Agency in advanced liberal services: grounding sociological knowledge in homeless people's accounts

Abstract

This paper aims to understand how people who are homeless respond to advanced liberal social services that endeavour to promote their autonomy and responsible actions. We prioritize the experiences and positions of people who are homeless, and what agentic action means to them. Sociological literature is selective about what accounts are deemed agentic. Agency is associated with accounts that resist or subvert dominant neoliberal framings of homelessness as failure of individuals. When people experiencing homelessness or poverty themselves foreground autonomy or responsibility, sociologists treat them as cultural dopes who have internalized neoliberal discourse. Our analysis is driven by an ethnographic study in an Australian homelessness shelter. We demonstrate how people who are homeless neither outright reject nor completely embrace advanced liberal practices to influence their actions and promote autonomy. People engaged in relational reasoning. Paternalist and advanced liberal social services were both lauded and rejected for their capacities and limitations to realize a good life. We contribute to the discussion for sociology to value people's accounts and experiences, rather than broader social process explaining their accounts. From the perspectives of people who are homeless, we show that just because something appears neoliberal does not mean it should be automatically rejected.

Agency and clientship in public encounters: co‐constructing ‘neediness’ and ‘worthiness’ in shelter placement meetings

“…The stigma of being homeless works as a little story that connects to bigger stories of ‘appropriate behaviour’ of both citizens (active) and clients (passive). Consequently, there is no such thing as shelter residents’ absolutely rejecting or completely embracing the identities made relevant by today’s service model (Parsell and Clarke : 3). For instance, in two interview studies with homeless service administrators (Wasserman and Clair ) and representatives in a housing agency (Schneider ), it was shown that homeless people do not necessarily get a particular service simply by claiming it; instead they need to match specific service criteria (Wasserman and Clair ).…”

“…Staff either ‘(1) subtly assist the clients in telling their stories, (2) focus on establishing the veracity of their accounts, (3) confront their stories as “irrational,” or (4) dismiss client narratives as of no institutional interest/importance (i.e., institutionally inappropriate)’ (Marvasti : 649). Alongside research on the agency of homeless people (Parsell and Clarke ), research on types of homeless ‘talk’ (Carr ; Gowan ), the storytelling of homeless people (Snow and Anderson ) and staff approaches to the homeless person’s narrative (Marvasti ) has inspired our approach. We expand his research by examining the agency involved in real time co‐constructions of clientship in placement meetings and by examining these ‘little stories’ in relation to the ‘bigger story’ of appropriate behaviour of clients and citizens.…”

“…The agency of vulnerable groups such as homeless people is a much debated theme in sociological research (Parsell and Clarke ). Often researchers try to derive agency from social structure (Farrugia and Gerrard ; McNaughton ) without taking the vulnerable groups’ own situated explanation and sense of agency into account (Parsell and Clarke : 2). Approaches that illuminate the social structures of homelessness (Sommerville ) and why individuals end up without a home are important, not least for policy making.…”

“…Approaches that illuminate the social structures of homelessness (Sommerville ) and why individuals end up without a home are important, not least for policy making. However, within the field of homelessness there is a more Goffmanian branch of literature that focuses on the agency of homeless people and the way staff and homeless individuals make sense of homelessness (e.g., Carr , Parsell ; Parsell and Clarke ).…”

“…In these studies, it is homeless people’s character work that takes centre stage, for instance how discourses of ‘sin‐talk’, ‘sick‐talk’ and ‘system‐talk’ affect the way homelessness can be understood and managed as, respectively, a moral offence, a pathology or a product of system injustice (Gowan ). In these studies, the agency of homeless people has to do with ‘their capacity to make sense of their socially conditioned circumstances and identities’ (Parsell and Clarke : 2); for example, whether the homeless individuals are openly critical toward staff or display ‘honest, open and willing talk’ (Carr : 149). These studies have shown how homeless persons establish service‐worthiness by presenting themselves to staff as genuinely in need and morally worthy of the help offered (Carr ; Marvasti ; Meanwell ).…”