Abstract
What does the persistent construction of ‘the homeless’ and the revitalised term ‘our homeless’ include, imply, and exclude in Swedish political debate? And how is it politically and morally related to other houseless groups in the country? These questions are approached through an analysis of minutes from the Swedish Parliament 2015–2019. Inspired by Simmel’s (1908/1965) definition of ‘the poor’ as those who get (or would get) public assistance as poor, I claim that in Swedish political discourse, ‘(our) homeless’ comprise only those to whom the society acknowledges a responsibility to give shelter, thereby excluding the tens of thousands of people without homes that are temporarily accommodated by other authorities, private providers or individuals—or not at all. Although official definitions are housing-related, migrants without homes tend to be defined outside the ‘homeless’ concept, as well as from the municipalities’ responsibilities. I will argue that the reasons for this are institutional: regulations and their interpretation, coupled with traditions to care for only ‘our’ people which, in turn, are fortified by current nationalist sentiments.
Highlights
Many years ago, when I went through old records of poor relief in the 19th century in a little Swedish town I was surprised to see the consistency of the list of recipients
Its current definition of homelessness is partly influenced by the ETHOS definition, which departs from the actual housing situation
The same speaker gives his point through comparing the sheer numbers of homeless people to the number not of human migrants, but of ‘residence permits’: We talk about 107,000 residence permits—there are 30,000 homeless people in Sweden
Summary
Many years ago, when I went through old records of poor relief in the 19th century in a little Swedish town I was surprised to see the consistency of the list of recipients. While the balance and dominance of individual versus structural causes of homelessness have been debated continuously in political fora, in planning for interventions and prevention, as well as in research (see, e.g., Bullen, 2015; Fitzpatrick, 2005; Neale, 1997; Somerville, 2013), the institutional causes and perspectives are less highlighted These include what kind of housing situations, citizenship, national and local belonging, etc., that qualify a person for being counted, regarded and treated as ‘homeless’ in a specific local and historical context. Apart from the summary, the concluding discussion returns to Simmel’s claim that definitions are institutionally determined by obligations, while at the same time reflecting and affecting our thinking and feeling about vulnerable groups and their entitlements
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
