The Use of the Term “Disenfranchised Adults” in Serving Homeless and Other Persons with Challenges
A recommendation for social workers, counselors, researchers, case workers, and others
It is crucial that social workers and other professionals dealing with rights, policies, and therapies for individuals under duress to consider the larger classification of “disenfranchised adults” instead of beginning the discussion with the use of specific labels such as recovering alcoholics or mentally-disabled. Helpers and counselors need to first understand the great force of disenfranchisement in the lives of the adults being served. The specific labels can come later.
Next, professionals need to construct frameworks for treatment of these individuals again making use of the term disenfranchised adults at the head of the intervention. Goffman would want us to keep the notion of “stigma” at the forefront of our work (1963). It is possible to look at the world of the disenfranchised through the lens of symbolic interactionism.
Focusing too strongly on the symptoms, and not understanding the over-arching problem of the disenfranchisement misses the mark. It is important to remember that “maintaining self” is a key concept within social interactionism.
Charon tells us of the importance not only of maintaining self on an individual level, but also of the need to help others save face and maintain their sense of self in addition. Charon provides a thorough introduction to symbolic interactionism, explaining also how we take on the role of others. We do this in order to understand their perspectives and the ways in which they view the roles we take on for ourselves (1998).
Cahill provides a brief yet concise introduction to Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical View of social interaction, showing how maintaining self, and giving impressions of self are central to understanding the view. Giving off an impression is the result of non-verbal and other cues that communicate a deeper sense of self than the one simply given—at a level one wishes to convey. Rituals are important is interaction, and symbols also serve to help maintain self. Stigma is another key concept in Goffman. Stigma must be considered relative to the results of role-taking (1998, pp. 191-205).
It is important to consider a number of examples of situations from a dramaturgical view. In doing so, we can better not only understand the role of the individual who has become disenfranchised, but also better comprehend his or her struggle to participate in role-taking. Helping make this process more successful for the disenfranchised is probably the best goal for the professional. Whether dealing with alcoholics or mental patients, that should be the role we as professionals take. The individual suffering in the situation already considers the process crucial, at least within a dramaturgical frame.
Denzin (1998) in his piece about recovering alcoholics shows how these individuals value the importance of understanding the differences between the old self and the new one. Central to their recovery is the notion of movement out of an old, discarded, drinking self and into a new, goal-oriented, hopeful one. The idea of the alcoholic experiencing disenfranchisement is obvious in the belief that for recovery to occur the person must first hit “rock bottom” and admit that he or she is powerless over the drinking. Those who continue their addictive behavior often risk losing their spouse, partner, job, car, children, house, and financial status—not to mention losing the respect of society at large.
Goffmanesque, that piece further tells of the symbols, rituals, and roles of the recovering alcoholics. The symbols at the AA Big Book (1939, 2001) and the meetings, in addition to the phon calls to help others. Rituals are sponsorship, the telling of stories at meetings, “working on” the twelve prescribed steps, and the process of oneself coming to serve as a sponsor to assist someone else. At the center of the rituals are terms from the AA tradition: “hit bottom” and “what it used to be like” and terms originating at the very first meetings of the organization. Note that Denzin also discusses the stigma of alcoholism. This is rather reminiscent of Goffman, as those recovering need to come to terms with the stigma of their new identity.
Erving Goffman.
.
In fact, acceptance of the stigma is said to be important for the recovery process. Sponsors help newcomers to learn how to accept this stigma. Also important to note is that sponsors and other experienced members of twelve-step programs help with the on-going process of helping others maintain self—a new one.
Important to understand is that which Goffman would note: the recovering alcoholic learns to give AND give off a positive recovering self. The past is one in which the alcoholic has lied by trying to give the impression of being together and okay and purposeful and composed—while the impression received by society is that of a very sick individual. Denzin speaks of dual selves, focusing on the old self and on a newer one—the self being constructed through th reflections of their new comrades in the program.
Positive approaches in recovery, and valuing one’s assets, are important in twelve-step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous. The sponsor in AA (and in other twelve-step programs fashioned on AA, for that matter) serves as a guide in the creation of the new self, one reborn and refashioned without the reliance on alcohol—or whatever the addiction/affliction may be. Dealing with the disenfranchisement and using the past as a reminder very often are important strategies in keeping oneself on the path to recovery in twelve-step programs. Those recovering do not forget what has happened to them and why they have had to seek assistance. Sponsors help the disenfranchised to not only recover, and empower themselves, but also to remember the power of those difficult days of maladaptive behaviors (B., 1996).
Rosenhan (1992) shows the power of disenfranchisement in his piece reporting on the placement of sane individuals into psychiatric institutions. How fiercely some of the participants fight in order to save face, in order to conduct their former “sane” lives outside these hospitals! One researcher flirts with a staff member, and one insists on leaving because of an important entertainment event going on outside the institution. One student wishes his wife will bring his books so he can study. These are all acts to retrieve their status, in one case to retrieve symbols of the student’s sane world: books. The rituals and roles of the outside world call to the participants.
That the disenfranchised become depersonalized in such an institution is evident also in Rosenhan’s discussion of Goffman in that same piece. Note that Goffman’s term “mortification” is referred to in order to describe patients’ socialization into these settings. Because the sane individuals have taken the role of the insane (an attempt at Goffman’s role-taking) not only do they give the impression of being patients needing to be institutionalized but they also hope to give off the impression of being such patients. The fact that the participants happen to be sane makes no difference when those individuals find themselves in “institutions which harbor nether people” (1992, p. 344).
Interesting to note in this piece is the discovery that actual patients in the hospitals do not accept the pretend-patients and try to disclose their false afflictions, thinking in some cases that the outsiders are there in an attempt to do research on the institution. That these actual patients will not help the pretend-patients maintain their sense of self (i.e., as insane) and save face shows from a Goffmanesque angle how the roles are truly artificial. The actual patients can detect the falsehood of the impressions being given (supposedly insane) because of the force of those impressions being given off (in actuality sane participants in the study). It is also rather interesting that the staff in the hospital took so little time to deal with the pretend-patients that none of the professionals noticed the falsehood of the situation (p. 332).
Helping individuals, sane or not, placed into such institutions would seem to be an important task for professionals employed or stationed there. Dealing with the disenfranchisement, helping accept and value the “selves” of the individuals within such hospitals would seem to be the first task at hand. That is not to say medication, certain types of therapy, and physical needs of patients would not be important considerations also. Certainly administrators and staff members of such hospitals need to spend a great deal of time acknowledging the role these individuals wish to embrace and the impression they wish to give. Fighting with the patients, and going to great lengths to subjugate and abuse them, would not seem to be a humane or appropriate approach to helping the disenfranchised within such institutions with the recovery process.
Taking Goffman’s lead, Garfinkel (1956) provides specifics on how to degrade individuals to change their behavior. In his article “Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies,” he explains that the individual must be ritually removed from his usual setting, then punished severely in the name of the tribe. The denouncer must make the individual being degraded seem strange and outside the tribe, and must take steps to ensure the degradation is effective. This is the ultimate assigning of stigma.
Note that in the Denzin piece the emphasis is on bringing individuals into the tribe as new selves. Therefore, any denunciation going on would have to be directed to the old self. Stigma rests there—in the past. The tribe in question is now the current members and story-tellers of AA. In the Rosenhan piece, however, it can be seen that the staff occasionally beat and punish the pseudopatients in an attempts to separate them from the rest of the tribe, to interrupt their behaviors and any rewards they may get from other patients.
Stigma is a key concept explored also in Saad’s (1997) work on disabled lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. These disenfranchised feel they are judged negatively on several accounts. It is important to remember, btw, that there are many non-heterosexuals among the homeless and street populations. This information is very relevant to helping the non-housed in large American cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco.
Saad shows the various ways these disenfranchised feeling stigmatized. First, they are judged for having a different sexual orientation. Second, they are judged for having a disability. Some gays with disabilities often say that other gays look down on them just as much as straights do, and that they feel more accepted by disabled persons who know they are gay than by gays who know that they are disabled. Third, they may be older and not as physically attractive as they once, perhaps, were. Perhaps they never were—and this can carry a great stigma within the greater gay community also. Some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have to lie about their sexual selves in order to get help when they are chronically ill. Many of these persons take on roles of heterosexuals in an attempt to save face and emphasize the role (and the needs) of the person with disabilities. This happens because they can, some of them, cover up the true sexual orientation through the use of symbols and speech and other dramatic means—though they cannot cover up the disability (1997).
Saad further reports that it is felt by many of these disenfranchised individuals that if they do not lie, they will not get the help they need. Whjy do they feel this way? They have seen this happen to many of their friends. For example, the burden of the stigma associated with HIV infection adds a huge complication to the lives of homosexual men, especially. It is the ultimate and the classic reason for these persons to take on the role of straight men and hope to “give off” that impression to heterosexuals (1997).
A piece in the River Front Times newspaper, an alternative publication in St. Louis, discusses the challenges facing the gypsies coming into town. Passing themselves off as Bosnians to avoid too much stigma, the Roma stick together and maintain their closed system as a means for survival. They do not teach outsiders their language or culture. This is apparently a tradition meant to protect them from outside danger. Since the beginning of time, they have been the classical refugees, fleeing Napoleon and Hitler and most every other European regime (Batz, 2000, p. 23).
Modern-day Gypsies.
.
Particularly interesting in light of Goffman is the discussion of how many different selves they have learned to become and how many different impressions they can not only “give” but also “give off.” They are always successful at passing as other nationalities and individuals, and their need to “be” other individuals and take myriad roles as actors has been a result of their degradation at the hands of others. Some of the role of disenfranchised may even be learned. “What the Roma end up repeating most readily is the old, deeply entrenched habit of alienation” (Batz, 2000, p. 23).
Interesting to note is that Loseke and Cahill’s piece on social work students endeavoring to give off the impression of professional, degreed social workers, and thereby fully embracing a new role, there is evidence of stigma. Students during their practicum sense that other professionals, such as physicians, seem to treat them as “low status” individuals in the workplace. These students encounter difficulties as they try to not only give the impression of professional social worker but also attempt to give off this same impression. They question themselves, afraid they are not giving off the correct impression. Goffmanesque, this fear relates to the “character type” which students feel they should appear to be. Thwarted sometimes in developing a better sense of what a professional social worker should be, these students show classic signs of difficulty maintaining self in the workplace (1992, p. 106).
In a piece written by Loseke regarding battered women, note two Goffmanesque components important for understanding the plight of these disenfranchised individuals. First, they become stigmatized for returning home. Second, they are forced to engage in artificial role-taking. Agency staff attempt to force them to accept a role of “victim” and wish further they will consider the male an “abuser.” Some women apparently agree to play at this role-taking as a way to appease the staff and obtain services from them. That this unnatural use of role-taking is fought by these women is a strong clue that the self has a desire to make its own case, always wishing to make use of its own rituals (1992).
The above examples of disenfranchised persons deal with a wide range of afflictions and challenges—and both natural and unnatural roles—helps prove the importance of looking at the loss, disappointment, degradation, stigma, and subjugation of these individuals. Directly parallel to the negative experiences of the homeless, evicted, addicted, and lost, they raise the issue of the power of using a term like “disenfranchised adults.”
The term disenfranchised adults should appear at the top of the clipboard, at the head of the anxiety inventory, and the top of the file folder. Helping those persons at a great disadvantage—like not having a safe, cozy, warm, draft-free place to live—depends on understanding how huge the disenfranchisement is. Ignoring this reality, or merely giving it lip service, does not seem to be an informed approach to beginning an informed intervention.
.
.
References
Alcoholics Anonymous (2001). The Alcohol Anonymous big book, 4th edition. Np: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. The “big book” presents the A.A. program for recovery from alcoholism. First published in 1939, its purpose was to show other alcoholics how the first 100 people of A.A. got sober. Now translated into over 70 languages, it is still considered A.A.’s basic text.
B., Hamilton. (1996). Twelve-step sponsorship: How it works. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Batz, J. (2000, Aptil 26). Plight of the Gypsies: Home is where they have to take you in. River Front Times, (pp.16-23).
Cahill, S. (1998). Erving Goffman. In Charon, J. Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (6th ed.), (pp. 191-205). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Charon, J. (1998). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N. (1998). The recovering alcoholic self. In Cahill, S., (Ed.), Inside social life: Readings in sociological psychology and microsociology. (2nd ed.), (pp. 34-43). London: Roxbury Publishing.
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420-424.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Loseke, D. (1992). The two realities of wife abuse. In Cahill, S., (Ed.), Inside social life: Readings in sociological psychology and microsociology. (2nd ed.), (pp. 98-108). London: Roxbury Publishing.
Loseke, D., & Cahille, S. (1992). Actors in search of a character. In Clark, C., & Robboy, H. (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: Readings in sociology (4th ed.), (pp. 97-106). New York: St. Martin's.
Rosenhan, D. (1992). On being sane in insane places. In Clark, C., & Robboy, H. (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: Readings in sociology (4th ed.), (pp. 328-346). New York: St. Martin's.
Saad, S. (1997). Disability and the lesbian, gay man, or bisexual individual. In Sipski, M., & Alexander, C. (Eds.), Sexual function in people with disabilities and chronic illness. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications.