In this study, a frequent response to the question “what was positive about living on the streets?” was “nothing really” or “most of it is negative.” However, if most of living on the
streets is negative, why do so many persist in staying on the streets and using? There is the ob- vious response that most individuals on the streets do not have a job or money needed to acquire housing. However, several individuals indicated that they enjoyed the relative freedom that the streets had to offer. For example, Lisa states, “you don’t have responsibilities. You can come and go as you please. You can do pretty much anything. You didn’t have a job.” She clearly didn’t mean that anything is possible materially. Rather, I believe she meant that time is not oc-
cupied in a structured way and you can therefore have a relative amount of “freedom”. Howev- er, this freedom is extremely relative, as drug cravings, threats of physical violence, and police patrols significantly shape a drug-using homeless person’s daily activities.
The dominant discourse on addiction recovery for homeless individuals suggests that de- tox and treatment are necessary first steps for reintegration into society (Bourgois and Schonberg 2009; Singer 2006b). Once treatment occurs, then an individual can begin job training, financial planning, and developing time management skills. If all goes as planned, the individual will ob- tain a low skilled job, say as a Kroger bagger, live in a single room occupancy hotel and exist on minimum wage. They will be placed on the bottom rung of the neoliberal ladder, with the hope that they will reject the pathology of poverty and begin making steps towards the moral middle class (Webb 2011). Essentially, the dominant model of treatment is implicitly linked to the
American dream: happiness obtained through Protestant-style work ethic, self-discipline, compe- tition, and wealth accumulation (Weber 2010). Typically, these treatment programs end-up be- ing labeled “turnstile” treatment initiatives, as many homeless individuals are unable to success- fully transition to a structured life that has little initial rewards.
Many homeless individuals may have already tacitly rejected this notion of happiness or have reached an age where meaningful advancement in the neoliberal ladder is not realistic. So while an individual may want to recover, they may not want to spend their remaining years working in difficult manual labor, barely able to pay rent and disconnected from meaningful so- cial interaction. Ambivalence arises when a conventional model that acknowledges the limits that addiction places on personal and social growth conflicts with a model that rejects the Ameri- can dream and views drug use as a legitimate way to escape the confines of a meaningless linear life course. “Recover to what?” is the unspoken question that underlies treatment discourse.
Failure to adequately address this question perpetuates ambivalence to change.
Local non-profits and homeless service organizations should create more tight-knit resi- dential worker communities for homeless persons seeking to recover from an addiction may pro- vide a means to address this ambivalence. Residential spaces like the Open Door Community provide a secure buffer against instability and accept each person as an equal or near-equal con- tributor. Adequate food, water, shelter, and some material entertainment significantly reduce anxiety about survival. Based on my findings, these basic needs have to be met on a consistent basis to enable lasting recovery.
Ideally, supportive recovery communities for homeless persons could include both home- less and non-homeless persons. If only homeless persons were grouped together, this may serve to reinforce class divisions and not provide connections to non-homeless networks. Requiring
abstinence in these communities would ensure that individuals recovered in a socially supportive environment that fosters “non-addict” identities. The benefits of emotional and psychological
support and gradual formation of trusting relationships would also facilitate lasting recovery. These communities would not have to be labeled “treatment” programs. Removing “treatment” from the title of these supportive communities, may help attract current drug users on the streets as stigma for engaging in recovery could be potentially reduced. Homeless persons could live in these communities as long as they liked, provided they also did work.
Work, initially separated from wage labor, would be a central component of these com- munities. From my research, I found that productive work in a supportive environment that is done for inclusion, personal development, and material sustenance helps give individuals a sense of self-confidence and efficacy. It also helps strengthen bonds between individuals within the community as they learn to rely on one another. Working in a controlled environment will help foster trust and routine actions, which also help reduce paranoia and uncertainty associated with drug use. Intentioned work within a materially and socially supportive community, would allow an individual to have a much better chance of recovering than if they were simply put through a detox program and reintroduced to the streets.