7 Discussion and Conclusion
This section discusses the meaning and relevance of the results in relation to the research problem, literature, and theoretical underpinnings. First, I discuss the findings in relation to existing literature, mostly comparing the findings to the literature review. Following that are the answers to the main and sub research questions. After, I discuss the implications beyond this research, the limitations of the research, and policy recommendations. Finally, there is a concluding section. The purpose of this discussion is to explore the results in-depth and give meaning to the findings.
7.1.2 PEH’s Negotiation of Urban Citizenship Discussed
Participants did not perceive that PEH in Thurston County were able to negotiate their urban citizenship fully. The following explores what barriers and limitations PEH faced with regards to their sense of belonging, political engagement, and access to resources and services.
When it came to a sense of belonging, PEH had more success on the micro level of belonging than the intermediate level of belonging, as proposed by Harper et al. (2017). As explained, PEH were socially excluded by domiciled people, or “familiar strangers”. These negative interactions resulted in PEH being “othered” by domiciled members of the community, and reduced PEHs’ sense of belonging on the intermediate level. PEH did report having more a successful sense of belonging on the micro-level, as many participants seemed to develop a shared communal identity, resulting in having close friend, and family-like relationships with other PEH. Mendoza (1997) and Wagner’s (1993b) work found a similar finding, as PEH built strong reciprocal friendships due to their alienation from the broader community of housed people. Within these close relationships, I observed acts of kindness and giving, which Harper et al. (2017) explained as important for citizenship, because they restore self-worth. While PEH felt excluded through the intermediate level with housed people, they often felt included through the micro level with other PEH. That was not the case for all PEH, as several stated they did not have contact, or positive socialization with anyone (other PEH or domiciled people). Those isolated individuals did not have a strong sense of belonging on the micro, or intermediate levels.
Contrary to the literature (Snow and Mulcahy, 2001, Schein, 2012), participants typically stated they did not engage in politics. I expect that the divergence between the literature and my findings were because this research studied unsheltered, chronically homeless individuals who were primarily focused on survival. Their lack of political engagement did not come from a place of laziness, or incompetence, but truly from a place of needing to survive. On top of that, there were numerous barriers that prevented PEH from engaging, which typically had to do with lack of access to technology, identification, or a permanent address. The lack of political engagement represented a lack of macro level belonging, which resulted in many participants feeling out of touch with current events, and deepened their social exclusion. This was a finding consistent with Harper et al.’s (2017) work.
Additionally, participants struggled to access resources and services, which had negative outcomes on their negotiation of urban citizenship. Specifically, participants perceived system design flaws that did not cater to the needs of PEH, despite being for PEH. Simon’s explaining service providers as “poverty-pimps” was corroborated by Wagner’s (1993a) finding that not all service providers work in altruistic ways. Further, participants stated there were not enough resources and services to meet the demand. It would be interesting for future research to study the motivations behind service system design, and for policy makers to consider the barriers PEH face when accessing to resources and services.
Overall, PEH had difficulties negotiating their citizenship as evidenced by their low sense of belonging, low political engagement and limited access to resources and services.
7.1.3 PEH’s Negotiation of Urban Space Discussed
PEH were not able to negotiate for urban space fully, either because their presence was constantly contested. Generally speaking, Snow and Mulcahy’s (2001) findings with regards to types of space PEH can occupy was corroborated by the findings of this thesis. Mostly, PEH spent their days in more visible, prime locations to earn money and collect necessities, such as food. They tended to spend their nights in more hidden (transitional or marginal) space where their presence was less contested, and they could relax. Contestations came from domiciled people, local business owners/employees, and government agents. When PEH were faced with contestation, they mostly reported exiting as a mode of response, rather than persisting, adapting or voicing their dissent. When asked why, participants reported not wanting to burden or bother those who were contesting their presence, which was unanticipated from the literature (Snow and Mulcahy, 2001).
Beyond that, Snow and Mulcahy’s (2001) three strategies of spatial containment against PEH, disruption, displacement and exclusion, were present in Thurston County as well, which hindered their ability to access urban space. Disruption tactics observed in Thurston County included but were not limited to locked bathrooms and padlocked power outlets. These tactics disrupted the daily routines of PEH to attempt to contain their use of urban space (Snow and Mulcahy, 2001). Displacement tactics in Thurston County took shape through encampment sweeps and move-along orders which emphasized removal over resettlement, another finding consistent with Snow and Mulcahy’s (2001) work. Finally, no-trespassing signs, the NIMBY
sentiment, and construction of fences aimed to privatize urban space and exclude PEH from accessing it. This finding in particular was corroborated by Mitchell (1997), Herring et al.
(2020), and Giannini (2016), among others. Overall, PEH in Thurston County struggled to negotiate for urban space because of constant spatial contestation against them. Further, PEH did not try to force their presence, and usually accepted being asked to leave a space.
7.1.4 PEH’s Imagined Urban Transformation Discussed
To the best of my knowledge, previous research has never asked PEH how they would like to see the urban landscape they inhabit transformed to be more inclusive. If these findings were incorporated at a city, county, or national level, PEH’s urban imagination could result in more successful negotiation of citizenship and urban space. For instance, the way that the systems of homelessness were designed in Thurston County did not necessarily involve PEH, and often did not consider the realities of homelessness. For instance, PEH have to venture out, spending huge amounts of their time daily accessing resources and services, when resources and services could be provided to them where they live, or distributed throughout the county more accessibly. Granted, COVID-19 played a role in this, but regardless, it negatively affected PEH.
That is not to say Thurston County is alone in this aspect, as much of the literature found the same time constraints for PEH, but it was interesting to hear that this was a problem that PEH would like addressed for their inclusion. Similarly, PEH expressed interest in having access to safe spaces, warm spaces and spaces where they were not criminalized. All of these aspects represent possibilities for local government and service providers to rethink and consider PEH’s wishes. This transformative imagining of the city represents a unique opportunity for policy change that would literally allow PEH the opportunity to negotiate for their urban citizenship and space.
7. 1.5 Non-Human Entities Discussed
Non-human entities were often used by PEH to negotiate for their urban citizenship and urban space. Similar to the literature about the materiality of homelessness (Zimmerman, et al.
2010, Mendoza, 1997), PEH identified “everyday” objects, structures of permanence and material personalization of space. The findings of this thesis diverge from Zimmerman et al.
(2010) and Mendoza’s (1997) work because participants also identified objects for safety, technological materiality, and tangible services, as well. I suspect this divergence is partly because of the contextual differences (Mendoza, 1997) and methodological differences (Zimmerman, et al., 2010). Further, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, the
technological inequality plays a larger role in social exclusion than it did in 1997, or 2010, when Mendoza and Zimmerman et al. conducted their research. Had I just observed what materiality PEH used, as Zimmerman et al. (2010) did, I would not have known that PEH value objects for safety and tangible services, so in this way, the thesis provides a new perspective, as well.
Otherwise, the literature by Scanlon et al. (2021) and Gillespie and Lawson (2017) indicated that PEH have important relationships with their dogs, something that was repeatedly expressed throughout the thesis results. Human-dog relationships did have a positive impact on PEHs’
negotiation of urban citizenship and urban space because in the presence of a dog, PEH’s presence was less contested. Further, dogs provided PEH with a strong sense of belonging, and gave three participants a reason to live. Outside the human-dog relationship, several participants discussed the importance of cats, which was an unanticipated finding. Cats had a positive impact on PEHs’ sense of belonging, and urban citizenship. Cats were described as useful hunters that helped maintain the vermin (rats, mice, etcetera) that jeopardized PEHs’ health, so cats helped PEH use urban space in a more comfortable way, with less unhealthy rodents. Overall, non-human entities have an important role with regards to PEHs’ negotiation of urban citizenship and urban space.