The Use of a “Systems Approach” and the Term “Disenfranchised Adults” in Helping Gays, Homeless, and Others
Some reminders and recommendations for social workers and counselors
It is possible to make use of a systems approach in designing interventions and care for the homeless and others. The intersection among LGBTQ and homeless populations—especially among young trans individuals is especially high (Castaldelli-Maia, Ventriglio, & Bhugra, 2022, p. 395).
It is also important to consider using the term “disenfranchised adults” as an over-arching guide before evaluating, diagnosing, and assigning goals to their care. Realizing that the disenfranchisement of persons on the street is perhaps even larger in their needs is essential. Thinking of them as persons addicted to alcohol, facing legal problems, or experiencing violent home life can come later.
The homeless persons needing assistance may also just happen to be incredibly lucky—not criminals or addicts or other bad actors out there. Homelessness is not a choice, is not always because of an error or bad choice. People can become homeless through many different avenues (What These 4 Charts Tell Us About Homelessness in America | TIME).
Some persons simply wind up homeless.
This realization is probably more important than some of the rest of the above information. Despite what some uninformed people might say, the average homeless person does NOT want to be homeless. And the number of homeless persons mean there is a growing crisis (America’s Homelessness Crisis Is Getting Worse - The New York Times (nytimes.com)).
So through all of the explanations, it is important to again remember that most homeless people are NOT homeless because they think it is glamorous, a good answer, or the best thing on earth. They are not having a good time on the street. They are not laughing at institutions, utility companies, or the police, necessarily. Housing costs are high. Fewer affordable houses and apartments are available. There are many reasons (What’s behind rising homelessness in America? | PBS NewsHour).
Given the considerations above, it is interesting to explore further the notions of using both a systems approach in designing interventions and the term “disenfranchised adults” as an over-arching guide, before other activities. There are many different systems theories.
For example, Longress (1995) provides several different discussions of theories and approaches to human behavior. The author gives us principles of both human and social systems, in addition to information from several different researchers. It is important to focus on two different types of system patterns: first, closed systems are ones in which there are obstacles to communication with individuals and organizations outside the system; second, open systems allow for communication into and/or out of the system. Ideally, members of a system share priorities and functions, communicate with one another, work toward shared goals, and protect each other from forces outside the system.
For the purposes of this discussion of behavior, it seems that the concept of normality and the work of James Garbarino (2017) serve us best as we attempt to deal with the issue of disenfranchised individuals and the systems in which they find themselves.
For the purposes of social work, Longres and others focus on the power of normality as a guide to how people are—or are not—functioning. In other words, individuals are evaluated in terms of whether they are thinking, feeling, or behaving in a normal way. This is at the heart of studying what individuals need to function, but social workers are advised to not get into long discussions of normality with their clients.
It is interesting to consider two key concepts mentioned in Longres. First, the notion of “normality as health” deals with debilitating pressures of everyday life, and takes into account the idea that some people are better at dealing with these forms of stress better than people are. The point to raise is whether some outcast groups such as homosexuals and the terminally-ill do not in fact face more pressure because of their identity and activities well outside the “norm.” How well these people under siege adapt is an important key to understanding their lot. Often pushed far outside the circle of the norm, they become disenfranchised at least at a macro level if not more levels.
Second, the notion of “normality as average” is also important to consider because the disenfranchised do not fit within the norms. Often they are not average in terms of self-chosen identity or identity assigned to them, social roles, daily functioning and goals orientation. It is important for the professional to understand the processes of the systems in which those individuals find themselves.
Taking sides is an essential task for the social worker and for other social scientists, counselors, advocates, and helpers on the street to embrace. Educators can also help to not only deal with the systems involved, but also with public policy regarding the disenfranchised found within those systems. In this way, social workers and others can work toward bringing about social change. Longres emphasizes how professionals must critically explore how the needs and perceptions of suffering individuals can be impacted. With these principles in mind, it is possible to look at different systems in which disenfranchisement has occurred.
Using an approach adapted from Garbarino’s focal system to look at the disenfranchised, we can discuss a variety of levels. Within Longres, the adaptation is used for discussing four different types of systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The microsystem represents the family or core group, and the mesosystem represents individuals and groups with whom the core group must deal directly. The exosystem includes organizations such as government and voluntary organizations influencing the core group but with whom direct contact is not common. The macrosystem reflects the cultural context of the core group’s values, traditions, and authority patterns (Longres, 1995, p. 286).
It might seem that a discussion of gays would be important in terms of three closed system types—macro, meso, and micro: as a huge natural cultural group, as a neighborhood community, and as a small circle of intimate friends, perhaps at the household level. However, Andriote has written a book that deals with recent history in light of the AIDS epidemic and that seems to dispel the myth of closed, guarded gay structures. In his chapter called “The Making of Soldiers” he tells of exchanges of information and perspectives showing us there has been an open system indeed. Gays comfortable with being “out” have sought allies—not just among other gays—but also among larger non-gay groups starting in the 1980s. This is a significant change from the past, when gays tended to not let themselves appear so visible. Gays show a desire to function at the exosystem level to help in policy and funding issues nationwide. In an effort to get more experimental drugs approved for the treatment of AIDS, gay groups have clearly opened their system to include alliances with health agencies, pharmaceutical companies, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and individuals with great political power like Senators Ted Kennedy and Alan Cranston. Gays have sought to strengthen ties with non-gay Democrats—mainly in response to lack of concern, interest, or clear policies from Reagan-connected cohorts (1999, pp. 169-210).
Gays represent a disenfranchised group from the outset. After all, in broader society, they are the ones considered by many to be deviants and sinners. The gay-parent families discussed in Goleman (1992) would seem to participate in three different system levels. First, there is the micro level, at which the families do a fairly positive job of interacting, daily functioning, and supporting the other members. This is an open system, with exchange of information rather freely flowing, among close family friends and allies, apparently. The meso level shows a slight amount of interference, such that questions arise as to how other students at school will deal with children of gay parents.
Parents have said they tend to be a little quieter about their living arrangement when dealing with the public—especially because of other people’s difficulties dealing with homosexuality. Dealing with exosystem and macrosystem issues makes the gay-parent system the most closed and most guarded, and with good reason. State and federal legislation affecting gay-parent rights for adoption, custody, inheritance, housing, employment, and representation are strong reasons, in addition to threats from mainstream heterosexual culture.
As an aside, it will be interesting to see when Longres ceases to use the term “family” to categorize over 100 pages of his textbook. Because of the high number of cohabitating heterosexual couples with and without children, gay and lesbian couples with and without children, single-head households, and children living with foster parents or grandparents or family friends or in groups like homeless shelters, half-way houses, and domestic violence shelters, perhaps a terms like “household unit” or “living group” will serve better. Each one of these units does constitute a system, and the social worker or counselor needs to understand how systems work—including the emphasis on protecting itself from societal influences outside that system. Sometimes the problem of attaining ideals within that system does come from within. As Longres reminds us, however, “When the social environment limits the attainment of family ideals, ways must be found to make social systems and the individuals who compose them more supportive” (1995, p. 251).
It is possible to discuss different systems revolving around the microsystem. One example of disenfranchised individuals (microsystem) is the ill persons in Clark’s piece on sickness and social control. After looking at that system, it is important to consider other systems considering further to the problems of the disenfranchised. There are a variety of system types and levels in Clark’s piece. First, there is a system of those individuals who are ill. They endeavor to maintain an open system, accepting both attention and sympathy from the outside world. However, at various times, people outside the system try to make it into a closed one, not letting contagious germs out into the general population. Quarantine into enclosed areas is a way to keep the ill within a closed system. The protection of physical health is not the only reason society insists the ill become part of a closed system, however. Often, society judges the ill and applies labels to them, therefore creating obstacles for them to handle. “Discreditation in many ways sets up barriers to routine interaction between the sick and the ‘normal’ population” (1992, p. 510).
Witness the huge stigma felt around the world by persons who contracted the COVID-19 virus and were suddenly quarantined, shunned, and in some cases even blamed.
Research during the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic found that “People have been witnessed to undergo a dramatic shift from their willingness to live in mutual association to an urge to practice stigmatization of individuals, groups, and nations who are comprehended as potential sources of virus contagion to others. In other words, the pandemic seems to be causing othering…” (Bhanot, D., Singh, T., Verna, S., & Sharad, S., 2021, Stigma and Discrimination During COVID-19 Pandemic - PMC (nih.gov)).
A second level of system is broader society, one which attempts to control sickness. The structure threatens the disenfranchised ill. This structure is a closed system in that outside influences do not seem to penetrate this fortress of the public’s moral attitudes and convictions about not only illness but ways to keep the ill individuals in check. Committing ill persons into mental hospitals and other institutions is a way to protect society at large from dangers and interference—in this case coming from the physically or mentally ill. There seem to be few checks and balances involved in keeping society from treating the ill as outsiders. Clark discusses specific ways in which society punishes the ill because of their condition.
Another system is that of the hospital, one in which closed-system activities occur. Few outside influences impede the punishment, general mistreatment and harassment of individuals with a variety of illnesses. The punishment and other forms of degrading treatment are also not impeded by complaints from the ill themselves, for within this system, they are not members—only issues needing attention.
Another sort of system, again very closed, is that of the physicians who are above reproach. Fees, procedures, decisions, and treatments are subject to few outside regulations, and Freidson states that doctors “enjoy a great deal of autonomy and freedom from outside intervention in their own profession, and they also exercise control a great deal of control and influence over other medical groups, such as nursing, pharmacy, and the like” (1970, cited in Clark, 1992, p. 519). Reinforcing the power of physicians to hold sway in their profession is the popular obsession with medical models and terms in general parlance. Medical metaphors and topics abound in society (Clark, 1992, p. 518).
Another system important to consider is that created by the disenfranchised transsexual individuals discussed in Mason-Schrock (1992). In line with what is put forward in Garbarino, most problems come from the exosystem and the macrosystem. The members have the most difficulty with society at large and the overarching social and moral institutions supportive of mainstream American values, traditions, and sexual identity. Working to protect their closed system, members assist each other in the creation of stories, those new “realities” that will serve them as they try to focus on life as well-adjusted transsexuals. Their system becomes an “open” one when a newcomer is lt into the fold, has shown the need to join, and has convinced “the others and herself that her true, feminine self is trapped inside the wrong body” (p. 109).
According to Garbarino’s model problems in American social institutions affecting the everyday well-being of families exist mainly in the exosystem and the macrosystem. Institutionalized arrangements such as classism, racism, and sexism present in society but not identified per se within specific organizations (Longres, 1995, p. 286). Homophobia, and the fear of doctors and hospitals, would seem to be logical extensions of Garbarino for the purposes of understanding how society influences and disenfranchises those individuals just addressed above from a systems viewpoint, and specifically those who do not fit the model of normality as health or normality as average.
We know there is a relatively high percentage of LGBTQ persons among the homeless populations of urban centers in the US. These individuals face a great deal of stigma indeed (Vieira-Garcia, 2022).
The incidence of LGBTQ teenagers is especially high among the homeless. Thrown out and thrown away by their families, these young people deal with stigma and danger as disenfranchised and betrayed persons (McCann & Brown, 2022).
The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless has stated that youth who identify as LGBTQ are found in great numbers indeed among the homeless population here in this city. The number of transgendered youth is very high (2001).
It would seem more research needs to be done on the intersection of LGBTQ communities and homeless communities. The complicated needs of individuals who belong to both groups face stigma from many systems. This is especially true of young trans persons (Castaldelli-Maia, Ventriglio, & Bhugra, 2022, p. 395).
.
.
List of references
Andriote, J. (1999). Victory deferred: How AIDS change gay life in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bhanot, D., Singh, T., Verma, S., & Sharad, S. (2021, January 12). Stigma and discrimination during COVID-19 pandemic. Front public health. National Library of Medicine (Stigma and Discrimination During COVID-19 Pandemic - PMC (nih.gov)).
Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH). (2001). Youth on the streets and on their own: Youth homelessness in Illinois. CCH.
Clark, C. (1992). Sickness and social control. In Clark, C., & Robboy, H. (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: Readings in sociology (4th ed.), (pp. 505-526). New York: St. Martin’s.
Garbarino, J. (2017). Children and families in the social environment (2d ed.). New York: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (1992, December 2). Gay parents called no disadvantage. New York Times, B7+.
Longres, J. (1995). Human behavior in the social environment, (2nd ed.), Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
Lopez, G. (June 15,2002). Homeless in America: The homelessness crisis in getting worse. New York Times. Newsletter: The morning. (America’s Homelessness Crisis Is Getting Worse - The New York Times (nytimes.com)).
Luscombe, B. (June 20, 2023). Time. (What These 4 Charts Tell Us About Homelessness in America | TIME).
Mason-Schrock, D. (1992). Constructing transsexual selves. In Clark, C., & Robboy, H. (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: Readings in sociology (4th ed.), (pp. 97-106). New York: St. Martin’s.
McCann, E., & Brown, M. (2022). Homelessness among youth who identify as LGBTQ+. In Castaldelli-Maia, J., Ventriglio, A., & Bhugra, D. (Eds.), Homelessness and mental health. (pp. 377-387). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vieira-Garcia, M. (2022). LGBT homelessness and mental health. In Castaldelli-Maia, J., Ventriglio, A., & Bhugra, D. (Eds.), Homelessness and mental health. (pp. 325-338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodruff, J., Cuevas, K. (December 28, 2021). What’s behind rising homelessness in America? PBS News Hour, Transcript. (What’s behind rising homelessness in America? | PBS NewsHour).