Dissertation 2009, by Samantha J Rumble, B.Sc.(hons)

Introduction

This study investigates perceptions and attitudes regarding homelessness. There are varying definitions of homelessness, which in turn alter perceptions. (See appendix for definitions and information on homelessness in Norwich.) This study will refer those who are sleeping rough, sofa surfing and living in hostels etc, as homeless. “Homelessness” is often connected with negative connotations or stigma due to associated lifestyles. Although stigma can induce positive responses in some people, in the case of homelessness, it produces negative and devaluing reactions depending on social context. Goffman described stigma as being:

“ A sign or mark that designates the bearer as spoiled and therefore as valued less than ‘normal’ people” (Crocker, Major & Dovidio P3 2003)

Stigma disempowers individuals and excludes them from being valued members of society (limiting them access to proper health care etc.) Stigma is associated with stereotypical labels, prejudice, values, beliefs and bias. Prior to the poor law, (1834) labels such as “tramp” “bum” or “hobo” were applied to those sleeping rough. The general belief was that people should either be at work or at home, therefore those roaming the streets in the day time were viewed as lazy, deviant, drunkards with no moral standing (Cresswell 2008).

Stigmatising also occurs in the absence of stereotypes. In terms of homelessness, the labels may have changed over the years, however the underlying perceptions have not.

Perceptions are underpinned by ideology, values and belief systems, which are influenced through agents of socialization, (family, education, government etc). Through such processes, which are driven by cognitive functions and misconceptions; labels are born. Stereotypes are generalized into thoughtless misjudgements, therefore reinforcing discriminatory social practices. Goffman believed that stigma occurs either through a visible mark (unsightliness) or blemishes in character (embarrassing characteristics.) Statistics have shown that homelessness is associated with poverty, mental health, drug or alcohol addiction, learning difficulties etc. (Homeless.org 2008)

Stigma (positive or negative) displayed towards the homeless is linked with prejudice or blame (Phelan et al 1997). Research indicated that ‘blame’ is associated with poverty, and ‘stigma,’ with the homeless thus. Thus these combined; exacerbate stigma. Moreover, interrelating mental health and addiction issues elicit negative perceptions (dangerousness, worthlessness, lack of intelligence), further maintaining social distances between the homeless and the rest of society. Link & Cullen (1983) found that compassion may be felt towards the homeless, but is not displayed.

According to Lee, Link and Toro, (1983) people have limited objective information about the homeless, perceptions are reinforced by a few homeless individuals that they see within society. Due to the unfortunate practical factors faced by homeless people (no washing facilities etc) their dishevelled appearance reinforces preconceptions. Media portrayals may either hinder or soften stigma towards homelessness and generate compassion as much as igniting fears. However, such compassion is still not enough to close the distance between the homeless and the rest of society Link et al (1983).

Stigma associated with the homeless is mostly negative. Most studies mentioned, focus on negative perceptions. However, Phelan et al, (1997) found that many view homelessness with compassion but practice social distance. Heble, Tickle & Heatherton (2003) who refer to stigma in general, suggested that passers by, may ignore the stigmatised person although still genuinely concerned, but embarrassed and awkward due to inability to respond appropriately. The theory stated that someone who openly displays disgust has less negative effects on the stigmatised than the covert response. Equally fear of rejection may produce behaviour in both parties, which reinforces further rejection. Heble et al (2003) Alternatively, Giddens believes that the fast pace of modern life reinforces individualism. People are too busy and stressed to consider homelessness since acknowledging social responsibility is costly (Giddens 2002).

Cognitive knowledge and information alone, do not explain how stigmatisation is generated. Preconceptions may have already been internalised by ideology, (Phelan et al 1997) thus this is a mutually reinforcing, social psychological process.

This internalisation of ideology is socio-politically rooted and can influence the shaping of the beliefs, values and attitudes. Dominant groups in society (Government, majority groups etc) will pass knowledge, ideas or values onto future generation, influencing behaviour and interactions. (Manheim 1936) Definitions and ideologies are not universal. Politicians and sociologists debate causal reasons for poverty and homelessness. Those who are homeless and without resources fall within the category of “absolute poverty” which is defined as:

“ A condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not on income but also access to services.” (United Nations 1995)

The functionalist, Durkheim (1947), viewed everyone as having a role in order for society to function effectively. This is in line with some controversial right wing viewpoints that homelessness may be a dysfunction in the system. To them, “Society generally works”, therefore the problem is in the individual. It was Charles Murray (a Conservative thinker) who coined the term “Underclass”. He believed that by not participating fully in society, they socially excluded themselves. Murray also claimed that through cultural deprivation, the underclass, learn and accept contaminated values that are passed down through generations influencing growing unemployment, reluctance to work and unstable family life. (1989)

When Thatcher came into power in 1979, the aim was to decrease welfare, introduce means testing, ensuring only those in dire need received help. They believed that England was encouraging a dependency culture whereby too much support would rationalise a non-working response.

John Moore (Secretary of State in 1987) said this about dependency.

“Dependence in the long run decreases human happiness and reduces human freedom. The well being of individuals is best protected and promoted when they are helped to be independent” (1987, p263.)

The poor or underclass were therefore seen as lazy, not prepared to work for a living and in examination of their own moral character. Spencer (1971) called the poor “good for nothing”, “vagrants, sots and criminals”.

It can be seen how meritocratic ideology, criticised by Marx (1840’s), has trained some in society to concentrate on their own needs and merit at all cost, avoiding downward mobility into homelessness. Downward comparison theory states that comparing the self to others in less fortunate situations can increase one’s self-esteem. (Wills 1981)

Marxists, more in line with the old left wing thinkers (Labour) argued that Moore’s statement in 1987 was an ideological smoke screen to hide the injustices suffered by the poor. Marx (1840’s) argued that the survival of a hierarchal stratification system depends on those beliefs, attitudes and values of the dominant groups in society being passed down. (1964) The dominant viewpoint is that the poor are culpable for their own misfortune. This viewpoint places the responsibility on the poor and not on the shortcomings of the social system. It is by this ideology and the conflicting beliefs held between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that the status quo is legitimised, inequality remains and class unconsciousness is reinforced within the working and under classes. Poverty and social exclusion is the result of Capitalism. Labour, coming to power in 1997, claimed they were going to eradicate poverty and homelessness (Harralambos 2004). However, their implementations seem more in line with Conservative ideology. Marx believed that without a total transformation in the structure of society, poverty would not be defeated. (1964) With the poor still suffering from discrimination and deprivation, it appears that he may have been correct. However, Durkheim (1947) being a functionalist, believed that certain factors of structure held society together. Such factors stemmed from religious values. As an atheist, he believed that as a society we create a concept of God reinforced by practicing values and tradition, which enhance social cohesion. This is individually interpreted by different social cultures. However, Durkheim based his theory on secondary research, and omits factors such as individual experience, which fundamentally underpin such beliefs in the first place.

Structural theories give an understanding of how ideology influences societal interactions. They give insight as to how and why stigma towards the homeless is reinforced. However, such approaches have a macro stance on society, therefore do not take into account individual experiences of homelessness.

Weber (1947), acknowledged wider structural systems but stressed that it was meanings, motivations and ideas that determine events driven by rationalised thinking. It is social interactions, which drive such events. For example, he claimed that through modern beaurocracy, all aspects of life, including social standing, are institutionally controlled. This is influenced by ‘Calvinistic Ascetic Protestantism.’ i.e. The harder one worked and invested profit, the more one was guaranteed a place in Heaven. The wealthy, were the ‘elite’ and chosen ones leaving the poor (e.g and homeless) as undeserving. (Weber, 1958) Those who were homeless had little motivation for success, only for survival. Weber believed one has to study human interactions on a micro level in order to understand motivations (Weber 1964).

Blackman’s (1997) qualitative studies did just that. In a response to New Right thinking and in line with conflict theories, he found that none had sought to be homeless at all. Many had become homeless through adverse life experiences. He rebuked the concept of an ‘underclass,’ claiming it to be an ideological device used to deny societal responsibility to the disadvantaged by claiming that some people do not deserve governmental support. Instead he argued that the homeless were victims of society. Given genuine opportunities, many people will change to improve their situations. He felt that the homeless were negatively used as moral examples of the consequences of not conforming. The reason that many homeless do not take employment is due to the benefit system (positive discrimination) being so complicated that they end up financially worse off in low paid unreliable jobs (Blackman, 1997). Blackman’s qualitative study responds to socio-political stances, providing a lens into homeless ways of life, particularly with regards to what prevents them from moving on.

Seligman’s theory of “Learned Helplessness” (1975) demonstrated that continuous negative experiences could lead to passive resignation and acceptance of defeat (Banyard, 1996). From a slightly different stance, Goffman who studied “Asylums” found that patients and inmates from prisons and mental health institutions experienced depersonalisation of identity. These institutions have similar characterisations of rules, regulations and punishments influencing “situational withdrawal from the immediate environment.” Thus long stays produce institutionalisation, threatening survival in the outside world (Goffman 1961).

“Thus, if the inmates stay is long, what has been called ‘disculturation’ may occur- that is, an ‘untraining’ which renders him temporarily incapable of managing certain features of his daily life on the outside, if and when he gets back to it.” (Goffman, p23 1961)

“Release anxiety” will cause prisoners to re offend. Although life on the inside is demoralising, it still relieves them from economic and social responsibilities. They may have been at the “top of a small world” on the inside whereas they would become “bottom of a large world” on the outside. Equally, Goffman found that mental patients would “mess up” in order to stay incarcerated otherwise known as “colonization”. (Goffman 1961)

Due to depersonalisation these people lose a sense of self and have low esteem.” The social mobility that is restricted between the staff and inmate or patient on the inside will also affect their confidence and ability to communicate on the outside, creating social distance and distrust between them and the rest of society.

Many offenders and psychiatric patients from institutions have found themselves homeless due to social distance and stigma upon re-entering society. Furthermore, statistically, many homeless have offending and/or mental health problems (appendix 2). Goffman’s study examines factors, which prevent homeless people from progressing in society, but does not examine those who have not been institutionalised or the interaction processes between homeless people and other societal groups.

Boydell (2000) in a study into support networks for homeless people, found that limited emotional and practical support was given, creating alienation and social isolation. When studying interactions between housing authorities and homeless people, it was found that authorities reinforce a devalued sense of self through pre-conceptualised attitudes. One woman in their studies reiterated the following.

“They were saying, “You should try this place,” And I would look at a couple of addresses that they would recommend, and they were complete crack houses and really bad living conditions. And they would say, “Well you were living on the streets, so this should be good enough for you.” (Boydell et al 2000.)

When studying coping mechanisms, it was found that many homeless compared themselves to other homeless individuals and structured themselves hierarchically higher thus raising self esteem. Boydell’s (2000) studies are applicable to this report as they are qualitative relating to how homeless people felt about their identities and future aspirations. He claimed the need to study ‘concepts’ and ‘meanings’ held by homeless people. However this study was American so it could be argued as less relevant to English culture. It unsatisfactorily links macro perspectives with the micro. It examines institutional and societal attitudes and behaviours and homeless perceptions themselves.

Spierings (1996), focused on the life experiences and circumstances of those living in lodging houses in comparison to similar lodging types in other Countries (Birmingham, England). Through qualitative interviews, observing tenants, landlords and housing inspectors, the way of life in lodge houses was investigated. Spiering’s study was framed around Habermas and Schutz (1974), who argued that people are in charge of interpreting the meanings of their experiences, and do this through analysing social actions based on acquired knowledge. Habermas (1981) claimed that society should be seen as a relationship between the objective, social standards and an inner conceptual experience of the world. He believed that people’s personal situations are not just the result of their actions, but also the product of social organisations. Rules and regulations are barriers, excluding people and hampering their participation in Society, thus endorsing Habermas’s view to primarily focus on their individual needs in order to help. However, such needs are not being adequately provided. Many individuals slip through the net because provisions and facilities designed to decrease social exclusion actually do the opposite. Again, this study is not culturally specific to England. However it was qualitative and concentrated on interactions between the homeless and authoritative groups.

Based around Goffman’s asylum theory, longitudinal studies focused on twenty people living on the streets in Utrecht from 1993 to 2000. This involved firstly the biographical elements of the subjects, and interaction between the homeless and the institutional environment. The study found that perceptions of reality differed between the two groups. The homeless participants felt that while agencies find some solutions to their problems, they equally contribute to their social exclusion. This study highlights and reiterates what Goffman debated about the effects of institution and while Goffman based his theory mainly on institutions like hospitals and prisons, he was not neat on his definition (Goffman 1961). Therefore the same principles apply to institutions, such as hostels etc. Again, this was not a British study. There seems to be a gap where studies fail to interlink the macro with the micro perspectives.

Finally, it should be mentioned, that just as one shouldn’t generalise the entire homeless population with negative stereotypes, also it shouldn’t be generalised that everyone views the homeless as responsible for their own misfortune. This report investigates the perceptions held by homeless people of the treatment they receive in society and how they view their situation. In order to do this, assumptions should be disregarded as to the aforementioned generalisations, thus this research needed to find out what perceptions the general public hold towards the homeless. The two aims interlink with each other to form the title and aim of this report.

AIM: What are the perceptions of society and the homeless, from the viewpoint of the homeless and the homed?

Methodology

This is a qualitative study, which used semi-structured interviews towards the homeless and structured questions for members of the general public. For this purpose ‘opportunity sampling’ was used. In order to find out how the homeless respond to their circumstances and how they feel in response to public and authoritative perceptions, two different participant groups were studied. The study provides a qualitative stance on the homeless participants and a snapshot regarding public perceptions. . Although according to previous research, it was clear that there are stereotypical (stigmatic or sympathetic) perceptions as well as attitudes towards the homeless, one did not want to assume for this study that these stereotypes were representative of those in Norwich. Although this type of research exists elsewhere there seemed to be a lack of such present research in the area of Norwich City and the United Kingdom. The two samples were studied using different methods.

The first group concentrated on perceptions from the general public. Twenty-five people were approached in an opportunity sample. A short list of six questions was drawn up (see appendix 5a), which mostly required multiple-choice answers. However, participants were made aware that they could agree with, as many of the presented choices they felt were applicable. A response for an “other” category was also provided. In order to attain a less biased sample of the public it was decided that a Saturday afternoon, (2pm) was the best day to attain such a sample. A week day was more likely to get single mothers, and more unemployed people which would make it biased. The sample included a relatively equal mix between genders and the ages ranged between sixteen to over seventy years old. There was also a mix between what was assumed to be representative of lower and upper classes, ranging from students, working classes, middle classes and the retired.

Research was carried out outside of the entrance of Chapelfield shopping centre on St Stephens Street, Norwich. The Chapelfield centre caters for high class and working class citizens thus the participant representation would be more equal. There was not time for a long introduction and briefing. Questions were kept short as it was important to keep their attention and not take too much of their time. Therefore a quick introduction of self was performed and the questions proceeded. A participation pack, which contained a brief of what the study was about, a debrief assuring them of their rights to withdraw their data at anytime was given to each participant before they left. An email address was also included for them to make contact if they wished to see the results of the study. Therefore the ethics complied with the British Psychological Society’s guidelines. The ethics board before-hand had also approved the study. The rough timing of each participation took about ten minutes. The data was converted into table and graph form. All participants were thanked and reassured of their confidentiality rights. However, care was taken to dress casually, so as to not give off an overly distinctive impression of self and wrongly influence public responses, although a professional attitude was carried.

The second stage of this study used a semi-structured list of open-ended questions to interview seven participants. Five were male and two were female. Three of the males are not currently homeless but had been in the past. The females were currently sofa surfing and sleeping rough, while the other two males were sleeping rough also. The majority of ages ranged from between 23-30 years of age and two of the non homeless were in their mid fifties.

Questions were set around different themes. These included:

• Past and present life careers

• Causal factors of homelessness,

• Peers and social networks,

• Responses to treatment by the public

• Perceptions of authority and social control (eg. police, medical professionals and benefit agencies etc)

• Welfare and social support

• Future aspirations

• Perceptions of self, others situations and faith based transformations (see appendix).

Participants 1 & 2 were gained at opportunity within the City centre, whereas participants 5 & 6 are members of Kings Community Church. Permission was sought and granted by participants 3, 4 & 7 through Kings Care (who provide food and washing facilities to the homeless on Sunday afternoons) within Kings Community Church premises, Norwich. Permission was sought and approved by the Kings Care manager through an ethics proposal. Care was taken to dress and act casually, to display a humble and empathic but honest attitude so as to not appear judgemental towards them. Two of the female participants (3 & 4 currently homeless) and male (7 previously homeless,) were interviewed within Kings Care office. The interviews of participants 1 & 2 (rough sleepers) were carried out on the street and participants 5 & 6 were interviewed in a café within the City. Originally a poster was put up in Kings Care office requesting for homeless participants, however this was not used as participants were asked there and then for interviewing. All participants were briefed and debriefed as to the sensitivity of the topic area, reassured of their rights to confidentiality, anonymity, rights to withdraw and to see the results. Ethics were in line of British Psychological Society guidelines and ethically approved by the board. Participant packs were not given to this participant group, as they were verbally debriefed in full.

Interviews lasted between thirty to sixty minutes depending on the nature of their discourse and were recorded using a dictaphone. (See appendix 5a) Although the questions were semi-structured, initiative was used to adapt to their discourse therefore a hint of grounded theory was included with an etic/emic reflexive stance.

Due to the stereotypical attitudes, which have often been associated with homelessness, many of the questions centred on sensitive issues and factors. However care was taken to not show a judgemental or biased attitude to either group but to adapt the attire sensitively as appropriate. In analysing the data from the homeless participants, the method of discourse analysis was used. The results are as follows and begin with the general public response to and perceptions of homelessness.

Results and Evaluation for

General Public Response

Table 1. Frequency Table for Question 1

Q1)

Fig 1. Bar Graph to show frequency of yes and no scores

Table 2. Frequency Table for Question 2

2) What would stop you from buying a big issue?

Fig 2. Bar Graph to Show Most Popular Response to Question 2

Table 3. Frequency Table for Question 3 Responses.

3) What do you think causes a person to be homeless?

Fig 3. Bar Graph to Show Most Popular Response of Question 3

Response Code for Question 3

Table 4. Frequency Table for Question 4 Responses.

4) Why do you think people who are homeless would drink alcohol or take drugs?

Fig 4. Bar Graph to Show Most Popular Response of Question 4

Table 5. Frequency Table for Question 5 Responses

5) Who or what of the following are responsible for the continuing problem of homelessness?

Fig 5. Bar Graph to Show Most Popular Response to Question 5

Table 6. Frequency Table for Question 6 Responses

6) If someone on the street looked homeless and asked you for help, for example asked you for money, what would prevent you from helping?

Fig 6. Bar Graph to Show Most Popular Response to Question 6

Question Response Code for Question 6

Evaluation of Public Response

The results of the public response only provide a snap shot of what sort of attitudes and perceptions are held by the general public in society towards the homeless for Norwich in particular. Therefore there are no aims to generalise. The response to question one was that most people I asked, did not find those who sell the big issue a problem. Whether this means they do not see those who sleep rough as a problem is another matter. Time and financial considerations were the highest factors, into what could possibly prevent someone buying a big issue. Heble et al’s theory (2003), could be applied to this in that people may not buy a Big Issue because they have their own situations to deal with.. However, in this study many also expressed that they do not believe the money is used wisely. The same response was high as to why they would not give a homeless person money, because they think the money would most likely be spent on alcohol or drugs. This may be so as there is a link in statistics of addiction being associated with homelessness.

When people were asked why they think homeless people may drink alcohol or take drugs, there was a high response indicating they do it to cope and block out emotional pain. This hints that there is understanding to the reasons behind why a homeless person would drink or take drugs. This could also be due to the fact that drinking alcohol ett. is highly associated with “having a good time socially” or used to “cheer oneself up” when down. So it seems that compassion is felt but this does not mean that the general public want to get involved. This could be due to fear of not knowing the person or the implications of getting involved. This could relate to Giddens’ theory of individualisation and risk in a runaway world; people generally have self interest. Equally, Cresswell’s perception of danger theory could apply ,although in this study a perception of personal danger was not often referred to. Alternatively or conjunctively, as Phelan et al’s study found, it could be linked to a lack of objective information or blaming homeless people for their situation.

The perceived cause of homelessness was highly associated with the stereotypes of addiction. However, many of the public also associated the addiction with mental health (another related statistic), which highlights initial associations of stigma between mental health, poverty and addiction. Another response indicated the perception that homeless people “choose” to be homeless. While one should not disregard that this could be so for some, it is somewhat strange that a person should “choose” to be homeless unless one is a traveller. Therefore suggesting this for the majority seems somewhat inappropriate. It could be that using this explanation absolves individuals in society from responsibility.

Even though societal attitudes were another chosen factor for the continuation of homelessness, it is ironic that such individuals in this study did not regard themselves as part of these societal attitudes, therefore practicing a ‘self serving bias’. Government policy featured as the highest factor responsible for the continuation of homelessness. Many are aware that those who are roofless have slipped through the net of the current political social system. This certainly highlights what Goffman and Habermas said about the social system being a causation of homeless problems as well as a help. In this study, homeless people alongside the government and the rest of society were also (even though slightly less than the Government) deemed responsible for their own continuing predicaments. Perhaps opinion that the ‘government is failing’, is passed down the generations via public attitudes. It is suggested that through failing, the government is placing responsibility back onto homeless people. The public are of the opinion that the Government manipulates the truth through massaging statistics. For example, homelessness in Norwich is only measured by a count of those found living within the City walls. Furthermore, these statistics are only gained by a head count of those actually observed to be bedded down (see appendix for the interview with the manager of a Norwich homeless facility “The Ark”). From this small sample, it seems that irrespective of whom you speak too, the blame for homelessness is placed elsewhere. However, although a certain amount of compassion and understanding is expressed, personal and social responsibility is largely disregarded. Stereotypical preconceptions also seem high. So, although one cannot generalise this snap shot of attitudes, some attitudes have been highlighted.

Nevertheless, there were some disadvantages of this methodology, which could have affected the results. If there had been more word count availability, more participants would have been used as well as collecting qualitative data. Even though an “other” category was provided, the multiple-choice design could have restricted the full explanations behind each individual’s choices. This suggests the need for further research. It could be asserted that one had a biased incentive for this research, due to one’s personal experience of addiction and the associated threat of homelessness. However, one is not that naive and is aware that many homeless people may have contributed to their own predicaments and also that not all people in society display negative attitudes towards the homeless.

Analysis and Evaluation of the Homeless

When studying the responses from the homeless, the results were found to be based around nine themes (see methodology). Firstly, their living status had to be established. Two females were in between sleeping rough and sofa surfing. Two males were sleeping rough. Also, whereas with the past homeless, one is lodging, one has a council flat, another who used to live in Thetford Forest and on the street, now owns his house. This is how he lived. (see appendix for coding)

“I’d seek out(.) shop door ways that go in further than normal because the further you are into somewhere the more insular you are from the weather, and its darker (.) and (.) safer. Used to hide in the shadows (.) as it were.

T/Ppt6/L43-45:

Participant 4 does not always manage to find refuge either and this is how she fills her day.

“Yer it is freezing, well there’s three of us that sleep close together at some church place but cause there’s three of us it’s pretty warm even though it was really freezing last night.” T/Ppt4/L11-13.

“Just walkin around trying to find places to stay, but mostly, a lot of walking basically yer.” L29-30.

It should be stated that while some homeless people take drugs to get through the day, participants one and two do not take drugs, as they couldn’t afford it if they wanted to. Unlike general assumptions, some people who become homeless have often had decent jobs and have not taken drugs or been poor. For example, participant 1 was a forestry worker who became homeless through his relationship break up.

Council repossessed the house er (.) when the fiancé left me, cos the house was in er name (.) so they repossessed it. T/Ppt1/L15-16.

“(….) Yer, I I er had a place with my ex, two kids, job. I ad everything. Lost it all within a couple of weeks.” L118-120.

However, general public responses associated drug and alcohol addiction as high factors, either contributing to homelessness or as a result of it. The assumption that people either choose homelessness or at least bring it upon themselves may be so, however, one cannot totally dissociate the prospect that addiction is a factor. There are many other factors, which also contributed to this study of participants. As Blackman stressed, many of the subjects had also suffered bereavement, rejection, abuse, relationship breakdown or mental health problems. All these are traumatic experiences, which have played a part in their lives breaking down. Most participants in this study had suffered from one or many of these factors. Three in particular, suffered bereavement, two of which are below.

“Yer, erm the main reason was my daughter died in a traffic road accident. She got run over, she ran out in front of a car, me brother in law was down ere, and I started getting into drugs and then, went to prison, lost ma home and then just from there really.” T/Ppt3L 11-14.

Ppt: Right (.) and she committed suicide(The wife) and er I ad a break down (.) and because I didn’t have any constant abode or anything like that (.) I ended up on the street. And er because I was young, I didn’t ave a trade or anything like that cause my family was wealthy (.) I didn’t need anything before. All of a sudden I was

chucked out on(.) in terrible need (.) didn’t know how to (.) stand on me own two feet. T/Ppt6/L73-77.

Participant 3 had suffered horrific bereavement, and in order to cope, she ended up taking heroin. However, not all of the participants experienced this sort of trauma. Participant 5 experienced family conflict, possibly generating from previous parental break up, leaving him to feel pushed out of the new family construction. However, he took responsibility for his choices, explaining that he drank alcohol to deal with emotions and bad days from living in hostels since being 18. (See appendix 9) Participant 3 also admitted to getting involved with drugs and making some bad choices. Mental health has also been an associative factor. However, all these participants are individuals in their own right with feelings. Their stories indicate that mistakes can have overwhelming results of injustice in the long term.

Many responses from the general public displayed a certain amount of compassion and understanding for homeless people. Conversely, the homeless participants of this study, seem to have received the opposite from public behaviours, such as open abuse, labelling or social distance.

(Unwelcome or Invisible)

They treat you like you don’t exist. We’re not there. We shouldn’t be there. They look at us as if we’re just scum. T/Ppt1/L44-45, 48. A lot of people haven’t got time for homeless people because you see, they they haven’t got the time, er they don’t wanna stop to talk to us. (.) to ask us why we are here. L53-55.

(Social Distance)

I might aswell have been a leper. Cause there was a big (.) space. People would actually rather cross the road than to pass (.) in case a man (.) was begging. And I was always begging. T/Ppt6/L201-203.

In stating that he knew many that drink alcohol or take drugs, Participant 2 also spoke about the generalization of labelling.

Not everyone, I mean that that’s the problem, I mean we’re all labelled the same. I mean if people walk past and see a homeless person they assume your either on drugs or drink. I mean if I was on drugs or drink I couldn’t (sit up like this and talk to ya ?) so (laughs). T/Ppt2/L85-88.

Other forms of interaction from the general public were displayed through ignorance such as “Why are you sitting down there for?” on a bitterly cold day. Implying that some strange person who has a warm home to go to has just randomly decided to sit on a freezing cold pavement slab and enjoy the day. (229-239)

When begging, participant 7 also found that he would receive quite different responses, contrasting from genuine concern to cold, angry or bitter. Such as “Urgh, your not ‘omeless” or “oh e’s only gonna spend it on either alcohol or drugs.” Gender appeared not to make any difference, as participant 3 commented that people would shout things like “get a job” or “junkie” at her when they did not know her at all (L51-52).

This form of abuse implies laziness and unwillingness to work on the homeless person’s part and has been also displayed to other participants. Such an attitude is associated with right wing ideology, possibly passed down through society’s members.

In contradiction to this, many of the participants expressed a high desire to work. Participant 2 claimed that he would like to work but he can only do cash in hand work. Participant 6 had done cash in hand painting jobs. He claimed that he would have loved the opportunity for a full time job but was never offered one. This does not support Blackman’s finding, that homeless people did not take full time jobs in case they ended up in worse circumstances. However, participant 6 did express understanding later on as to why other homeless people may turn down opportunities.

“They’re frightened to change their position in case it gets worse. They’re frightened to take a chance to get better in case it gets worse. They’re (.) quite content to stay where they are”… TPpt/L1107-1110. “With handouts, because their safe. (.) (.) They haven’t, there are some people who got out of their box and (.) trusted people to actually (.) get better, (.) have a better situation, (.) but the people have let them down because they’ve only been doing something (.) for their own agendas. On their own (.) lifestyle ladders and when its come to it the actual nitty gritty and really helping the person they’ve actually turned their back on em.” L1112-1117. “And not only that but other people see that and they say (.) “go away (.) we don’t want any help”. L1121-1122.

Although the majority of this participant group had experienced negative responses from society (as well as some positive); some responded better than others. Asked why they thought people treated them in such a way, most of them believed it was due to the fact that if one has not had such an experience of these things, one will then not understand as such. Another suggestion was that many members of the general public are frightened of what they do not know and that they close their eyes to the negative problems in society, since as by ignoring it, they do not have to admit that something is seriously wrong in our society or admit personal responsibility. However, participant 5, although believing that stigma stereotyping occurs from aspects that are actually happening, felt that such stereotyping should not be generalised to the whole of the homeless population.

He responded with an explanation close to that of Lee et al’s theory of cognitive objective information.

“Yer, just cause of (.) the way they are perceived by society. Like I think the majority of society thinks if they don’t (.) know very much about it and they don’t know homeless people, (.) then they just got (.) what other people have told them that’s just hearsay really, like (.) what people told them and what they can see for themselves. Like (.) if someone looks rough then they’re not really gonna think that highly of them. Like when people have told them that they just spend all their money on drugs (.) then that’s what they’re probably gonna think.” TPpt5/L127-134. (Appendix 7)

Nevertheless, this kind of reaction, is akin to Goffman’s argument, concerning stigma, which leaves participants feeling somewhat “devalued”, with low self-esteem and negative views of their futures. However, people who have been homeless in the past have a more positive outlook now. Of course some participants were extremely self aware of other contributing factors associated with stigma, such as mental health. Participant 7 believes that mental health has had a substantial negative effect, which has remained with him throughout his life. He continues to prove to the rest of society (in respect to work), that he is “as good as any man”. (p 11) The female participants in the homeless group receive just as much stigmatisation, leaving them feeling worthless.

“Well it makes you feel like sh..t actually.(.) Your worthless. Cause ya know when it always gets thrown at ya, its always playin in the back of ya ed, “ya worthless” ya know?” T/P3/L74-76.

One factor, which was highlighted about stigma is that it is assumed that those sleeping rough are the ones that are on drugs or drinking alcohol. However, this was found not to be necessarily so for at least 3 of the rough sleepers. In fact it was found that it is the people in the hostels that drink and take drugs. This is the reason that pushes many of those who do not drink or take drugs out onto the street. They find it too intimidating in the hostels.

“I was in Bishop Bridge house. A hostel. I don’t stay there a lot cause it’s intimidating when you got people who drink a lot, they get nasty and well I don’t really want the hassle of it. But last night was freezing.” T/Ppt1/L232-234.

Participant 4 also steers clear as she is trying to stay away from drugs and finds it too tempting. Participant 5 who has spent the majority of the past five years in hostels, clarified that this sort of behaviour indeed goes on. He also said that the type of people that stay in hostels are quite similar in age and experience, claiming that they encourage each other to act this way, making them become like each other.

“Yer yer everyone’s either get drunk or er taking drugs. Most people.” Yer it’s it’s just that when you’re in there you got people with sort of similar problems. Stick them together and they’re all like tempting people to get back into their old ways, if they’re trying to get off something then they end up just doing it because there mates with other people who have got a similar sort of

problem. L25-29. “It just seeps into you and you just end up becoming that. Like each other.” L290-291

This, he claimed, was all part of getting through each day in order to cope with the boredom and depression of the reality they live in. Due to living in this type of setting, it does mean that disruption occurs, causing the odd fight and taking sides against each other. While this type of interaction happens in hostels, there seems to be quite a different interaction on the street. The roofless participants keep themselves to themselves within their own trusted groups. There is a sense of (alike to what Boydell 2000, found) where they do identify themselves, as hierarchically different from other homeless people who do drink alcohol or drugs, referring to them as “druggies or alkies”. While they show a sense of care for them, they show awareness not to cross certain members who they do not know. Participant 6 believed that when he was homeless in the 1970’s, “all” homeless people looked after each other, but that now it is getting worse. “Tramps are stealing off tramps” and as society is breaking down, ‘everybody’ is out for themselves.” (L347-248). Giddens has certainly expressed this in his approach to post-modernity and globalisation.

With this in mind for the next theme ‘perceptions of authority’, the participants displayed different opinions to different institutional authorities. For example, Doctors were seen mostly as compassionate, therefore respected. However, participant 7, stressed that due to having no fixed abode, they didn’t get the continuity of a mainstream Doctor. One participant said the police treated him as a nuisance whereas participant 5 found them ok.

Police have (.) always been alright but I know a lot of people with past history of offending dislike the police but ive always had alright experiences where they’ve treated me, I think a lot of the time, is if you treat them badly well then there gonna treat you ….TPpt5/L194-197.

Benefit agencies on the other hand, were viewed by all participants as judgemental and in some respects as very unprofessional. Habermas’s claim that provisions and facilities designed to decrease social exclusion, actually did the opposite to some extent, applies to this study. The stigma they feel towards homeless people seems to be portrayed through their work, or through their unwillingness to help. Participant 2 found himself made homeless by such means.

“Well I mean I became homeless originally because housing benefits screwed me claim up. T/Ppt2/L94-95 Well I got a letter from my Doctor, filled in I did everything I was asked to do, filled in all the forms , handed them all in, I was in me flat eighteen months, it took them eighteen months to tell me my rent had never been paid. And when I questioned them on it they blamed me for it and wanted the money in full. And I said “well how do you expect me to come up with that.” L99-104“Well if you cant come up with it by such an such a date you’ll have to move onto the streets” and that’s what happened. L108-110“They wouldn’t admit responsibility …” L116

When previously asked if he was on the housing list, he claimed that he was and laughed about the prospect that those who are roofless have less priority than those already in a flat who want to move. The Government strategy also states that they concentrate more on those about to be made homeless than on those who already are. Ex-homeless participant 7 when discussing who has priority, claimed, “If yer face fits society, ya get on. Sometimes ya got no hope, so yer at the bottom of the lift.” T5/L496-497. Being in prison can make it even harder to survive on the outside. Participant 4 found herself better cared for on the inside, somewhat applicable to what Goffman (1961) highlighted about “release anxiety”.

Another issue raised by Goffman was made apparent when discussing things that were needed for the homeless in society. Participant 5 expressed a strong need for a half way hostel with less rules and regulations but with things put in place to help the person graduate from dependence to independence.

“More sort of semi independent halfway houses that aren’t like a hostel with like loads and loads of rules and loads of sort of a routine like where you get institutions and that but more just sort of shared houses where where (.) with some help if you need it. Somewhere you can have someone staying the night even but where you can do things for yourself, people aren’t on yer back all the time but if you need help with cooking, budgeting etc but not forcing things down yer neck. But your not gonna be able to help yourself unless you want it but its gotta come from yourself. You cant have people pressurising you or hassling you cause that just gets people pushing away from you, but that you know that its there.” T/Ppt5/L244-252.

“Yer I think there needs to be some like (.) middle ground cause a lot o people get sort of a bit either babied in hostels or and they get things done for em and get cooked for em and cleaned up after em and they got a set routine where there’s meal times and you’ve got like curfews and stuff like that. (.) And then, they just get chucked into a flat and then they get someone just visit em once a week or whatever to check on em and stuff (.) and they cant do anything for themselves.” L259-264. “..A big percentage of people, that when they get their council flats they end up losing it in one way or another cause they cant handle living on their own or they cant handle payin rent or people who ave got different problems…” L277-280.

Although the participants appreciate the help that these hostels provide, they also likened the regulatory principles to that of institutions like prisons. Although such systems, (as Spierings 1996 also claimed) are created to benefit vulnerable people, they also contribute to their downfall. Through forcing rules etc. to certain extents, they are demoralising these people, taking away their ability to be independent and think for themselves. Many of these participants initiated the need for integrated small steps to help reform independence. Other ideas suggested by the participants were the need for more alcohol/drug free zones with washing facilities, with free food that are open 24/7. In terms of social needs, people who can help with filling in forms. Also help lines with a counselling network for those suffering from mental health issues or other traumatic circumstances. Closer networking between hostels and other homeless organisations, was also suggested to save time and energy with finding accommodation.

There were positive comments made about particular authorities such as some health authorities, which help with drug and alcohol issues, and many helpers within hostel and charity organisation. However, with the current state of circumstances already dragging them down, each of the homeless participants found that the stigma and prejudice they faced by other society members and/or authority organisations at times made them feel devalued. This further contributed to their distress and prevented them from improving their circumstances. In terms of the future, obviously their priority is to have a home, although after this a few of them have talked about college and work.

“I would love to have ya know I don’t care, even just a shared house and a room at the moment. But maybe in the long run I’d like to get a house with three bedrooms so I could have my children come round. I had a two bedroom flat a while ago you mean but you know one day I will. I’d like to go to college and that. Like firstly my GCSE’s and that but then id like to work with animals. T/Ppt4/L149-152, 181 & 185.

First thing Id want is somewhere to stay, somewhere to live. But I got a job already. Lined up. I mean the person (.) who does it said, look there’s a job waiting for you anytime. Once you get yourself sorted, he goes there’s a job waiting for ya. T/Ppt1/L11143-145.

So, the present homeless participants have their priorities in their immediate present and can only glimpse into the distant future. The conditions of their circumstances certainly would force them into that way of thinking for survival if anything else. Only one can hope that luck will come in their direction. As for the ex homeless participants, they have a home and a totally different way of looking at life. Where has their hope come from? When asking participants 6 & 7about where they had come from and how their lives had changed, there is a vast difference in the transformations and how they view society today. Here is a contrast of their lowest point to their best. Participant 7 had lost his true love and baby through a motorbike accident, he experienced sexual abuse and suffered a severe mental breakdown, which played a part in him becoming homeless. He described his emotions.

“ Very emotional, er (.) very anxious (.) very suicidal. (.)Felt like I was (.) livin on the edge. On the edge of (.) the uncertain. (.) But (.)life has completely changed. Whatever, you know (.) you see (.) so much beauty today.” T/Ppt7/L404-406.

When I (.) came for the homeless meal, and (.) a couple of elders prayed for me. I felt totally different, I felt like I was walkin on cotton wool. And then when they said there was gonna be a room waitin for me at the night shelter (.) That blew me away cause I’d presented myself to the night shelter (.) am I allowed to say where? (I nod yes.) night shelter? Bishop Bridge House. Er that’s (.) was amazing. T/Ppt7/L127-132. “I wanna tell everyone how good life is as long as you know and love the Lord.” L167-168.

When asked what he wanted to say to the people in society, he quoted the following:

Yer bein a (.) survivor (.) ya know bein counted, whatever and I wanna get on my high horse so much (.) and tell the authorities out there that (.) “you listen to us” cause we’ve all got our own story, whatavya and you listen good cause (.) some of you, if it appens to you (.) I hope you can cope. T7/Ppt7/L555-558.

“Well I’d reached a point where I wanted to die. But er I became a coward. Er I (.) couldn’t commit suicide. Was frightened to do it myself. But I didn’t want to survive. But I found that after a while (.) I didn’t need food. And I lost the appetite to eat. Er I forgot what it was like to drink a cup of tea or anything hot, I would drink from puddles in the stream. And I could survive (.) so long as I ad a smoke (.) ya know. (.) Someone gave me a roll up one day and I thought “right ill go and pick up dog ends off the street.” T/Ppt6/L490-496.

“I was scared and I was stinking. I ad lice (.) and me feet, me shoes fell apart. Had cardboard in me shoes, and when the cardboard gets wet (.) and then it dries up (.) and then it gets wet again (.) your feet go black. And its like that.” L502-505.

Spiritual Experience.

So my cheeks must’ve been cold. Or something (.) but I wasn’t (.) sad. I was filled with joy so I didn’t know whether. There wasn’t anything to explain, not even any high off any drugs or any alcohol or anything could explain the joy. T/Ppt6/L592-594

“Oh I couldn’t believe it, I couldn’t believe it. I was being given the help that society had collected to give me. Right?” T/Ppt6/L625-626. “And they didn’t want any payment for it. Ya know? (.) I couldn’t believe it. I was impressed, I wanted to be like them. So all of a sudden I ad a reason to live. I wanted to be like them. Ok? I didn’t know that I wanted to be like Jesus. But that’s what they were portraying. Ok?” T/Ppt6/L629-632.

So, where they once felt in despair and in insanity, unloved, ill treated, and uncared for with nothing to motivate them, they now have a new hope and a new motivation not to just live, but to thrive. These people claim that their hope has come from Jesus, the Son of God and who is God. Through his death and his resurrection, they have new life. Durkheim may argue that their lives have changed through the support and love of the people that helped them. If this is so, then what about the immense joy felt before interaction with these people even took place? The joy they felt, they claim to be from a spiritual revelation, without drugs or any other intervention. Spiritual experience, which does not rely on love from human source but from a much deeper source, it is this source actually that drives humans to love others beyond what is normally capable. Weber, had a point when he said it is motivations and ideas, which drives events. Yes it could be said that the love witnessed from these Christians is what helped to change them. But what motivated these people to love in the way that they did? From their perception it is the love of a power that is stronger than human force, which motivates Christians and what suddenly gave these down trodden people new hope. They had nothing to motivate them before this, nothing to live for and they were alone in the world. It was the idea (or in their knowledge) that actually they are loved, they are cared for and there is a purpose for their life. This love that changed them, was witnessed through the natural and through the supernatural presence and revelation of God. This is what these participants experienced (see appendix). It does not (as Durkeim argued) come from society making up their own values for if it did, it would not have been enough to change them for long. Human strength and love is not enough which is why the stigma of mental health and homelessness is still with him today, sometimes now because he is a Christian,

“People in society say that I needed a crutch in order to survive.” T/Ppt6/L826. “So, so they think I’ve gone all religious in order to er (.) be able to survive. That’s the crutch that I’m using in order, (.) cause I wasn’t man enough to do it.” L830-832. “But none of em, (.) society’d actually believe that there really is a God. (.)Otherwise they would’ve been there themselves. L835-836. But because of the truth that I’ve got is (.) upside down to logic sometimes. L848-849. People are gonna laugh at me. L853 And as I’m walking down the street talking to God, there gonna think “there’s a man talking to imself.” Steer clear. L857-858.

And sometimes even within the church

“There had to be a leader in the group. There wasn’t one person that actually (.) wanted to leave but was frightened that I was leadin the group. And they said to me “You don’t mind me being a leader in this group do you being as you’ve come out of the gutter. And we’re supposed to be Christians. (.) But that happened (.) last year. And I’ve been in this church ten years now.” T/Ppt6/L774-779.

Christians are called to “love one another” and try to live by these values but this does not mean they are perfect. That is why they claim the need for one who is. Where human strength may fail, Gods love and grace will prevail. If this man’s hope purely derived from societies practiced values then he would probably still be homeless.

When I probed him about what he thinks needs to be changed in society in order for things to change and to help those in dire need, he talked about love being the core motivator.

“Those kinds of people, they need in social services. Cause (.) without compassion (.), or without love (.) they’re sounding symbols, they’re actually rubbish. (.) Without love (.) or the love of (.) God or the heavenly words (.). The language of heaven, if you haven’t got the language of heaven in your lifestyle then you’re gonna have opposite gifts. Malice, pain, distrust (.) ya know? T/Ppt6/L902-906

Well if people loved each other and looked after them regardless of the money with that compassion I was talking about, the attitude of the people feeling good about themselves and lovin other people they’d wanna go to work. T/Ppt6/L1019-102. They wouldn’t wanna sponge (.) cause they believed in the people that (.)they’d be working for. They’ll ave (.) proper values. Then all things’d work together good and God be a part of it (.) those that love. L1024-1026.

Even without God as an issue, which is very sad thing to say. If people genuinely cared for people, and they valued people above their own gain. T/Ppt4/L1084-1085. It would be a much better society. L1089.

So, it seems that the ex homeless participants believe that people in society need to re-evaluate their own core values even without God as an issue.

Conclusion

Generally this dissertation has been a limited evaluation of attitudes within the population of Norwich. The attitudes of both the homed and the homeless populations in Norwich have been analysed and evaluated. This study in no way attempts to generalise the limited numbers of each participant group as a representative to their “whole” populations. As stated earlier the limited number of the people sought within the general public sample, is only to provide a snap shot of what sort of attitudes are out there in society. They were not intended to be qualitative as that was not the main crux of this report. The main point was to draw a qualitative response from homeless participants in order to find out how they felt were treated by others in society. Therefore no statistical conclusion was met but a general picture of feelings, attitudes and perceptions was found. There were some factors, which could have affected this studies outcome. To begin with, the last five or so minutes of Interview 2 was recorded over by interview 3, therefore some vital information could have been missed indicating that not enough attention was paid in this area. There were parts of interview 4 that were not totally dialogued but only where recording it down may have been insensitive to the participant, as she did not understand some of the terminology used. Care was taken to re interpret it but dialoguing this down would have been insensitive. Although questions were semi structured for a grounded theory approach, the homeless participants were not always clear on their direction so had to be redirected. Therefore questions could have been made clearer initially. My habit to interrupt when they were answering questions could have affected their answers and it could be taken that I was leading them into answers. It could be suggested that the study had a biased perspective due to my own past experience of alcohol addiction and threat of homelessness. Therefore my experience could have biased the results and conclusion. It could also be argued that the sample of ex homeless participants is also biased as they are all Christians and being that I am also a Christian this is a bias on my part. However, it was their choice to talk about God being their escape from homelessness and was therefore not influenced by myself. I purely based the following questions from their initial response. I also knew a couple of these participants through my voluntary work and therefore it could be said that I may have already primed them on what to say, however this was not the case. The fact that I know a couple of them could only help make them feel more at ease with the whole process. Alternatively it could be that my past experience also acted as a positive, enabling me to relate to all of the homeless participants as they also were able to relate to, and trust me. This was expressed through their ease of talking to me. A person without such past experience may not have retrieved such personal responses.

In respects to the sample it is unfortunate that there was not enough time or word space allocation to have a larger general public population sample, for this reason as already acknowledged, it can only be regarded as a snap shot and in no way representative of the Norwich population.

In respects to this it would certainly be advantageous to carry out a future study, which was larger and more representative of the population. This would take a qualitative stance for the general public response. It could be stressed that multiple-choice responses did not provide room for more justifiable explanations behind such responses, and therefore was biased into looking for only negative responses. However, this was not the case as the choices provided did provide for an “other” category. Nevertheless the study was successful as it did gain responses from both participant groups according to what it had intended to gain. Therefore, though the study was limited, it was possible to draw some conclusions that there are widespread deeply entrenched attitudes with regards to homelessness. The homeless perceive themselves as separate from society and likewise the homed, appear to regard the homeless as an underclass. Many examples have been given to demonstrate the depth and width of the stigmatisation that exists for the homeless participants within Norwich. It has been shown that the attitude of the homeless has widespread effects upon their ability to integrate within society, and these attitudes are so pervasive as to substantially prevent their movement toward higher levels of society. If society is to reduce the burden of homelessness then much further work will need to be done to address the perceptions of the homeless and of the homed within society, which clearly have an impact of their rehabilitation. From this study of the homeless in Norwich it has been demonstrated that the attitude of the homeless themselves are deeply entrenched and can be expected to have a significant and lasting effect in preventing their rehabilitation. It appears that society itself has a lesser perception of the stigmatisation than those who have been stigmatised. Nevertheless it is apparent that stigma in negative respects, is an issue, and is practiced through the behaviour and attitudes of many members of the public as well as authority members, towards those that are homeless in Norwich. Whether compassion is felt towards them, does not seem to influence a decision to decrease the social distance that is practised between them and homeless people. Although many systems are set to help the homeless and in many ways they do, however as Goffman rightly pointed out, their politics also contribute to their social isolation and further ensnare them in their debilitation. The Government may aim to eradicate homelessness in England by the year 2012, however, in order to do this, surely one needs to begin with re-evaluating values and motives. However, this seems unlikely in a “runaway world” where individuals are increasingly focused on their own self-gain.

Bibliography

Books

Banyard, P. (1996) APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY to Health. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Darlington, Y. and Scott, D. (2002) Qualitative research in practice STORIES FROM THE FIELD. Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Davies, M. B. (2007) Doing a Successful Research Project Using Qualitative or Quantitative Methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, A. W. and Stecher, B, M. (1987) How to Focus an Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol.1. London: Heinemann.

Hill, M. (2003). Understanding Social Policy. 7^th edition. Oxford: London.

Langley, P. (1999) Doing Sociological Research. Lancashire: Causeway Press.

Lawson, T. and Garrod, J. (2003) COMPLETE A-Z Sociology HANDBOOK. 3^rd edition. London: Hodder Arnold.

Riley, J. (1990) Getting the Most from Your Data. Worcester: Billing and Sons.

Yancey, P. (1997) WHAT’S SO AMAZING ABOUT GRACE? Michigan: Zondervan.

Journals

Merton, R. K. (1948) The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, pp 193-210.

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., and Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 55, pp738-748.

References

Articles

Boydell, K, M. Goering, P. and Morrell-Bellai, T, L. (2000) Narratives of Identity: Representation of Self in People Who are Homeless. Qualitative Health Research, 10 (1) pp26-38.

Books

Allport, G, W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blackman, S. (1997) “Destructing a Giro”: a critical and ethnographic study of the youth ‘underclass’ in R. MacDonald (ed.) Youth, the ‘Underclass’ and Social Exclusion, London: Routledge.

Crocker, J., Major, B,. and Steele, C. (1998) Social Stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4^th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504-552). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Durkheim, E. (1947) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: The Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1961) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Collier Books.

Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway World: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. London: Profile books.

Goffman, E. (1961) ASYLUMS. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1990) STIGMA. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Marx, K. (1964 first published in the 1840’s) The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. New York: International Publishers.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward Comparison Principles in Social Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, pp 245-271.

Heatherton, T, F. Kleck, R, E. Hebl, M, R. and Hull, J, G. (2003) The Social Psychology of Stigma, New York: The Guildford Press.

Spencer, H. (1971) Structure, Function and Evolution. London.

Weber, M. (1964) The Theory of Economic and Social Organisations. New York: Free Press.

(1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

United Nations (1995) The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action: World Summit for Social Development, United Nations, New York.

Electronic Journals

Lister, R (1989) Women, Economic Dependency and Citizenship. The Female Citizen. Journal of Social Politics. 10 (4) pp 445-467. Available at:

www.lic.law.ufl.edu/~hernandez/Women/lister.pdf (Accessed 4 Aug 2008)

Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D, R. and Bao, W, N. (2000) Depressive Symptoms and Co-Occurring Depressive Symptoms, Substance Abuse, and Conduct Problems among Runaway and Homeless Adolescents. Child Development. 71 (3) pp721-723. [online] Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/1132391 (Accessed 4 August 2008)

Phelan, J., Link, B, G., Moore, E, R., and Stueve, A. (1997) ‘The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label “Homeless” on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons.’ Social Psychology Quarterly. [online], 60 (4), pp 323-337. Available from:

Stable URL, www.jstor.org/stable/2787093 (4 August 2008]

Internet

Norwich City Council (2003) Homelessness Strategy [online] Available from:

www.norwich.gov.uk/intranet_docs//AZHousing%20jobs/Homelessness%20strategy%202003.pdf (Accessed 5 September 2008)

Homeless Link (2008) Homelessness and Housing Statistics [online] Available from:

www.homeless.org.uk/policyandinfo/facts/riskhomeless (Accessed 5 September 2008)

Duncan Smith, I (2006) The State of the Nation Report Economic Dependency [online] Available from:

www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/BB_worklessness.pdf

(Accessed 5 April 2009)

Communities.gov.uk (2008) Estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England-June 2008 [online] Available from:

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/roughsleepingestimate (Accessed 14 April 2009)

Communities.gov.uk (2009) Housing Rough sleeping publications and statistics [online] Available from:

www.communities.gov.uk/housing/homelessness/publicationsabouthomelessness/roughsleepingstatistics/ (Accessed 14 April 2009)

Van Doorn, L., Van Leeuwen, P (2005) Theoretical approaches in recent academic studies into homelessness in the Netherlands. [online] Available from:

www.//64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:aLd792khQZ0J:www.cuhp.org/admin/editDoc (Accessed 9 June 2008)

BIBLIOGRAPHY