Hot Tea, Dry Toast and the Responsibilisation of Homeless People

Abstract

This article sets out to critically explore the expanding and contested vocabulary of ‘responsible citizenship’ as it relates to homeless people in a small market town in rural Dorset. Taking as its reference point the controversial decision to introduce a payment system for hot food at a day-centre for rough sleepers, I offer a concrete illustration of how the desire to cultivate ‘active’ and ‘responsible’ citizens is experienced and perceived by people who are affected by homelessness and other dimensions of ‘deep’ social exclusion. My concern here is to show that the logic of ‘responsibilisation’, which I suggest aims to ensure that difficult and troublesome individuals are made to accept prevailing social norms, draws its sustenance from a more fundamental concern with refashioning the meaning of contemporary citizenship. In so doing, I focus on the particular problems with this approach, using an alternative approach that argues that the problems and vulnerabilities associated with entrenched and chronic homelessness remain a significant obstacle to social inclusion and meaningful participation in community life.

Places of Sanctuary for 'the Undeserving'? Homeless People's Day Centres and the Problem of Conditionality

“…However, they quickly found themselves relegated to the margins as funding conditions that required a commitment to resettlement targets and the acceptance of a high degree of surveillance threatened their autonomy and their traditional ethos of open accessibility. Whiteford (2010) has shown how this conflict has been played out in the tensions that arose for a day centre expected to start charging homeless people for its food. His case study illustrates the issue that is at the heart of the dilemma faced by day centres in the context of contemporary urban developments and strategies for social inclusion:…”

Perspectives on responsibility in practice as revealed through food provisioning offers for rough sleepers

“…This has further emphasised the expectation of self-governance by individuals in their private lives to achieve public policy objectives as the responsibilities of the state have correspondingly decreased following the 'roll-back' of the Keynesian welfare state and 'roll-out' of varying neo-liberal practices (Peck and Tickell, 2002;May et al, 2005;Barnes and Prior, 2009). The ideas of responsibility and responsible citizenship and their subsequent manifestation into governing strategies for and behavioural disciplining of particular 'problem' groups, such as the homeless, have been critically considered through the discourse of 'responsibilisation' (May et al, 2005;Whiteford, 2010Whiteford, , 2013Staeheli, 2013). In the next section I review the discursive rhetoric of responsibilisation in relation to rough sleepers (street homeless) in England as outlined in policy documents published by successive central governments and the localised negotiations of responsibility for rough sleepers that have arisen from this approach.…”

Modes of Attentiveness: Reading for Difference in Geographies of Homelessness

“…In the UK these differences are evident in the homelessness field too, with differences in the ethos and approach of different faith‐based organisations not always aligning in any clear or consistent way with the structure and scale of the organisation in question. For example, whilst it is the case that a significant number of Britain's larger third‐sector service providers, including FBOs, would indeed appear to have become incorporated into the neoliberal governance of homelessness—with a number of Britain's Salvation Army hostels which are in receipt of public funding expected to ration their beds according to strict eligibility requirements rather than on an open access basis—some smaller faith‐based organisations in this field also seem to have taken on the notion of “responsibilisation” at the heart of the Places of Change agenda (Whiteford ).…”