A brief exploration of homelessness and why it disturbs the housed.
(posted originally)
Homelessness is not a new concept to humanity. Our species began as hunters and gatherers, who wandered the land. We built temporary shelters in the wilderness from natural materials provided by the Earth. We took shelter inside naturally made caves and eventually dug into cliff sides to create our own homes.
Contemporary homelessness differs from our ancestors’ natural homelessness. However, the image and idea of contemporary homelessness links us to the ancient archetype within our psyche, which often results in repulsion and disgust.
There is not an easy answer to the growing issue of contemporary homelessness because it is a complex problem that cannot be addressed for one definitive reason.
In 1991, Eric Rubenstein (Board Chairman and President of Single Room Operators Association) gave a speech at Job Resources Inc. in Chicago. He argued that the value system of the homeless individual was the largest factor in becoming and remaining homeless. He mentioned he was in the “homeless prevention business”, a “growing industry.” Out of the twenty reasons he listed, eleven are linked to misdirected values, seven to policy and law out of the individual’s control, and the final two are due to matters relating to one’s mental or physical wellness.
Historically, it is important to understand how laws, regulations, ordinances, and prejudices have shaped modern homelessness and its impact on society. No matter how a person becomes homeless, once they are unhoused, they face many obstacles and discrimination to become housed (Couloute).
In the early 2000’s, archaeologists in Minnesota made an important discovery about the history of homelessness while excavating an 1800’s mansion. The scientists were surprised to find large caches of food, clothing, and other debris from homeless people who used the property (not the mansion) as shelter over the centuries (Zimmerman).
The discovery led the scientists to ask more questions about how archaeology could shed light on contemporary homelessness. The team began studying modern homeless camps and discovered that homeless populations frequent migratory patterns that change throughout the year.
What was common within the migratory pattern was in different areas, people had stored physical possessions within caches near towns and cities. Naturally, people travel where there are available resources (stores, public restrooms, gas stations, soup kitchens, etc.).
Within the stored items that were found, clothing, food, drinks, alcohol, books, and other reading materials were common. Drug paraphernalia was rare in these caches.
In the camps, many spaces were constructed in ways that attempted to make it more appealing (such as mattresses on the ground, being made with sheets and/or blankets) (Zimmerman).
Modern society has a growing population of homeless individuals, in which most housed individuals find it difficult to fully comprehend, due to negative aesthetics (Untea). The average person finds it difficult to look at or encounter the unhoused. Middle- and upper-class individuals are less likely to deal daily with homeless individuals because they are less likely to use public transportation or be in areas that inhabit the homeless (Untea).
Over the past 100 years, artists from many mediums have depicted homelessness to increase social aesthetics. In 2013, Canadian artist Tim Schmalz created a sculpture of a homeless Jesus out of bronze. After it began to be displayed outdoors, multiple people called the police to report it as a homeless person (Untea).
When homeless individuals are removed from areas by city ordinances, it helps the more affluent people not have to encounter the hidden population. This defamiliarizes the housed population from the homeless (Untea). The unhoused population needs more support and acknowledgement, which it does not receive.
Bias and negative attitudes towards the homeless contribute to the demand for cities and towns to ban the homeless in areas with the necessary resources they need to sustain life. Such attitudes describe homeless people as disgusting, haunting, and the image of seeing them, “cuts deep into the psyche” (Ranasinghe).
What is it about the homeless that haunts the psyche?
According to Untea, psychologist Sigmund Freud used the term, “unheimlich” to describe the reaction of being psychologically disturbed by an image or experience (Untea).
Could the negative feelings be contributed to individual or societal bias? Perhaps it comes from feelings of shame and guilt for judging people in such a desperate state? Or the feelings are linked to something deeper in our human nature, difficult to understand?
Prashan Ranasinghe makes a Heideggerian argument that may answer why the “unheimlich” reaction occurs to the housed individual and lend insight into why it is easy for the unhoused to become psychologically stagnant once they enter that state of being.
Philosopher Martin Heidegger contemplated ontological homelessness, which is a feeling of being separated from one’s true being and living an inauthentic life. Ranasinghe argued that the ontic homeless (one unhoused) is living in a more authentic life than the housed (ontological homeless).
The general societal consensus is that homeless people are not civilized and have chosen to become and remain homeless. Many believe that if the ontic homeless adopted better values (work hard, accept any work available, be responsible, etc.) the person could change their situation.
What Ranasinghe claimed is that ontic homeless has too much time and must find a way to pass it or to “kill it. The ontological homeless do not have enough time and must always try to find more. This issue with time is where “profound boredom” and “anxiety” arise (Ranasinghe). It is the unconscious origin of the ontological bias of the ontic homeless. From this state, the ontological homeless cannot contemplate how they (with so much free time) can waste it carelessly and do nothing to change their situation.
Heidegger described the “meaning to being, is nothingness” which Ranasinghe explains in simpler terms of “an uneasy, nagging, feeling, so to speak – that is difficult, if not impossible, (for the subject) to fully explicate” (Ranasinghe). Between the two poles of anxiety and profound boredom is where a person can contemplate their authentic self.
When an individual is overly busy within their life, they do not have enough time to contemplate their own existence and authentic self, so they become inauthentic and disturbed with feelings of ontological homelessness.
The ontological homeless become mentally disengaged in their daily life and existence. The meaning of life is lost to the passing of time and the burden of responsibility, in which feelings of not belonging and loneliness appear.
The unhoused “ontic” homeless, has the time to contemplate their being. This does not necessarily mean the unhoused will take the time to contemplate, but it is there (Ranasinghe). Therefore, they can be more in-tune with their being.
Ranasinghe’s argument suggests the ontic homeless becomes oppressed with profound boredom. It immobilizes their ability to do anything but try to pass the time that seems to endlessly stretch before their existence. With theis additional stigma the homeless face with their observers’ reactions, further prolongs the mental anguish that perpetuates the discomfort of their profound boredom.
So, what disturbs the psyche at the sight or smell of the homeless?
As mentioned, our ancestors began as homeless. The unheimlich feelings that arise within the human psyche are linked to the archetypal remnants of our ancestors.
Repulsion is the reaction to what connects us to our roots.
The ontological homeless are so busy providing their own stability that they do not realize or contemplate that homelessness can affect anyone. There are so many reasons for this issue that even the wealthy can find themselves in a situation beyond their control, given the right circumstances.
The image of the homeless stirs in our authentic selves and haunts us because we have reminders of where our ancestors came from and where we could return.
When society treats the ontic homeless as a threat to the aesthetics of our communities, we prolong the individual’s profound boredom.
Attempts to hide the unhoused increase barriers for obtaining basic life essentials that are only available within civilized and populated areas. By further suppressing the homeless population and casting biased judgement on their image, we disturb ourselves because it is an attempt to suppress our own human nature and humanity.
So, what does this boil down to?
Housed people judge and are disturbed by unhoused people because they don’t have enough time to be themselves. The housed are angered by the time the unhoused waste and don’t understand that they face many barriers. Removing homeless camps and banning sleeping in public isn’t for the public good. It is to make members of the middle and upper classes more comfortable with themselves, in a world where their neighbor is sleeping on a sidewalk.
Works Cited
Couloute, L. “Nowhere to go: homelessness among formerly incarcerated people.” Prison Policy Initiative. 2018, www.prisonpolicy.org.
Ranasinghe, P. “On Being, Nothingness and Ontological Homelessness: An Heideggerian Inquiry into Authenticity.” 2020, Cosmos & History, 16(1), 191–217.
Untea, I. “Homelessness in the Urban Landscape: Beyond Negative Aesthetics.” 2018, Monist, 101(1), 17–30.
Rubenstein, Eric. “Homelessness and values.” 1992, Vital Speeches of the Day, 58(13), 401.
Zimmerman, L., Singleton, C., & Welch, J. “Activism and creating a translational archaeology of homelessness.” 2010, World Archaeology, 42(3), 443–454.
Perfectly Human 
Leave a comment