Driving from New Orleans to Las Vegas this June, I was struck by the fact that every roadside I saw, everywhere, had a fence separating the shoulder from the land. Not only was every parcel of land owned, travelers had to know it. Mine. Keep out.
There are lots of reasons why people become and remain homeless, but one of them is “private property.” Private property, of course, isn’t real. People made it up. But because the vast majority of us accept the concept and enforce it, it persists as a reality that structures people’s lives. For example, we’re not allowed to build a house just anywhere there’s space. We can’t just tap any aquifer you please, no matter how much we need water. If we want to go camping, we need permission from a property owner or we have to pay a fee at a public or private park. And, because of private property, if you can’t afford to buy property or rent space from a property owner, you are homeless. Homelessness, then, is a function of our commitment to private property.
I offer this as a context with which to view these photographs that accompany a story in the New York Times about a tent city in Providence, Rhode Island. The residents of the tent city call it “Camp Runamuck.” As the pictures below show, the 80 or so members of Camp Runamuck have a pantry, a bathroom, a kitchen, and a recycling center. They also have rules (e.g., no fighting), a democratically elected “chief,” a “leadership council,” and a social contract that they have all signed. They share labor; they cook dinner for one another. However, despite the fact that they’ve made a home for themselves, they are officially homeless. And state officials have now officially told them that they are not allowed to make their home there.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 23
Jennifer — August 7, 2009
That certainly looks a lot different from what I gather most people conceive of as homelessness. I'm intrigued by the idea, but I can see why state officials might have a problem with it.
Very thought-provoking post.
mordicai — August 7, 2009
Calling a social construct "not real" isn't very helpful; it certainly is real, in the same way names are real, money is real, relationships are real. Tangibility isn't the defining trait of real.
& at least according to the article, they are being told to go because the bridge they are squatting under is unsafe & is about to be demolished. Hardly the cruel fist of mindless authority.
The Nerd — August 7, 2009
Is there a place people can go to live as they choose, legally, without having to pay for it? I could see such a setting where people work together as a way for people to get on their feet, be able to go out and search a job with no horrible pressure on them to take the first crappy position available. Or maybe they're self-employed! Why is it that people are required to earn money and pay for a location to rest at night when they have the skills to live alternatively?
A Brief on Homelessness « Economies in Cultural Perspective — August 7, 2009
[...] Brief on Homelessness Jump to Comments This post from Contexts asks: What makes a person homeless? There are lots of reasons why people become and [...]
Trabb's Boy — August 7, 2009
American land has always belonged to somebody. Even the pioneers, about whom libertarians wax so poetic, were given permission to select and occupy certain amounts of land that were then legally transferred to them. And with ownership comes liability -- you have an obligation to ensure the safety of people on your land. So where homeless people camp, they are creating a risk to the person or entity that owns that land.
In the above situation, where the land is owned by a government, homeless people are by and large treated better than when the land is owned by a private entity, partly because of the political consequences and partly because the government can exempt itself from various property law consequences.
Homelessness is a nightmare, and urban homeless shelters are often drastically underfunded, and they can only ensure basic safety by imposing draconian rules -- often including splitting up families by sex. These tent cities that are run cooperatively seem very warm and wonderful to some people, and like a disaster waiting to happen to others, when the crazy guy who wants his wife either back or dead comes charging through or the alcoholic drops her vodka and cigarette inside the tent or the available water gets contaminated with human waste.
I don't think the answer is being kinder toward tent cities or abandoning notions of property. The answer to me is a greater sense of community in this hyper-libertarian society and a reasonable amount of funding to protect people from homelessness in a way that neither breaks up families nor exposes them to dangers they do not have the abilities themselves to prevent.
Leigh — August 7, 2009
It reminds me of Freetown Christiania in Norway. I think that has existed for 30 some years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
Carla — August 7, 2009
I have to take issue with the idea that private property rights are a "reason" why homelessness exists. That's true in a very general sense, but that idea does little to actually address what causes homelessness within the context of a modern society. I could argue that the allocation of scarce resources is a cause of poverty, but that isn't a particularly useful or intelligent commentary on anything.
It would be more precise to say something like, "A society that protects private property rights is one that, by its nature, gives rise to homelessness."
Chris — August 7, 2009
The fence is often there to protect the road, not the property. It blocks livestock, or channels wild animals to underpasses and other safe places to cross, or blocks blowing tumbleweeds, etc. Nothing will ruin your day like hitting a deer (or cow) at 80 mph on a rural interstate at night.
Nathan — August 7, 2009
In a sense, people didn't "make up" private property. Many animals, and not just mammals, are fiercely territorial. Why should it come as any surprise, or receive unwarranted condemnation, when people wind up doing what comes naturally to so many different creatures?
AR+ — August 7, 2009
I am reminded of the effects of rent control on housing. First of all, a nation which practices rent control as the US so often does is most certainly not a nation that respects private property in housing, as the author seems to be suggesting, and further, a great deal of the lack of decent, low cost housing is almost certainly attributable to that very same lack of commitment to enforcement of private property rights.
Annoyed — August 7, 2009
@Nathan, an animal that is not welcome in one territory can find another. And can usually find food and a way to survive in their own territory. Territories are very different from the idea that you either have to have capital or work for someone with capital in order to have a territory. That is not the natural order of things. If we were living "naturally" I could leave society and find some land somewhere (my own territory) and survive. But that is no longer possible. While we think of things like private property and nation states as having been forever and being natural, they are very far from it. They are very recent ideas.
Ryan — August 22, 2009
How can a person have a home when there is no private property?
Omnom — July 6, 2011
These guys must be so disgusting!
LETLE — December 2, 2011
LIFE IS A WATERFALL ONE IN THE RIVER AND ONE AGAIN AFTER THE FALL!
Eun sung — December 2, 2011
this is so hard for people ................. we have to satart heiping them :)