• No results found

Empirical Chapter 3: Non-Human Entities for Negotiating Citizenship and Space68

6.3 Empirical Chapter 3: Non-Human Entities for Negotiating Citizenship and Space

addition, apparently rats actually bite PEHs’ soft tissue (skin, eyes) while they sleep, so cats are useful to PEH because they hunt the rats.

6.3.1.1.B Items for Safety

Aside from pets, PEH and professionals mentioned that items for safety are useful for enhancing PEH’s citizenship. Safety items varied from locks to tarp walls that create privacy. I observed multiple PEH with bats or other weaponry for protection. PEH and professionals also said that dogs are used as protection, as well. Female PEH spoke about the need for safety and protection frequently, as they were afraid of being raped or kidnapped. Mae said she carried brass knuckles, and Sarah said she has been arrested for carrying a weapon in the past. Items that enhance PEH’s sense of safety help them feel more included, which in turn has a positive impact on their citizenship.

6.3.1.1.C Items for Warmth

Understandably, PEH identified items for warmth as helping them to feel more included in the community. Items such as sleeping bags, blankets and coats were mentioned frequently. I would argue that items for warmth and items for safety go beyond negotiations of citizenship, as both types of items are basic necessities for survival.

6.3.1.1.D Tangible Services

PEH and professionals spoke often about tangible services, as well. Tangible services in this case refer to things such as the “shower bus” or laundry services. Having the option to shower, or do laundry greatly impacted PEH’s sense of belonging, a dimension of citizenship.

They perceived stronger inclusion in the community when they were visibly clean and didn’t smell. Several participants also stated that they tried to not look homeless, because they would be treated negatively if found out. Tangible services aided their need to fit in.

6.3.1.1.E Technical Connection

Phones, Wi-Fi and technological materiality also enhanced PEH’s sense of citizenship, though most PEH said they did not have access to technology. The few PEH who did have devices said that they did not have a way to charge their devices, so they were not very useful.

Plus, local businesses typically do not allow PEH to charge their devices inside, or use their Wi-Fi. Despite these challenges, many services and resources aimed at PEH are only accessible through technology, hence why participants stated it would help with their citizenship.

6.3.1.1.F Vehicles

Phones, Wi-Fi and technological materiality also enhanced PEH’s sense of citizenship, though most PEH said they did not have access to technology. The few PEH who did have devices said that they did not have a way to charge their devices, so they were not very useful.

Plus, local businesses typically do not allow PEH to charge their devices inside, or use their Wi-Fi. Despite these challenges, many services and resources aimed at PEH are only accessible through technology, hence why participants stated it would help with their citizenship.

6.3.1.1.G Personalization of Space

Another non-human thing identified that helped PEH’s citizenship was material personalization of space. Jen, a professional spoke about the different types of personalization she sees in local encampments. She said,

“One community uses a mailbox, and you know USPS does not deliver there, but they have their address written on it, and… it’s a landmark because otherwise in that area where camping goes on, it would be really hard to know where anything is…in the Jungle [local encampment], there’s tons of art…I mean, there’re memorials all over the place for folks that have passed, and they were working on a zip line over the summer, as well.” (Jen, 07/02/22)

6.3.1.1.H Structures of Permanence

Finally, structures of permanence were identified as helping with citizenship. Similar to personalization, structures of permanence seemed to create a strong sense of belonging.

Margaret, a professional, explained,

“In Olympia, in the surrounding areas, you have a whole host of either everybody who's got like, a bed roll sleeping in the alcove of the store, somebody who's got a tent, and somebody who's like, put up some structural components to their little place. And I think that a tent is not a permanent structure. It doesn't have any amount of permanence to it. But once you put a board or you're attaching your tarps to trees, there's more permanence, and then there’s a switch that this is my home. This is my place.” (Margaret, 23/02/22)

Overall, pets, items for safety, items for warmth, tangible services, technology, vehicles, material personalization, and structures of permanence were useful for PEH’s inclusion and negotiation of citizenship.

6.3.1.2 Exclusive Materiality

Four PEH stated that everything made them feel excluded while experiencing homelessness. Audrey said,

“Everything makes you feel excluded [when you’re experiencing homelessness]”

(Audrey, 23/02/22)

Most commonly, it was expressed that the absence of one of the previously discussed inclusionary non-human entities, such as technology, resulted in PEH feeling more excluded.

Outside of that, drugs, theft and encampment sweeps were identified as having exclusionary effects. Each of these three aspects of exclusive materiality are discussed next.

6.3.1.2.A Drugs

PEH spoke about drugs’ negative impact on their inclusion more than professionals did.

As noted in Table 1, ten participants engaged in drug use that was either disclosed during the interview, or observed. Many PEH said they did drugs to cope with their situations, and to stay warm. Sarah said,

“A lot of people out here use drugs, yes, but most don’t start until they’re homeless and they take drugs to stay warm. It’s so cold out here, if I was in a place where I was warm and indoors, I wouldn’t want to do drugs, but it’s either that or you freeze to death.” (Sarah, 21/02/22)

Ultimately, PEH’s made them feel more excluded from the community because they were judged more heavily by domiciled people, and the effects of drugs often make their users more paranoid and isolated.

6.3.1.2.B Theft

Theft was repeatedly mentioned throughout interviews with PEH and professionals. Both groups indicated that theft was a constant threat for PEH, whereby they could lose their

documents, identification, phones, personal mementos, and even their pets. Documentation loss creates significant barriers for PEH. Documentation and identification are needed to secure services, social security, to book a hotel room, or to apply for a job or housing. Margaret, a professional, described documentation as a “lynch pin” for PEH. Participants, including Peter, Mae, Ava, and David, told me about times their items had been stolen, and how theft caused various problems for them. Three participants described that their “whole world” was in their backpacks. PEH coped with the threat of theft in different ways. For Mae, the threat of theft

pushed her to have stronger ties to other PEH that she trusted with her things and her dog. For Greg, the threat of theft made him distrustful of other PEH, so he lives alone and avoids other PEH.

6.3.1.2.C Sweeps

Aside from drugs and theft, professionals spoke about encampment sweeps as excluding PEH. While sweeps are not non-human things per say, the implication of sweeps is that PEH lose their possessions and home. When sweeps occur, PEH can lose their tents, or any other

possessions valuable to them if they do not remove their things ahead of time. Documentation loss occurs during sweeps, as well. Sarah described that the police sometimes “slash people’s tents” so they cannot be used by PEH when the sweeps are being done. All of the professionals expressed how devastating sweeps can be for PEH because, as Margaret said,

“I think anybody being forcibly removed from their home, no matter where that home is, is hard”. (Margaret, 23/02/22)

Ultimately, drugs, and the material loss caused by theft and sweeps excluded PEH, and prevented them from successfully negotiating citizenship.

6.3.2 The Materiality of Urban Space

Those who said claiming space was possible for PEH tended to list many of the same non-human entities identified for inclusive citizenship, including: pets, camping gear, safety items, vehicles, more permanent structures and personalized space. Tents and vehicles were the most common responses because PEH used them for privacy and for places to sleep. Two PEH also spoke about the importance of their shopping carts for claiming space. John said,

“I’d feel naked without it. It’s my wall. This is my cart, donated from the food bank. It’s my dominion, my domain.” (John, 26/02/22)

Vehicles, tents and carts also facilitate easing the burden of physically carrying all their earthly possessions. Several participants discussed the challenges associated with having to carry their things at all times, and how exhausting it was. Three participants said their “entire lives”

were in their backpacks.

Several professionals and PEH spoke about various forms of personalization, which helped PEH feel at home in whatever space they were occupying. Jen, a professional, said that when she goes to encampments, they are flooded with art installations and flags. I encountered multiple examples of PEH personalizing their space. Rob, a self-proclaimed artist, drew intricate

patterns on the sidewalk in West-Olympia, his “neighborhood”. In addition, Sam told me he was excited for the rain to come so the flowers he planted around his tent would grow. Meanwhile, Mae lived in the City of Olympia’s Mitigation Site, and was told by staff she could not put any furniture or personalized things in her tent. She was very upset about this. She said,

“You can’t hang shelves or be comfortable. You live in a mess with all your things on the floor because they don’t let you bring in any furniture…I can’t make the space my own.” (Mae, 16/03/22)

Overall, the non-human entities PEH found to be useful for their space negotiation depended on the individual. For some, carts were useful. For others, the ability to personalize their space was very important to them. Aside from that, PEH identified similar non-human entities for negotiating urban space that they did for negotiating citizenship.

6.3.3 Closing Remarks

Even though several PEH did not perceive that they could negotiate for space at all, the sampling strategy relied on finding PEH that held signs, thus open to communicating, as discussed in the Methodology. Their signs acted as a way to negotiate for urban space and

citizenship, because in a way, they were asking other community members to acknowledge them, and not contest their spatial existence. Aside from that, there was a lot of cross over between the non-human entities used for negotiating citizenship and urban space. Barriers preventing PEH from negotiating space included vagrancy laws, law enforcement, private property, sweeps and nowhere to legally be, as anticipated from the literature review, and context. Despite the barriers, PEH persist through their use of pets, camping gear, safety items, vehicles, more permanent structures and personalized space.