Explain The Sociological Theory Of Homelessness By Emile Durkheim

In this essay I shall try to explore what homelessness is. Due to the complexity and diversity of the subject, I chosen to focus on the sociological theory of anomie popularised by Emile Durkheim. In doing this I hope to avoid the mire of ever changing policy and legislation, and find a steady viewpoint. I shall explore how anomie defines and creates the social condition of homelessness. In doing so I shall highlight the role society plays in maintaining a state of homelessness and the dualism of conformity and anomie.

French sociologist, Emile Durkheim defined the social state of anomie as a situation in which social and/or moral norms are confused, blurred, or nonexistent. Durkheim felt this state of “normlessness” gave rise to deviance
Their inability to identify with and internalise social norms and values creates disillusionment, and they internally remove themselves from a society that they cannot relate to and feel alien within. Most societies have a preconceived idea of how its members should conduct themselves, live their lives and what they should aspire to. For example, in Britain since the early 20th century the ideal of the nuclear family, with 2.4 children, a well paid job and a generally clean cut, law-abiding demeanour has been held up as the social ideal. Those displaying the desire to deviate from facets of this are seen as irregular and separate. Homelessness is a rejection of this societal and institutional power, an anomic insolence towards “playing the game”. In her book “The culture of homelessness” Ravenhill supports this, citing “rather than individuals being made to dress, act and behave in a manner compatible with mainstream society, they instead choose to create a society in which they are the norm” (Ravenhill 2008:154). Be this by not committing to the establishments of housing, employment, taxation, law or society. This can be seen in all homeless people from flouting laws on illegal substances, to having no fixed abode, to unemployment, begging and so on. These are all things that society teaches to be unsavoury and anti-social, as must be those who engage
The anomic fail to conform to the housed population’s dogma and values and the housed fail to see the hardships and struggles faced by the homeless. In their piece in the journal “Critical Social Policy”, Scanlon and Adlam echo this, stating; ”Rather than being seen as traumatized through shaming experiences of poverty, deprivation, neglect, and abuse, their anti-social stance is construed to be delinquent, deviant or offensive. In the face of this presentation the impulsive societal and institutional response, which operates both defensively and offensively, oscillates between opposing and irreconcilable impulses to ‘lock ’em in’, ‘lock ’em out’, ‘throw ’em out’ or ‘lock ’em up’” (Scanlon and Adlam 2008:540). This expands the divide between “us” and “them” on both sides, fuelling the anomic nature of the homeless to unite and remain separate. The consequent refusal of the homeless to bow to the power of institutions also feeds into this, strengthening the velocity of the vicious