Moral Fibre is a lifestyle blogging network. Register to start Contributing

Mental Meanderings Around Urban Poverty and Social Disconnectedness

Posted on 31. Jul, 2008 by Thorin in Culture

This think-piece has been gathering dust on my office desk for too many months. My apologies for any academic-speak that may be lingering in its paragraphs, but I can’t think of a better informal forum in which to air it. When considering poverty within urban locations can we begin to conceptualise poverty not merely as some passive condition of relative or absolute deprivation of material resources but as the result of sublime but very active forces of mutually reinforcing exclusion and mortification which bar those who are ‘poor’ from those subtle social mechanisms which many of those who are not poor seem to take for granted?

Are we able to see urban poverty as a self reinforcing condition which bars social intercourse with the outside world through relational distance and social disconnectedness?

When considering the urban poor as separated from the outside world, we need to appreciate the city as a space which is made up of diverse webs of social, cultural and economic relations (Allen et al; 1999:14). Although the city presents a high concentration of diverse relational webs, superimposed and juxtaposed in a given physical space it is a given that not all of these relational webs are connected, and so, although the city presents a physical proximity for the various actors it can equally present “distance” and complete disconnection between the relational webs of the actors (Allen et al; 1999:15). “Distance” is a significant choice of word as it represents this disconnection as “distance” as an obstacle to be overcome – not merely a disaffiliation or dissociation (Bahr; 1973 in Lafuente and Lane; 1995 and La Gory et al; 1991).

Snow and Anderson (1993:7) clarify three dimensions of homelessness; residential, familial support, and a “role-based dignity and moral-worth dimension”. Urban poverty is mainly concerned with the last two dimensions; but this piece will augment the ‘familial support’ dimension to rather read ‘social networks’.

Social networks have value. It this assumption upon which the concept of social capital rests (Putman; 2000:19). So just as economic, physical or human capital can increase productivity so too can social capital. Social networks give rise to norms of reciprocity and trust (Putnam; 2000:19); and it is this trust and reciprocity which stimulates the flow of capital between individuals in the network. Obviously some communities will be less affluent than others, and a well connected individual (with many social networks) in a ‘poorer’ community is not going to benefit in the same spirit from these bonds of trust and reciprocity than a well connected individual in a ‘richer’ community (Putman; 2000:20). This exclusive “in-group” social capital in the “rich” and “poor” scenarios above is termed bonding social capital. Putnam (2000:22) identifies this form of social capital as playing an important role in reinforcing “exclusive identities and homogenous groups”.

This is one of two key dimensions of social capital, the other is bridging social capital. Bridging social capital is characterized as being outward looking and can link individuals across “diverse social cleavages’ (Putnam; 2000:22)

Where bonding social capital helps somebody ‘get by’; bridging social capital is critical for helping them ‘get ahead’ (de Souza Briggs in Putnam; 2000:23). This distinction will be of interest throughout this study.

Putnam(2000:22) draws on economic sociologist, Mark Granovetter’s observation that “weak ties that link [an individual] to distant acquaintances who move in different circles from [theirs] are actually more valuable than strong ties that link [that individual] to relatives and friends whose sociological niche is very like [their] own.” So even though many homeless people may dwell among friends and have many social contacts the social milieu in which they live affords very little opportunity to forge bridging links to resource-rich networks (La Gory et al; 1191:213).

Social networks are not necessarily spatially bound nor spatially determined. In this regard the city can be seen to be composed of different relational geographies superimposed over the physical space (Allen et al, 15). In other words, although physical proximity is a characteristic of the urban area, individuals may be separated by relational distance (Allen et al, 15); i.e. their social networks may be distinctly exclusive of each others. This may be either a natural or enforced exclusion which prohibits access to the networks to “outsiders”.

What are the implications of this social segregation for the persistence of poverty amongst homeless street people, and what are the mechanisms of this social segregation?

When considering the above question there is a useful, if obscure, concept coined in 1860’s; Illth (Walter; 239). Defined as such;

“The presence of Illth – not just the absence of wealth – generates the experience of poverty. The concept of illth is clarified, showing relationships to sociocultural processes that tend to exclude and dissociate the poor from the rest of society.” (Walter; 239).

So, scarcity and/or the absence of resources are not the sole determinants for the “misery of the poor” (Walter:239); the ‘misery’ stems from the presence of illth. The presence of illth, which excludes them from society, makes the poor “vulnerable to bad experiences and they are targets for destructive actions, ill treatment, bad services and malevolent neglect” (Walter; 239).

The vulnerability which stems from Illth can be seen to be linked to Goffman’s ideas of ‘mortification’ as well as shifts in what Goffman would call the individual’s ‘moral career’ (Goffman; 1991:24). ‘Moral career being’ composed of the evolving changes that befall the individuals beliefs regarding himself and others; the changes brought about by change in ones objective and subjective social position over time. Mortification refers to the “series of abasements, degradations, humiliations, and profanations of self (Goffman; 1991:25) suffered by the individual. These include; role dispossession (Goffman; 1991:24); personal defacement (Goffman; 1991:29), the adoption of poses, stances and movements which are deemed as demeaning by the particular society (Goffman; 1991:29), and disculturation (Goffman; 1991:23). All of these can act as mechanism which create and maintain the symbolic barriers which separate an individual from the wider society and certain social networks.

At a glance the processes of mortification, which Goffman (1991) describes in Asylum as accompanying an individual’s admission into a total institution, would appear to be readily congruent with the conditions of the urban homeless and ethnographic observation will easily support or disprove this connection. This assumption is made though in the following discussion of mortification.

Upon entrance to [the ranks of literal homeless] the social arrangement of his ‘home world’ which established and protected his conception of self are removed. This conception of self includes one’s presentation of self, as well as their defensive and coping mechanisms (Goffman; 1991:23-24).

He begins a series of abasements, degradations, humiliations, and profanations of self. His self is systematically, if often unintentionally, mortified.

(Goffman; 1991:24)

The process of mortification is accompanied by shifts in the individuals “moral career”, which Goffman (1991:24) sees as being composed of the evolving changes that befall the individuals beliefs regarding himself and others. The changes brought about by change in ones objective and subjective social position over time. (See Bourdieu’s Habitus)

The first limitation of the self is the barrier created between the individual and the outside world (Goffman; 1991:24). Where, in the outside world, life is organized such that different roles do not affect each other, homelessness disrupts any notion of role scheduling. Because homelessness may last for many years, this disruption of role scheduling can lead to role dispossession (Goffman; 1991:24). Role dispossession may in some cases be a permanent outcome despite the homeless individual’s escape from poverty. Where one can renew a membership at their local bowling club, it may not be possible to make up missed periods of the individuals life-cycle such as marriage, raising children, studying etc (Goffman; 1991:25).

Society has conferred roles upon the poor (Walter; 1973:240; Snow and Anderson; 1993:9), and if “the uniform denotes the roles of functionaries” in the city (Wirth; 1938:14), then it is mortification, through poverty, that provides the uniform.

The second form of mortification associated with homelessness is the curtailment of self presentation. The first element of this is quite simply the abandonment of the preferred appearance as well as the means by which this appearance is maintained (Goffman; 1991:29), causing the homeless individual to suffer a “personal defacement”. The second element of this curtailment of self presentation takes form in the adoption of poses, stances and movements which are deemed as demeaning by the particular society (Goffman; 1991:29).(In Lafuente and Lane’s (1995:215) study of homeless men their participants listed experiencing rejection from the community because of their physical appearance.)

Regardless what form these indignities take the just of the mortification is that the individual finds himself engaged in activities with symbolic implications which are incongruent (in some cases opposition) with his conception of self (Goffman; 1991:31).

Another form of mortification identified by Goffman (1991:31-32) is initiated at the moment of admission to the ranks of ‘homeless street people’. At this moment a “kind of contaminative exposure occurs” whereby objects of self; whether his body, actions, attitudes or physical possessions; can no longer be held clear from contaminating or alien things. The boundaries which protect the territories of the self (Goffman; 1991:32) are invaded by the new environment and experience of homelessness and the “embodiments of self profaned”.

A final issue of relevance to our study when considering the processes of mortification is the fact that poverty and homelessness strip, to lesser and greater degrees, the individuals autonomy, self-determination and freedom of action (Goffman; 1991:47). This cultural change in the homeless individual may come about through homeless street life substituting its own unique culture (based in adaptive survival strategies) for that which was possessed by the individual before entering that situation; as well as a result of the restriction and removal of certain behavior opportunities, coupled with a failure to keep pace with social changes in the outside world (Goffman; 1991:23). This ‘disculturation’ could lead to the inmate being unable to perform (until reculturation as taken place) certain features of life in the outside world if he is ever released to it (Goffman; 1991:23). In the case of our homeless street person this ‘disculturation’ could form part of the symbolic barriers which separates him from the outside world.

Social networks have value. Putman (2000:20) concedes that, “one pervasive stratagem of ambitious job seekers is ‘networking’, for most of us get our jobs because of whom we know, not what we know”. Adegoke Taylor an informal trader in Lagos with a degree in mining tells George Packer in his article The Mega City, “If you’re not connected, it’s not easy… the moment you don’t have a recognized person saying ‘this is my boy’ it becomes hard” (Packer, The New Yorkers, Nov 13 2006, 67). In this author’s previous research a homeless respondent revealed that when it comes to jobs or opportunities “it doesn’t really matter what experience you have, it’s who you know. Breaks and opportunities are mostly created by people who are able to open a door for you or give you a chance” (Roberts; 2005:20).

But bridging across to these beneficial social networks is hampered by symbolic, physical and social barriers. Some of these barriers are born out of the adaptive mechanisms of the poor themselves (or the ‘culture of poverty’ as coined and used by Oscar Lewis). But these mechanisms are not merely passive adjustments to their lack of material resources, but also an active defense against the mortification and negative experiences brought on by the presence of illth (Walter; 240). Most individuals who find themselves in poverty in the 21^st century are there involuntarily, but nevertheless they are socialized as how to, “act, look, think and experience life as a poor person” (Walter, 241).

Poor people must meet their poverty face to face twenty four hours a day every day, all the year around. The way they dress, the way they walk, the way they prepare their food, the way they fill their children with hope or hopelessness – all reflect the iron laws of poverty.

(Oyen et al, 1996:16)

For every era of western civilization since before the advent of the mendicant friars there as been a cultural system which directs the poor as to how to behave, expect and exist (Walter, 241). “They fill the roles and act he parts, and even get caught up in the play, but they did not write the script” (Walter; 24). This cultural system is often created by the rest of society, and acts to instruct the poor as to what they are worth, how they should act and what they can expect from their lives (Walter; 240). This ‘culture for poverty’ as Walter(241) suggests it should be named can also be seen as an obstacle to the poor in their attempts to access beneficial social networks. The roles conferred upon the poor are often stigmatized, and a central component to this stigma is the assumed failure or defect of character which arises from the wider society’s belief that the poor are largely responsible for their own situation as well as a potential threat to the stability and safety of the rest of society (Snowden and Anderson; 1993:9). These roles conferred upon the poor make up part of the illth they experience. To reiterate then on Walter, “dignity and moral worth then are not primarily individual characteristics but instead flow from the roles we play” (Snowden and Anderson; 1993:9).

Moral worth and the roles we play will therefore play large determining factors in an individuals ability and eligibility to access different social networks.

References and Further Reading

Books

Allen, J., Massey, D. and Pryke, M. (eds) (1999) Unsettling Cities. London, Routledge.

Bouillon, A. (?) The Place of the Poor in the Central City

Reference Needed

Goffman, E. (1991) Asylum. London, Penguin Books.

Harker, R., Mahar, C. and Wilkes, C. (eds) (1990) An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu – The Practice of Theory. London, The Macmillan Press Ltd.

Lewis, O. (1959) Five Families – Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. New York, Basic Books Inc.

Luther, M. (ed) (1528) The Book of Vagabonds and Beggars. Translated with introduction by John Camden Hotten (1860), London.

(Made available by the University of California)

url: http://ia351420.us.archive.org/1/items/bookofvagabondsb00luthiala/bookofvagabondsb00luthiala.pdf)

Oyen, E. 1996. Poverty Research Rethought. In: Else Oyen, Miller S. and Abdus Samad, A. (eds). Poverty: A Global Review. Handbook on International Poverty Research. Oslo, Scandanavian University Press.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Snow, D. and Anderson, A. (1993) Down on Their Luck. California, University of California Press.

Articles

De Castro, A. 2003) Introduction to Giorgi’s Existential Phenomenological Research Method. Psicologa desde el Caribe, (11), 45-56. (Url?)

Everatt, D. (2005) The politics of povert. Bangladeshi e-Journal of Sociology, 2(1).

Halper, T. (1973) The Poor as Pawns: The New “Deserving Poor” & the Old. Polity, 6(1), 71-86.*

Lafuente, C. and Lane, P. (1995) The Lived Experience of Homeless Men. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 1(4), 211-219. *

La Gory, M., Ritchey, F. and Fitzpatrick, K. (1991) Homelessness and Affiliation. The Sociology Quarterly, 32(2), 201-218.*

Packer, G. (2006) A Reporter at Large – The Mega City. The New Yorker, November 13 2006, 62 – 75.

Rankin, B., Quane, J. (2000) Neighborhood Poverty and the Social Isolation of Inner-City African American Families. Social Forces, 79(1), 139-164.*

Schen, C. (2000) Constructing the Poor in Early Seventeenth-Century London. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 32(3), 450-463.*

Shaly, A. and Rossi, P. (1992) Social Science Research and Contemporary Studies of Homelessness. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 129-160.*

Sudman, S., Sirken, M., Cowan, C. (1988) Sampling Rare and Elusive Populations. Science (New Series), 240(4855), 991-996.*

Thrift, N. (2005) But malice aforethought: cities and the natural history of hatred. (REFERENCE NEEDED)

Walter, E. (1973) Pauperism and Illth: An Archaeology of Social Policy. Sociological Analysis, 34(4), 239-254.*

Wirth, L. (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24.*

Related posts:

1. Mental Meanderings Around Urban Poverty and Social Disconnectedness
2. Marxism & My Corporate Heresy.

Tags: Alabama, Basic Books Inc, beneficial social networks, bowling, California, certain social networks, dissociation, Food, George Packer, Greater London, homelessness, informal trader, Inner-City, John Camden Hotten, Lagos, London, Macmillan Press Ltd, Mark Granovetter, mining, New York, Oscar Lewis, Oslo, Pierre Bourdieu, poverty, Scandanavian University Press, Schuster, Simon, social networks, Souza Briggs, The American Journal of Sociology, The Mega City, Thorin Roberts, United Kingdom, United States, University of California, University of California Press, urban poverty, West Virginia