Homeless Image

Two Kinds of Pieces about Homeless People Editors Seem to Prefer Printing

 

by: Thomas Hansen, Ph.D.

 

 

Often people ask what kinds of things I write, and I share with them some examples—advocacy for the homeless, grant-writing resources, interdisciplinary curriculum units, short stories, and professional development materials for classroom teachers.  They ask sometimes about the kinds of essays and articles I write about the homeless, and I tell them I write hopeful, realistic, and truthful pieces about “the real homeless world” and its residents, and about how there are more and more resources out there for the burgeoning homeless population.

People often tell me they don’t see many pieces like that printed.  I agree, saying the majority of editors wish to print only two categories of writing about the homeless: the fantastic and the miraculous. 

Fantastic articles about the homeless show people who look like they belong in a circus.  They fry squirrels on private ComEd land, they have seven wives, and they do not bathe because it is against their religion.  They have never worked, and refuse to, they claim.  Editors love this kind of article because it is exciting and lots of people talk about it.  Homeless people are crazy and drunk and criminals and creepy—and here is an article in our alternative newspaper that even includes wild pictures of people making hats out of dead bats and singing about how hard it is to be Christ without a good strong tent to preach in.  Of course, the photos used in the article do not have to have anything at all to do with the piece.  The photos just have to be scary or gross and show lots of weird homeless people and campsites on somebody else’s property.

The other article is the miraculous sort.  Homeless publications claim to seek these everywhere—wanting always to tell of how joining a certain church…or going to a certain agency—helped the homeless person “clean up their act” and get rid of any number of issues they had never thought to get rid of before (e.g., stop drinking, stop stealing, stop smoking crack).  Then we see the homeless person is “back to the normal world again” and engaged in things all good citizens must do: work full-time, save money, open a savings account, sleep indoors, clean their room, be nice to others, buy a new car, write a will, and volunteer at the very church or agency where they got that help.         

            Any essay or article that reveals homeless people as just ‘normal’ folks like anybody else is never printed.  Any piece that shows any kind of benefit whatsoever of remaining homeless for any reason never gets printed.  Any piece that shows any positive normal days in the homeless people’s life does not see the light of day.  So if you want to show some well-adjusted people who have been evicted, are now homeless and making good use of resources, and saving money to go back to their hometown to start life over, you are out of luck.  There can be no good days if a person is homeless.  They must be depressed, suicidal, desperate. 

In that sort of view, homeless people can never help anyone else or be at peace or even be happy about what they had for lunch.  That is too normal and positive, and people will line up around the corner to tell you that being homeless is terrible and hopeless and depressing and evil.  Pieces simply must fit categories number one or two above.

            Why there is this insistence on never printing pieces about functioning, decent, goal-oriented, and somewhat happy homeless people is unclear.  Perhaps the editors of the publications understand so little about homeless people that they assume there are many kinds of illnesses and crimes running through the people’s past.  Perhaps the editors themselves harbor resentment towards the homeless they claim to want to help.

Although every once in awhile we see some pieces about where to find resources (these are usually just lists and not serious writing) the majority of the coverage is one or the other sort.  There are sometimes also brief articles talking about homeless people participating in demonstrations, serving on committees to elected leaders who will help them, and becoming politicized in a positive way to help the oppressed.  But a closer look at these aberrant pieces will reveal most of the words are devoted to the fantastic or the miraculous.

            It is unclear why only categories numbers one and two appear in publications.  Perhaps it is because the more crazy and desperate homeless people appear, the more chance there is people will give money to their cause.  

So to hell with the truth.  It doesn’t matter if the general public goes on, holding onto a very weird and very limited image of who the homeless are.  It is okay if people think there is only one kind of homeless person.  It is okay if the stigma of being homeless remains—as long as the money comes in or the acclaim is shouted loudly. 

Educating the public about the huge variety of homeless people is not important to most editors.  To do so would not fit categories one or two above.