How Would Conflict Theory Explain Homelessness?
- Submitted by: epoon
- Views: 114
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 04/04/2016 03:41 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
How Would Conflict Theory Explain Homelessness?
Homelessness has always been a major substantial problem in the United States for decades. Many argue about the reasons for homelessness either based on financial conditions or psychological factors. Both conservatives and liberals have their specific reasons for the rise of homelessness in this country, but only few seem to (barely, in most of the time) come up with successful and resilient solutions (Canada’s Housing First Programme is a very good model that can be mirrored from. Instead of suggesting the stupidest idea - sending the homeless out of town like what the San Francisco’s mayor has approached). This is much debatable regarding the claim that homelessness is the result of lack of resources, laziness, or even lack of motivation.
An explanation of the epidemic of homelessness involves capitalism which can be linked to conflict theory. Those who are homeless lack economic, social, and human capital which is combined with the fact that many who are homeless had a less access to resources at the first place. According to McNaughton, many people become homeless because they already had low levels of capital resources which were reduced even further by edge work, and “anyone may become homeless, but they are more likely to when they have a low level of resources” (Transitions through Homelessness: Lives on the edge, 108). This also increases one’s risk of not only becoming homeless, but remaining homeless.
Capitalism basically divides people into two categories: those who have capital and those who do not. Homeless are rapidly and significantly considered to be losers by those who are not lacking a roof over their heads and worried about meals every day. After all, being homeless involves a loss of some sort: “Potent social forces [capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, home ownership] do exist and being homeless is to lose a stake in several of them” (Theorising homelessness:...
Homelessness has always been a major substantial problem in the United States for decades. Many argue about the reasons for homelessness either based on financial conditions or psychological factors. Both conservatives and liberals have their specific reasons for the rise of homelessness in this country, but only few seem to (barely, in most of the time) come up with successful and resilient solutions (Canada’s Housing First Programme is a very good model that can be mirrored from. Instead of suggesting the stupidest idea - sending the homeless out of town like what the San Francisco’s mayor has approached). This is much debatable regarding the claim that homelessness is the result of lack of resources, laziness, or even lack of motivation.
An explanation of the epidemic of homelessness involves capitalism which can be linked to conflict theory. Those who are homeless lack economic, social, and human capital which is combined with the fact that many who are homeless had a less access to resources at the first place. According to McNaughton, many people become homeless because they already had low levels of capital resources which were reduced even further by edge work, and “anyone may become homeless, but they are more likely to when they have a low level of resources” (Transitions through Homelessness: Lives on the edge, 108). This also increases one’s risk of not only becoming homeless, but remaining homeless.
Capitalism basically divides people into two categories: those who have capital and those who do not. Homeless are rapidly and significantly considered to be losers by those who are not lacking a roof over their heads and worried about meals every day. After all, being homeless involves a loss of some sort: “Potent social forces [capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, home ownership] do exist and being homeless is to lose a stake in several of them” (Theorising homelessness:...