4 ms·

Can someone explain to me why "houselessness" is a term? Doesn't it refer to the same thing as "homelessness"?

thelock85 5y ago
I honestly would not know, though at least in the U.S., "home" has an emotional and cultural context that "house" does not (e.g. the saying/song lyrics "home is where the heart is" or more objectively, a landlord owns many houses but has 1-2 homes). There is also a push to refer to people without a place to live as "unhoused" for some of the same reasons. You can have spaces, places, communities that feel like "home" and still not have a safe, consistent, reliable place to eat, sleep and keep up your hygiene. IMHO there is also the issue of who is accountable. Home is personal so homelessness might be seen as a personal challenge. Whereas house describes a structure and asset so houselessness might denote both the individual plight and the greater socioeconomic and political forces at work. At the end of the day, I suppose those most affected or most dedicated to addressing the issue should use whatever term fits.
me_me_mu_mu 5y ago
Feelings probably. Because so many people have three or more homes now while so many more will never be able to own even one let alone afford rising rents. So they feel bad for the moment and make up words so they can feel better and probably superior.
homonculus1 5y ago
Once upon a time the "houseless" were called "vagrants" [1]. Due to the associative nature of human pattern recognition, the word "vagrant" acquired a connotation reminiscent of unpleasant experiences involving its referent. To insulate their communication from this evocative power of language, activists steered institutions toward a new word ("homeless") and the general public eventually followed suit. But word choice does not change the underlying phenomenon, and so "homeless" was fated to acquire the same nasty connotation as its predecessor, and is now getting replaced again. Note that the literal nature of "homeless/houseless" actually broadens the category, which is kind of cruel to people who are more functional and only temporarily homeless. [1] And before that, "bums", "indigents" etc.
- wordnerd2022 5y ago
  This is called the Euphemism treadmill http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/04/john_mcwhorter_on_euphemisms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0...
wordnerd2022 5y ago
Likely an example of the Euphemism Treadmill http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/04/john_mcwhorter_on_euphemisms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0...
porknubbins 5y ago
I believe this is an example of what Wesley Yang refers to as moral entrepreneurism. By inventing ever more sensitive and politically correct language these “moral entrepreneurs” create a moral heirarchy where none existed and they are more virtuous than those who do not use the updated terms.
Overtonwindow 5y ago
It's more politically correct? There has been a push to make some terms more politically correct, such as instead of homeless, to unhoused; illegal immigrant to undocumented, etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wmeredith 5y ago
George Carlin made som great observations around this. "Here’s an example. There’s a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse. In World War I it was called 'shell shock.' Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. It almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was more than eighty years ago. "Then a generation passed, and in World War II the same combat condition was called 'battle fatigue.' Four syllables now; takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. 'Fatigue' is a nicer word than 'shock.' Shell shock! Battle fatigue. "By the early 1950s, the Korean War had come along, and the very same condition was being called 'operational exhaustion.' The phrase was up to eight syllables now, and any last traces of humanity had been completely squeezed out of it. It was absolutely sterile: operational exhaustion. Like something that might happen to your car. "Then, barely fifteen years later, we got into Vietnam, and, thanks to the deceptions surrounding that war, it’s no surprise that the very same condition was referred to as 'post-traumatic stress disorder.' Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon: post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed." He called it softening of language. You can read more here: https://www.thoughtco.com/soft-language-euphemism-1692111 https://www.thoughtco.com/soft-language-euphemism-1692111
colechristensen 5y ago
There’s a revolving door of language where people who should have better things to do insist that terms referring to sensitive groups be renamed every few decades because the old term became immoral. Occasionally there’s good reason for it but usually it’s a strong signal that the people talking about it have a weak sense of solving the problem and a strong one of projecting the image of solving it.
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  > strong one of projecting the image of solving it. That would be just good business sense, if you know that failing to get your grant application to the top of the pile is going to mean spending a lot more time on LinkedIn.
fargle 5y ago
Everybody who points out for example @IanDrake, @aaron695 that this might have to do with drug addiction or even metal illness is immediately downvoted and shouted down into oblivion. I'm sorry, these are valid points of view - if you disagree, fine, but have a dialog or something. There's a lot more than just "zoning rules don't allow us to make enough new houses" and if you're going to say anything at all, you need to address that - not just strut around virtue signaling.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Drug addiction and mental illness are endemic aspects of the problem, but not definitive. Often enough, the problem is just badly designed society. Drug addiction treatment, mental illness treatment, unemployment help, general medical help are all needed both to get people able to maintain, and to keep others from falling out of place. Mental illness and addiction are not moral failings. Treating them as such has been reliably demonstrated to make things worse. Treating them as illnesses has likewise been demonstrated to produce better results. But the US has long had a terrible problem with letting people have medical treatment they need.
  - fargle 5y ago
    I concur with all of this. And well said. What I was reacting to was two other commenters saying something similar and getting silenced for it. Not disagreed with or challenged or anything, just squashed. > badly designed society This the only nit I'd have with what you said. I'd say that it's a flaw in society perhaps, but I don't thing our society is designed by anyone or thing, and I don't know how it could ever be, nor maybe should ever be. In a free society, it evolves. And while some forces are trying to re-design, re-engineer, and steer parts of it, there are millions of other forces semi-aligned or opposed and pushing in all sorts of different directions. That makes the outcomes develop in a chaotic and unpredictable ways. And certainly flawed, but also on the whole, not terrible. So overly simple pat "answers" like "fix the zoning => affordable houses => no more homeless" or "tiny homes" or "use a new term to destigmatize..." are of course going to get nowhere. We have to recognize all the flaws and problems and push just in the right way to nudge that society of millions in some direction that will hopefully just slightly improve things without backfiring. Wide eyed idealism is not going to help at all, and it's actively harmful when pursued with zealotry to shut down honest communication about those flaws. Like mental health and substance abuse.
eckmLJE 5y ago
Some people have what they would describe a home (e.g. a tent in an encampment that they've made their own and lived in sometimes for years), but not a house (a structure with four walls and a roof built to code). Defining someone by saying they live without a home is pejorative.
halfnormalform 5y ago
Pedantically: The people who live on the street need to be ‘housed’ not ‘homed.’ Cynically: By focusing on housing, people can build some housing, scoot the mentally ill and addicted under a little roof, and call it a day. Pragmatically: The novelty causes you to think about homelessness longer than you normally would. Anecdotally: A guy in LA built some “tiny homes” for the homeless but he built them on a lot that wasn’t zoned for a bunch of individual dwellings. The city soon evicted them but for a while the homeless residents were not houseless.

I honestly would not know, though at least in the U.S., "home" has an emotional and cultural context that "house" does not (e.g. the saying/song lyrics "home is where the heart is" or more objectively, a landlord owns many houses but has 1-2 homes). There is also a push to refer to people without a place to live as "unhoused" for some of the same reasons. You can have spaces, places, communities that feel like "home" and still not have a safe, consistent, reliable place to eat, sleep and keep up your hygiene. IMHO there is also the issue of who is accountable. Home is personal so homelessness might be seen as a personal challenge. Whereas house describes a structure and asset so houselessness might denote both the individual plight and the greater socioeconomic and political forces at work. At the end of the day, I suppose those most affected or most dedicated to addressing the issue should use whatever term fits.

me_me_mu_mu 5y ago

Feelings probably. Because so many people have three or more homes now while so many more will never be able to own even one let alone afford rising rents. So they feel bad for the moment and make up words so they can feel better and probably superior.

homonculus1 5y ago

Once upon a time the "houseless" were called "vagrants" [1]. Due to the associative nature of human pattern recognition, the word "vagrant" acquired a connotation reminiscent of unpleasant experiences involving its referent. To insulate their communication from this evocative power of language, activists steered institutions toward a new word ("homeless") and the general public eventually followed suit. But word choice does not change the underlying phenomenon, and so "homeless" was fated to acquire the same nasty connotation as its predecessor, and is now getting replaced again. Note that the literal nature of "homeless/houseless" actually broadens the category, which is kind of cruel to people who are more functional and only temporarily homeless. [1] And before that, "bums", "indigents" etc.

wordnerd2022 5y ago
This is called the Euphemism treadmill http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/04/john_mcwhorter_on_euphemisms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0...

wordnerd2022 5y ago

Likely an example of the Euphemism Treadmill http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/04/john_mcwhorter_on_euphemisms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0...

porknubbins 5y ago

I believe this is an example of what Wesley Yang refers to as moral entrepreneurism. By inventing ever more sensitive and politically correct language these “moral entrepreneurs” create a moral heirarchy where none existed and they are more virtuous than those who do not use the updated terms.

Overtonwindow 5y ago

It's more politically correct? There has been a push to make some terms more politically correct, such as instead of homeless, to unhoused; illegal immigrant to undocumented, etc.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wmeredith 5y ago

George Carlin made som great observations around this. "Here’s an example. There’s a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse. In World War I it was called 'shell shock.' Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. It almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was more than eighty years ago. "Then a generation passed, and in World War II the same combat condition was called 'battle fatigue.' Four syllables now; takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. 'Fatigue' is a nicer word than 'shock.' Shell shock! Battle fatigue. "By the early 1950s, the Korean War had come along, and the very same condition was being called 'operational exhaustion.' The phrase was up to eight syllables now, and any last traces of humanity had been completely squeezed out of it. It was absolutely sterile: operational exhaustion. Like something that might happen to your car. "Then, barely fifteen years later, we got into Vietnam, and, thanks to the deceptions surrounding that war, it’s no surprise that the very same condition was referred to as 'post-traumatic stress disorder.' Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon: post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet if they had still been calling it 'shell shock,' some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed." He called it softening of language. You can read more here: https://www.thoughtco.com/soft-language-euphemism-1692111 https://www.thoughtco.com/soft-language-euphemism-1692111

colechristensen 5y ago

There’s a revolving door of language where people who should have better things to do insist that terms referring to sensitive groups be renamed every few decades because the old term became immoral. Occasionally there’s good reason for it but usually it’s a strong signal that the people talking about it have a weak sense of solving the problem and a strong one of projecting the image of solving it.

everybodyknows 5y ago
> strong one of projecting the image of solving it. That would be just good business sense, if you know that failing to get your grant application to the top of the pile is going to mean spending a lot more time on LinkedIn.

fargle 5y ago

Everybody who points out for example @IanDrake, @aaron695 that this might have to do with drug addiction or even metal illness is immediately downvoted and shouted down into oblivion. I'm sorry, these are valid points of view - if you disagree, fine, but have a dialog or something. There's a lot more than just "zoning rules don't allow us to make enough new houses" and if you're going to say anything at all, you need to address that - not just strut around virtue signaling.

ncmncm 5y ago
Drug addiction and mental illness are endemic aspects of the problem, but not definitive. Often enough, the problem is just badly designed society. Drug addiction treatment, mental illness treatment, unemployment help, general medical help are all needed both to get people able to maintain, and to keep others from falling out of place. Mental illness and addiction are not moral failings. Treating them as such has been reliably demonstrated to make things worse. Treating them as illnesses has likewise been demonstrated to produce better results. But the US has long had a terrible problem with letting people have medical treatment they need.
- fargle 5y ago
  I concur with all of this. And well said. What I was reacting to was two other commenters saying something similar and getting silenced for it. Not disagreed with or challenged or anything, just squashed. > badly designed society This the only nit I'd have with what you said. I'd say that it's a flaw in society perhaps, but I don't thing our society is designed by anyone or thing, and I don't know how it could ever be, nor maybe should ever be. In a free society, it evolves. And while some forces are trying to re-design, re-engineer, and steer parts of it, there are millions of other forces semi-aligned or opposed and pushing in all sorts of different directions. That makes the outcomes develop in a chaotic and unpredictable ways. And certainly flawed, but also on the whole, not terrible. So overly simple pat "answers" like "fix the zoning => affordable houses => no more homeless" or "tiny homes" or "use a new term to destigmatize..." are of course going to get nowhere. We have to recognize all the flaws and problems and push just in the right way to nudge that society of millions in some direction that will hopefully just slightly improve things without backfiring. Wide eyed idealism is not going to help at all, and it's actively harmful when pursued with zealotry to shut down honest communication about those flaws. Like mental health and substance abuse.

eckmLJE 5y ago

Some people have what they would describe a home (e.g. a tent in an encampment that they've made their own and lived in sometimes for years), but not a house (a structure with four walls and a roof built to code). Defining someone by saying they live without a home is pejorative.

halfnormalform 5y ago

Pedantically: The people who live on the street need to be ‘housed’ not ‘homed.’ Cynically: By focusing on housing, people can build some housing, scoot the mentally ill and addicted under a little roof, and call it a day. Pragmatically: The novelty causes you to think about homelessness longer than you normally would. Anecdotally: A guy in LA built some “tiny homes” for the homeless but he built them on a lot that wasn’t zoned for a bunch of individual dwellings. The city soon evicted them but for a while the homeless residents were not houseless.