In mass discourse unhoused and homeless are made use of as near-synonyms.
Yet, these terms hold semantic distinctions and should carry even greater terminological
differentiations. Instead of holding unhoused and homeless as near-synonyms, it would
be more useful to differentiate these terms. To be unhoused is a governmental matter
while to be homeless is a private or private sector failing.
Being unhoused implies that one should have a dwelling assigned to them, with
this assigner mostly likely being the state. The push for the term unhoused when
discussing individuals with residences is not just about respect, political correctness, or
sensitivity, but carries ideological weight. Unhoused implies that one should be provided
with a house and only due to some error a house has yet to be granted.
I am not stating that housing should or should not be provided to individuals as a
basic human right or in any other form. Rather, unhoused carries a weight of implication,
and is a byproduct of leftist ideologies, even if those ideologies are agreeable.
Unhoused demonstrates not a lack of possession like its partner homeless, but shows
an absence of something owed. The unhoused already possess the promise of housing,
yet, still, they find themselves without a house. Terms such as unmarried or unwashed
work in a similar manner to unhoused. Unmarried and unwashed imply potentials that
have not been fulfilled. In the same way, one could be permanently unmarried or
unwashed one could tragically remain forever unhoused.
Returning to leftism, there are some leftist circles where governments should
guarantee housing. The propagation of unhoused only advances this moral political
calculus. Unhoused is meant to point to the government, the fact that there are
unhoused people is a failing of the government. This is also why conservative pundits
have not shied away from a lefty activist term, any language that can be used to
delegitimize the government is fair game for conservatism. Nonetheless, unhoused
should be the proper term if one believes that the massive of individuals who lack
dwellings is due to government insufficiency.
However, classifying unhoused could have a linguistic drawback, especially if the
term implies that governments should grant housing to their citizens. By this particular
definition, everyone who bought a house through the private sector is unhoused. If one
was not given a house by the government then they are unhoused. Still, this may be no
real problem, as unhoused more so demonstrates that one is without a dwelling. So the
term unhoused remains sufficient as long as one ignores the lingustic drawback.
Homelessness could be used alone or in denial of unhoused notions.
Homelessness as previously stated shows that one is without a possession. To be
homeless is to be unable to acquire the possession of a home. This can be seen as a
failing by the fault of a private individual and or the private sector, at least via
implication. Of course, some people make claims along the lines of, ‘homelessness is
the fault of the government.’ However, can the government be blamed for someone
being guitar-less or coffee-less, likely not. So the suffix ‘less’ implies a market
exchange; such as paying less or being given less product for the same price.
It is also important to note that a home is not the same as a house. A home is not
simply a physical structure but can be a community and or a sense of place. Meanwhile, a house always refers to a physical structure. Homelessness points to being without a
place to go to while unhoused only points to not having a physical shelter to go to. This
is also in part why homeless and unhoused are seen as near-synonyms, in modern
minds homes have a direct association with houses. This is also why outlets like Fox
News are willing to use the term unhoused at times over homeless. There is an already
established association with homelessness, most modern people already have an
image when the word homeless is brought to mind. Because of this, Fox News can
point to someone as being ‘just unhoused’. A ready-made mental image of being
unhoused does not exist for the vast majority of people, it comes across as a technical
pedantic when the homeless image already exists. It can be asked then ‘Why use the
term unhoused, we already know homeless people don’t have a house’. Yet, there are
plenty of individuals without a house who have a home. Van-lifers have a home if not
many homes, but these individuals often do not possess a house. To be without a house
by choice is not the tragedy of homelessness or being unhoused.
In the midst of all of this homeless and homelessness can be framed as being
bloated terms as they come with too many notions to be of any real utility.
Homelessness as presently understood points to personal and governmental
responsibility. Homelessness as presently regarded points to a tragedy and unjustly
criminality. Homelessness as currently understood points to both a lack of community,
place, and the physical structure of a home. Instead, by having homelessness and
unhoused point to different phenomenons that need to be addressed. Right now
homelessness advocates are trying to do too much, there is a potential efficiency that
could occur by having homelessness advocated and unhoused advocates. All of this
potentiality is lost if unhoused comes to simply replace the term homeless. Unhoused
advocates could spend all their time petitioning governmental bodies while
homelessness advocates could work with individuals and their communities directly. If
unhoused simply replaces homelessness as the preferred term it will simply become as
bloated of a term as homeless already is. Amongst members of the homeless
communities, the term homeless is seen as an adjective and not a pejorative. In the
minds of many being homeless is a pejorative but this is not universal, homeless is only
a pejorative only in the sense that Latino is a pejorative. Just because some hold
inherently negative views toward Latinos does not mean that Latino itself is an
inherently pejorative adjective. In the case of using the term homeless versus
unhoused, there is no need for the verses as there is no existent harmful term. Instead,
the emergence of unhoused is an opportunity for us to expand our vocabulary instead of
merely replacing terminology. Instead of creating a tangential debate over terminology
that is not pejorative, the uses of both homeless and unhoused together provide the
opportunity to expand the conversation around those who exist without dwellings.
Homeless remains the term preferred by the homeless themselves perhaps out
of sheer habit, familiarity, lack of exposure, and or a personal preference compared to
unhoused. Yet, homeless and unhoused do not have to be used irrespective of one
another. One can commit to the notion that the massive amount of individuals lacking
dwelling is due to a combination of governmental plus private and or private sector
factors. Using these terms separately could also assist in parsing out what governments
and private aspects can do separately to get individual dwellings. Governmental and
private roles can often be conflated, this is no different with unhoused and homeless matters. Unhoused issues are governmental issues surrounding those without housing.
Meanwhile, homeless issues are private issues surrounding those without homes. Here
lies the difference that is largely being made mainly by implication against the near-
synonymous usage of unhoused and homeless. These are not merely interchangeable
terms but terms that can easily imply differences if those implications are examined.
These examinations of implications also speak deeper to the nature of a crisis, that
governments and the private have their separate roles to play as to why people are
without dwelling. This does not mean that governments and the private are
independent, but each has their status such as how unhoused and homeless have their
status. One can be both unhoused and homeless, this double status is the typical
nature of the burdensome beast. Still, it should be the role of governments to end the
unhoused crisis and the role of private to prevent homelessness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony David Vernon earned his master's degree in Philosophy from the University of New Mexico, his work is highly varied touching upon subjects including dis/ability studies to romantic relationships.
留言