakers concur on three broad categories of homelessness, namely primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness.…”