Grade Required

Exam Number: 334JGD715

Class: Marginalization Sociology

Title: Marginalization Theories and the American Homeless

Characters in main text (inc. spaces): 34,246

Autumn Semester 2014

Index

Introduction 1

Definition of the Underclass 1

The American Dream 2

The Chronically Homeless as American Underclass 3

Defining Short-Term Homelessness 4

The Actor in Marginalization Theories 6

The Street Paper Model Proposal to Reduce 9Marginalization of Homeless

Discussion: How Effective is the Street Paper Model? 12

Success Related to the Welfare State 13

Conclusion 14

Bibliography 16

Solemn Declaration 17

Marginalization Theories and the American Homeless

Introduction

In general terms, the underclass is a subset group of individuals that are

considered to be the lowest social class in a society and the farthest away from social

integration. Literature about the sociology of marginalization focuses on issues

surrounding the underclass. The homeless individual in the majority of modern societies

epitomizes an image of the underclass for various reasons. This essay will analyze

stereotypes and demographic characteristics of the homeless in order to explain why this

subgroup is at serious risk of marginalization, especially within modern American

society. Marginalization theories will be discussed, and then accompanied by a proposed

model for the de-marginalization and reintegration of the homeless underclass.

Definition of the Underclass

By the end of the 19th century, three social classes emerged as a result of the

Industrial Revolution’s effect on reshaping society structure (Beck, 1991:87). This

underclass of Industrial society reflected characteristics of the “lumpen proletariat”, a

term coined and expanded by Marx (1998). The term ‘underclass’ took shape in

industrialized culture in order to describe a person that failed to contribute in a way

considered to be ‘valuable’ by the labor-centric society. Here, the underclass was

described as a subordinate group – a burden weighing down on societal progress and full

economic prosperity. The word “poverty” is also a characteristic used to describe

someone that may be considered a burden on society because of his or her dependence on

the welfare state. Thus, “poverty” is a characteristic that is commonly associated with the

underclass (see Abrahamson, 1998). But Mortensen (1995) argued that poverty is not the

only characteristic associated with the underclass, and that important behavioral traits

must also be considered (173).

Failure to make a meaningful contribution to the workforce (unemployment) was

also associated with the original appearance of the underclass in industrialized society.

Furthermore, the sociological theories of Moller (1995) and Lind (1995) argue that

employment is a key aspect of an individual’s integration in society. Here, the

1

individual’s employment manifests a sense of personal connection to the welfare of

society as a whole. This contribution to the workforce may then successfully integrate the

individual by virtue of one’s adherence to societal norms. Furthermore, the employment

of the individual reflects personal responsibility for oneself, simultaneously excluding the

individual from categorization as a burden on society’s welfare state. Unemployment and

poverty represent a disruption in the harmony between the individual interactions with

society. As a consequence, the underclass may likely experience exclusion or repulsion

from societal “in-rootness” due to factors that will be discussed in more detail later on.

The American Dream

Unemployment and poverty are not the only characteristics associated with the

underclass in every single modern-day society around the world. Yet modern American

society reveals a unique case in which these two characteristics are indeed deterministic

factors attached primarily to the underclass. This phenomenon may be attributed to the

complex ways that the notion of the American Dream has shaped the nation’s history and

plays out in today’s modern society.

Rooted within the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, the American Dream

is a national ethos that has exhibited significant influence over the evolution and structure

of American society. The American Dream embodies the core belief that every individual

citizen has equal opportunity for prosperity, success, and upward social mobility

achieved through hard work. This notion manifests a social structure where employment,

success, and financial freedom are intrinsically linked together at the heart of society.

Contribution to the labor market (employment) enables societal integration via

participation in societal norms attributed to pursuit of the American Dream. Society’s

shared belief in the American Dream suggests that opportunity for prosperity and

integration varies as a function of the individual’s “hard work” and ability to achieve –

terms that also carry heavy associations with employment and financial success.

In a society largely motivated and driven by a prosperous capitalist market, the

American Dream transforms the terms “unemployment” and “poverty” into deterministic

characteristics that are inevitably attached to the American underclass. American writer

and historian, James Truslow Adams, defined the American Dream as the notion that,

2

regardless of one’s social class, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone,

with opportunity for each according to ability of achievement” (Adams, 1931; cited by

Library of Congress). Although this national ethos does allow for fluidity across social

class, the characteristics of unemployment and poverty blatantly oppose the societal

structure governed by the notion of the American Dream.

Here, the underclass is suddenly faced with intensified social discrimination due

to the fact that society equates prosperity and social integration with one’s “hard work”

and “ability to achieve”. Through the eyes of governing social structures, unemployment

and poverty are perceived as an individual’s deviance from social norms, the personal

failure to meet societal expectations, and their failure to persevere. The characteristics of

“employment” and “wealth” associated with pursuit of the American Dream infiltrate

even the most basic forms of integration, and consequently marginalization as well.

Anderson (cited in Kristensen 2000) points at three basic marginalization forms (labor

market, social, and political marginalization) founded on the three pillars of the social

realm in modern western society (1996;8). The American Dream mentality is so

engrained in American structure that it has become absorbed into every facet of society,

encompassing the labor market, social, and political realms.

The Chronically Homeless as American Underclass

It is important to establish the differences between “short-term (transitional or

episodic) homelessness” and “chronic homelessness” in order to analyze the sociological

importance within such a diverse group of people.

Most researchers agree that the number of chronically homeless adults constitutes

as a small percentage (18%) of the overall homeless population in America (Caton,

Wilkins, & Anderson; 2007). The National Symposium on Homelessness Research

(2007) defined chronic homelessness as “a homeless individual with a disabling

condition” who has experienced either continuous or multiple episodes of homelessness

in more than one year’s time. These “disabling conditions” often include severe and

persistent mental illness and substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and physical disability (Kuhn

& Culhane, 1998; Burt et al., 2001; Kertesz et al., 2005). These characteristics of the

chronically homeless are also found in two of the categories used by Jencks (1989) to

3

describe the underclass: the ‘moral underclass’ who treat social norms as ‘impractical or

irrelevant’ (1989:15), and the ‘educational underclass’ who lack the knowledge or

training to participate in the workforce. Thus, ‘the moral underclass’ would be used to

describe the chronically homeless individual with disabling conditions such as mental

illness or substance abuse - conditions which prevent adherence to what is considered

socially normal. The ‘educational underclass’ would then describe the chronically

homeless suffering from physical disability, HIV/AIDS, and again, mental illness –

conditions of the body and mind that prevent adequate skills required to participate in the

workforce.

Caton (2005) states that, in addition to serious disability, the chronically homeless

are also compromised by persistent unemployment that consequently results in a

dependence on the welfare state for things such as health care, sustenance, and daily

provisions. Furthermore, characteristics of older age, past or current unemployment, a

lack of earned income, and arrest history are directly correlated with longer durations of

homelessness (Caton et al., 2005). This demographic data is also described by sociologist

Wilson (1987:8) who defines the underclass by: the inability to participate in the

mainstream occupational system in America, including lack of skill, long term

unemployment, and long term periods of poverty and/or dependence on the welfare state.

Because the American Dream mentality encompasses all social realms (labor market,

social, and political), the chronically homeless´ failed adherence to this social norm leads

to their categorization as underclass.

Defining Short-Term Homelessness

In American society, individuals experiencing “short-term” homelessness

constitute the largest majority (82%) of the overall homeless population at any one point

in time (N.A.E.H). Short-term homelessness presents a marginalization phenomenon that

is much more complex due to the greater diversity of individuals within this group.

Nonetheless, individuals experiencing short-term homelessness are also characterized as

underclass, placing them at serious risk of marginalization. Although short-term

homelessness accounts for the majority of homelessness occurring at any one point in

time, research pertaining to this subgroup is rare and is seldom comprehensive or

4

longitudinal in nature. This biased focus in research may be related to the chronically

homeless´ significantly larger dependence on the welfare state and the associated

economic burden on society. Therefore, one must use case studies about short-term

homelessness as a reflection of the overarching sociological situation at play.

Short-term homelessness often times occurs due to an unfortunate series of events

where the individual is left without any personal resources. This may result from a

variety of situations including: youth’s expulsion from the family home, an individual’s

release from jail, sudden loss of job, escape from domestic abuse, or a medical

emergency that has starved an individual of all financial resources (N.A.E.H). The most

deterministic factor preventing short-term homelessness from becoming chronic is the

individual´s social ties with family and community that may be willing to “take them in”

if hit with hard times (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). The term “poverty” can be used to

describe those experiencing short-term homelessness due to the fact that they cannot

support themselves completely without dependence on the welfare state or social groups.

In contrast to chronic homelessness, these individuals are rendered homeless due to

situational phenomena and therefore, “unemployment” may or may not fully apply.

Despite the situational differences associated with chronic and short-term

homelessness, poverty and unemployment are collectively used to label these two

subgroups as underclass. Studies looking at the public opinion on homelessness also

support this idea and show that popular American media largely takes a “conservative

frame that draws heavily on the individualism underlying the myth of the American

Dream” (Huckin, 2002;360). In Huckin´s study (2002) that accounted for media

published in all major U.S. newspapers within the span of one month, four genres related

to homelessness emerged: causes of homelessness, effects of homelessness, public

responses to the problem, and demographic data about homelessness. Huckin concluded:

This inventory indicates that current [early 1999] public discourse in the U.S. characterizes homelessness as follows: it is caused mainly by substance abuse, mental illness, and poverty; it affects large numbers of not only single men, but also families and children; and it is associated with crime, violence, and vagrancy (359).

Notice how Huckin’s analysis reflects the public´s overall failure to differentiate between

characteristics of short-term versus chronic homelessness. With the American Dream

5

mentality, those who are perceived to have failed to take advantage of the ´land of

opportunity’ only have themselves to blame. Here, the American Dream mentality

prevents the outside observer from recognizing the drastic demographic differences

between chronic and short-term homelessness. Society labels this group as “the other”

and promotes an enhanced sense of differentiation between the homeless and sheltered,

placing the homeless population at risk of marginalization.

The Actor in Marginalization Theories

The homeless in America represent an underclass group at serious risk of

marginalization due to a hotchpotch of relations between demographic data, stereotypes,

and crude generalizations established in public opinion. In order to examine

homelessness as a marginalization phenomenon, marginalization theories will be

discussed and then applied within the context of American homelessness.

Kristensen (cited from Townsend, 1979;Germani, 1980) defines marginalization

as a process that is unwanted by the individual. The phenomenon is characterized by an

exclusion from participation within some field of the societal life (praxis), which is

considered both central for the given society (objective importance), and for the

individual (subjective importance) (2000:3). Finally, marginalization is “incomplete

participation within one or more life fields” where the actor is neither excluded from one

particular field (praxis), nor from all fields completely (2000:6). Especially true in the

individual´s homeless situation, Svedberg (1995) emphasizes that complex interactions

between actor and structure coalesce in the marginalization phenomenon, and therefore,

cannot be explained simply by individual choice or involuntarism (1995;44).

Kristensen´s essay and the theories that she includes in her argument make a

weighted analysis comparing the actor to various social spaces within society, taking into

account all social dimensions involved in marginalization. The following marginalization

theories are founded on the belief that humans are social creatures by nature, and that

because of this; the individual (actor) is fundamentally always interacting and

communicating with society in some way (Frisby 1992:7). The actor’s contact and

6

communication can take on various forms, leaving room for potential upwards,

downwards, and/or “neutral” changes in social mobility over time (Galicki

2000;2005;2006). Simmel (1908) described marginalization of the poor as “partial or

incomplete participation” with a given praxis on the basis of incomplete economic

activity – societal participation only by virtue of inclusion within an adhering social

group, such as a church or family unit (cited by Kristensen, 2000:6).

On the other hand, Park (1952) proposed that actors move to and move from

praxis, where praxis is understood as any specific social association, group, or

community (cited in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). Because the praxis functions as a

subgroup within the governing structure of society, relative social norms and values are

also associated with the structure of specific praxis. Therefore, ‘moving to’ and ‘moving

from’ practices determine the actor’s participation in certain praxis while also potentially

leading to marginalization of the actor from other praxis. Germani (1980) provides a

definition of marginalized groups identical to previous descriptions of the social

underclass. Here, marginalization is directly correlated with an individual’s failure to

participate in certain praxis where their participation is expected, as determined by and

according to social norms.

Tom Broch’s (1979) Constructive Theoretical Pluralism (CTP) is useful in the

analysis of marginalization situations because it concentrates focus on the actor’s

communication with the societal structure (rules and resources) as the primary driving

force behind marginalization. Broch’s CTP model identifies four general interaction

fields of the social reality: the social (formal), existential, civilizing, and historical (cited

in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). These fields of social reality are distinguishable by the way

that the actor is forced to take action and the respective communication required in the

given marginalization situation.

Therefore, direct actor-structure communication has an effect on all four types of

marginalization. Yet, only with the historical marginalization (hm) type does this

communication factor play a crucial and directly relevant role in the marginalization

phenomenon (cited in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). Citizenship and contribution to the

workforce are attaching practices that integrate the actor within society via creation of a

direct link between actor and structure. Therefore, poverty and unemployment

7

(characteristics associated with the American underclass) function as detaching practices

in which the actor ‘moves from’ participation in social norms, while also ‘moving to’ the

praxis of underclass dependence on the welfare state. Failure to participate in the

workforce in a complete way prevents the individual from gaining social recognition or

integration, putting them at serious risk of marginalization.

The marginalization theories that have been proposed thus far require that one

accept conceptions of society that are “either directly grounded in or presuppose the

concept of interaction or reciprocal effect” (Frisby; 1992;7). In other words, the theories

of Park, Germani, and Broch demand that the individual must act on the stage that is

society because one cannot exist without the other for we are social creatures by nature.

Therefore, social detaching and possible marginalization must exist in each epoch and

will increase in complexity as a variable of modernity (cited in Frisby 1992). With

increased complexity comes enhanced differentiation across social realms, consequently

pushing “deviant” groups more towards marginalization and exclusion. This is especially

the case in modern American society where the homeless underclass individual struggles

to make any meaningful contact or communication with social entities. Bridge vendor

Linda Bozant explains, “No one listens to us because they assume that we are either lazy

or on drugs!” (The Bridge interviews, 2014). Homelessness in America therefore

represents an extreme case of marginalization where the individual actor cannot

communicate in any significant way with the society structure required in order to move

oneself from their marginalized situation.

Sociologists such as Wiese and Svedburg propose marginalization theories that

situate the actor’s movement and interaction within society on a much more

individualized, micro scale. Svedburg (1995) argued for a spectrum of social interaction

where the actor could be located anywhere between “rooted-in” group (far left),

“marginal” group (middle), or “excluded” (far right) (cited in Kristensen 2000:7).

Svedburg’s theory represents a less sophisticated version of Broch’s marginalization

typology in that it fails to fully address the individual’s complex social reality in modern

day society. According to Svedburg, the American homeless population is an underclass

8

group situated on the right-hand side of the axis somewhere between “marginal” and

“excluded”.

Wiese suggested that society is an illusion and that human interactions are the

only phenomenon at play, representing a much narrower perception of marginalization

(cited in Kristensen 2000). According to Wiese, two basic phenomena exist and relate to

all human interactions: 1) the individuals come close to each other (attaching) and 2)

move away from each other (detaching). By using communication and contact, the

individual can move away from detaching processes (characterized by isolation,

unfamiliarity, differentiation, and hostility) to achieve attaching processes (characterized

by tolerance, compromise, adaptation, leveling, and unity) (cited in Galicki

2002;2005;2006).

Because society is an illusion, the individual’s practices relate only to the

participation in “group affiliations”. Here, attaching and detaching processes cannot be

equated with integration and differentiation. This is because attaching/detaching

processes do not relate to a whole, society, or social structure – they are terms used to

describe the individual’s social interactions (and not participation with certain praxis).

Wiese’s theory explains marginalization of the homeless as a social process related to

either detaching processes, a lack of attaching processes, or a combination of the two.

Practices using contact and communication would then enable the marginalized homeless

individual to move away from detaching processes and towards attaching processes.

Face-to-face (actor-to-structure) contact and communication is especially important given

the complexity of modern American society where differentiation and distance between

social realms is enhanced (Simmel 1908; cited in Frisby 1992). Because the individual

actor cannot hope to significantly change the state of society, one can only take measures

to change his own social situation. The street paper model provides a viable solution to

move the actor along the marginalization spectrum by addressing key factors contributing

to the phenomenon.

The Street Paper Model Proposal to Reduce Marginalization of Homeless

In very basic terms, a “street paper” is a newspaper or magazine sold by

individuals that are experiencing homelessness and/or poverty, and typically feature

9

content related to issues surrounding these characteristics of the underclass. The street

paper organizations produce timely publications in order to provide the homeless with a

resource for employment, self-empowerment, and a voice within the given community

(INSP, 2014). After completing vendor training and certification, the homeless individual

may then purchase papers at a fraction cost of the selling value. The sales of the paper

allow the vendor to keep 75-90% of their profits (depending on the organization) while

also promoting self-empowerment through self-employment in the homeless individual.

The street paper model is a “hand up”, not a “hand out” and promotes relationships

between customers (community members) and homeless vendors. By analyzing the

contributing factors in marginalization theories, one will understand why the street paper

model may be used as a means to escape marginalization situations within specific

societal context.

According to Park (1952), a homeless individual’s participation with the street

paper model would function as a ‘moving to’ practice, eventually leading to social

reintegration back into society. The street paper organization and community would

function as praxis in itself, governed by social structures and values that mimic those

found in the society at large. Here, it is important that the publication content also

represents adherence to social norms (anti-drug etc.). Although the street paper vendors

are publically recognized as homeless individuals, their employment with the street paper

organization functions as a ‘moving to’ practice in realigning their individual image with

social norms and expectations associated within the American Dream framework (Park,

1952; Germani, 1980). The vendor’s employment also functions as a ‘moving from’

practice which distances the individual from negative associations related to the praxis of

homelessness (i.e. panhandling, begging, substance abuse). Self-employment with the

paper breaks down the stereotype that homelessness is caused by an individual’s laziness,

failure to persevere, and a personal decision to depend on the welfare state. Participation

in the labor market demonstrates the individual’s attempt to alleviate their dependence on

the welfare state.

The vendor’s unique contribution to the workforce through the sales of the paper

may also function as an attaching process. In regards to Broch’s historical

10

marginalization associated with homelessness, sales of the paper put the homeless actor

in contact with both the societal structures (rules and resources) and also with in-rooted

actors in society (community members). StreetSense vendor, Jake Ashford, explains,

“You know, as far as with the paper, it gives me a change to meet the working class

people” (Dankey & Wiegand, 1998). As cited by Galicki (2002;2005;2006), the

communication factor associated with marginalization types is the main driving force

behind an actor’s fulfillment of the attaching/move-to process. Contact by means of

employment and active citizenship enable the homeless vendor to gain social recognition

and increase the likelihood of “upwards” social mobility.

Homelessness in America represents an extreme case of marginalization where

the homeless individual is limited from making any meaningful communication with the

in-rooted members of society (Kristensen 2000). Meaningful communication is limited

and often disregarded due to associations between homelessness and deviancy. Because

of this, the marginalization situation approaches exclusion and thus, widens the

sociological gap between the homeless and sheltered individual. Consequently, the in-

rooted individual experiences increasing difficulty to sympathize with the homeless

situation. Here, the street paper model represents a perfect solution in that it provides a

platform for contact and communication – crucial factors required for an actor to move

away from marginalization.

First, the street paper itself provides an outlet for expression where the voice of

the homeless may be published and heard by large numbers of in-rooted society members

(customers). Successful street paper organizations such as Chicago’s Streetwise boast

circulation numbers of 338,000 annually (Streetwise, 2012). The stories written by

homeless authors help to give a face to homelessness and promote empathy by

highlighting the marginalization phenomenon, a condition experienced at all levels of

social stratification (Giddens, 2001). Consequently, the sociological differentiation

between groups is minimized, which promotes an enlightened and sympathetic

perception of the homeless situation. Here, sociological barriers between the homeless

and sheltered are broken down. First-hand accounts of homelessness may change the

public’s perspective by calling attention to potential flaws in the welfare state that may

11

contribute to homelessness. Examples include a lack of jobs, low-income housing

options, resources for the mentally ill, and a fully functioning health care system. Thus,

the street paper encourages the public to look at marginalization phenomenon with a

sociological perspective and to consider all factors that may contribute to homelessness.

The vendor-customer exchange is also a crucial factor in that it provides

opportunity for the homeless individual to build good quality contacts within the society

structure. The vendor-customer exchange represents a platform where both individuals

may interact on safe and equal grounds, allowing quality relationships (contacts) to

blossom through face-to-face communication. Establishing good contact and

communication with the society structure increase the individual’s opportunity for

employment and access to resources via in-rooted individuals or social organizations.

Here, the individual must be open to the idea of reintegration back into society and must

actively pursue this goal. No organization or model can change a person’s situation if

they do not want to, or simply cannot, change it themselves.

Discussion: How effective is the Street Paper Model?

Here, it is important to analyze the street paper model on a micro-scale in relation

to the single individual. Although employment through a street-paper organization is

effective in reducing marginalization of the homeless in theory, this model is not fully

comprehensive for escaping the homelessness situation, especially in cases of chronic

homelessness. Thus, efforts to reduce the marginalization situation of the homeless

cannot be fully successful until the individual literally transitions from ‘homelessness’ to

‘sheltered’.

With most street paper organizations, sales of the street paper cannot provide the

vendor with enough income to cover daily living expenses in addition to the substantial

savings required to secure permanent housing and transition out of homelessness.

Because many homeless individuals could make more money by panhandling and

begging (Danky & Wiegand, 1998), the long-term benefits associated with the street

paper model (social contact, community, and reintegration) do not outweigh the short-

term demand for daily survival needs. Here, the individual is faced with a paradoxical

12

situation where one’s survival needs and efforts to reduce marginalization will inherently

collide.

For the individual that is homeless by choice, the street paper model provides no

social or financial benefit. In the case of short-term homelessness, the short-term benefits

of the street paper model (rapid employment and income) are enough to escape

homelessness and consequent marginalization. This is due to the fact that preexisting

social ties are maintained in short-term situations. Thus, social mobility is enabled

through self-empowerment. In the case of chronic homelessness, mental/physical

disability and substance abuse may prevent the individual from utilizing the street paper

model to the full extent required for reintegration. The existence of chronic homelessness

in America reflects a failure within the welfare state to provide adequate care and help for

the physically and mentally ill living in poverty and also those that are financially at-risk.

This is a substantial fault within American welfare state that no street paper organization

could ever fully address or resolve.

Success Related to the Welfare State

Although the street paper model is successful in addressing the overarching social

factors contributing to the marginalization of the homeless, full reintegration of homeless

individuals calls for a more holistic, comprehensive social formula. So it is important to

also consider the operational role of the welfare state.

The success of a city’s street paper is strongly correlated with the social structures

already in place meant to address homelessness. This theory helps to explain why certain

street papers succeed over others. First of all, the resources and support that the welfare

state is able to provide for the homeless is heavily dependent on government funding and

political influence in America. Research shows that the majority of government funding

from the past ten years allotted for addressing homelessness went to transitional or

permanent housing programs (N.A.E.H.). These efforts manifest biased longitudinal data

and simultaneously place a bandage over the real problem at hand. Government programs

involving these housing solutions fail to reduce the homeless population in more effective

ways through preventative measures.

13

As proposed by Danish sociologist Gosta Esping-Andersen (1990), the American

welfare state is characterized as a stereotypical Liberalist model. This model describes a

welfare state that is based on capitalist market dominance and private provisions, where

social insurance is minimal and social stratification extremely high (Esping-Andersen,

1990). In Liberalist models such as the American welfare state, the homeless individual

receives little support from governing social structures. Welfare responsibility is placed

on the individual, which fully depends on employment and social status. Interestingly

enough, street paper vendors in Liberalist welfare states experience significantly less

success than their counterparts in Social Democratic welfare states such as the Danish

system (cited in INSP). By analyzing employment rates in street paper organizations and

circulation (sales) of the paper, one begins to understand that marginalization theories are

only successful when applied to societies that are inherently set up to favor reintegration.

Because the American Dream framework is pervasive in both the welfare state and social

stratification, the general (in-rooted) public will blindly perceive homelessness as a

choice or place blame on the individual unless social mentality is changed.

Mead (1986, cited in Andersen and Larsen, 1995) proposes a solution for

addressing the problems of the underclass (homeless) by making changes in social policy

itself. Mead (lbid.) argues that the implementation of new policies should be means-

tested in order to determine the most effective approach to integration. In regards to

marginalization theories, future research should focus on changes in social policies

according to the associated welfare state. Such changes in social policy in America may

include a focus on increasing resources for the mentally and physically disabled

underclass, job placement initiatives, and supportive programs for individuals that are

financially at-risk. More importantly, proposed changes in social policy must decrease

social stratification and de-stigmatize homelessness. Perhaps recent economic decline

will bring about a new epoch in America where marginalization is less extreme.

Conclusion

Marginalization theories may be used to analyze homeless American citizens as

part of the underclass. Due to the comprehensive influence of the American Dream on

modern society, the homeless underclass is subject to marginalization for reasons

14

associated with poverty and unemployment. The street paper model offers a strong

proposal to achieve social reintegration because of the ways that it is able to address

social phenomena described in marginalization theories. Given the relative success of the

street paper model in regards to full social reintegration, a more comprehensive and

holistic approach must also consider the welfare state. Future research is required in order

to expand marginalization theories so that they may be realistically applied in Liberalist

welfare states where extreme and complicated social stratification damages social

progress.

15

Bibliography

Abrahamson, P. (1998). The Social Quality of Europe . ln Combating social exclusion and poverty in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 145-176

Adams, James Truslow. 1931. “The Epic of America”. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. “Risk Society: The Individualization of Social Inequality: Life

Forms and the Demise of Tradition”. Saga Publications. Broch, Tom, “Forming and Social Constitution”, Sociological Institute, 1979Burt, M., Aron, L. Y., Lee, E., and Valente, J. (2001). Helping America’s homeless.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Caton, C. L., Dominguez, B., Schanzer, B., Hasin, D. S., Shrout, P. R., Felix, A., et al.

(2005). Risk factors for long-term homelessness: Findings from a longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults. American Journal of Public Health, 95, pp. 1753-9

Caton, C. L., Wilkins, C., and Anderson, J. (2007) ‘People Who Experience Long-Term Homelessness: Characteristics and Interventions’. In: Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research

Danky, J. & Wiegand, W. 1998. Print Culture in a Diverse America (History of Communication). University of Illinois Press. Urbana and Chicago.

Epsing-Anderson, Gosta. 1990. “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”. Cambridge: Polity Press

Frisby, David, ”Simmel and since – Essays on Georg Simmel’s Social Theory”, London, 1992

Galicki, L. (2002). “Typology of Marginalization Phenomenon”. Roskilde University Centre. Revised edition: 2005; 2006. Copenhagen University: Sociological Institute

Georg, Ritzer. 2000. “Sociological Theory”

Germani, G. (1980). Marginality. New Jersey: Transaction Books

Huckin, T. (2002). ‘Textual Silence and the discourse of homelessness’. Discourse Society, 13, pp. 347

International Network of Street Papers (INSP). Accessed November, 2014. ScotlandJencks, C. (1989) ‘What Is the Underclass – and Is it Growing?’ Focus, XII, pp. 14-26 Kertesz, S. G., Larson, M.J., Horton, N.J., Winter, M., Saitz, R., and Samet, J.H. (2005).

Homeless chronicity and health related quality of life trajectories among adults with addictions. Medical Care, 43, pp. 574-85

Kristensen, J.C. (2000). Marginalization Concept Clarification. In: Larsen, Lund, and Hornemann (eds.) Continuity and Change. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur

Kuhn, R., and Culhane, D. (1998). Applying cluster analysis to test of a typology of homelessness: Results from the analysis of administrative data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, pp. 23-43

Lind, J. (1995). Unemployment Policy and Social Integration. In: Mortensen, N. (ed.) Social Integration and Marginalization. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 183-205

Lorber, J. (2009). ‘Extra, Extra! Homeless Lift Street Papers, and Attitudes’ New York Times, April 13, pp. B5

16

Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1998). The German Ideology. Including Thesis on Feuerbach and Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Prometheus Books

Mincy, R.B., Sawhill, I.V., Wolf, D.A. (1990). The Underclass: Definition and Measurement. Science, New Series. 248 (4954), pp. 450-53

Moller, I.H., (1995) Some Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Labour Market Marginalization. In: Mortensen, N. (ed.) Social Integration and Marginalization. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. “The State of Homelessness in America 2014”. Homelessness Research Institute.

Prescott, L. and Samra, S. ‘Consumer Integration: Why it Matters, How it Works’. HRC Webcast Resources (http://homelesshub.ca/resource/hrc-webcast-

resources-consumer-integration-why-it-matters-how-it-works )StreetWise Annual Report. 2012Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and

Public Policy. London: The University of Chicago Press

Solemn DeclarationI hereby solemnly declare that I have written this paper in accordance with the regulations concerning Academic Integrity established in “Disciplinary measures towards students at the University of Copenhagen” and elaborated in the “General Instructions for Examinations” written by the Department of Sociology.

In these two protocols it is emphasized that if you use quotations of literature in your paper, the quotations must be clearly marked with quotation marks and followed by a reference. If these rules are not followed it will be reported as plagiarism to the Faculty.I have also been informed that any violation of the rules regarding Academic Integrity will be treated according to the rules established in the “Disciplinary measures towards students at the University of Copenhagen”.

Finally I confirm that the number of characters/spaces/punctuation marks etc. stated on my paper is correct.

Date:

Signature:

17