The Crisis Beneath the Crisis
Among the most vulnerable to homelessness in our society are persons living with disabilities. While physical and economic challenges are real, they are not the deepest threat. The more foundational issue is ontological: we have built a society that confuses value with utility. Persons who cannot “perform” in a measurable or marketable way are subtly, and often systematically, excluded. As Hersh (2019) observes, structural gaps in mental health and disability services correlate directly with patterns of poverty and homelessness. But the root of the pattern is more than structural. It is metaphysical.
In a culture obsessed with optimization, we have ceased to view people as ends in themselves. Instead, we evaluate worth through the lens of output, control, and compliance. As Winthrop (2020) notes, even civic education is increasingly tethered to workforce outcomes, rather than relational or moral formation. This shift from intrinsic to instrumental valuation is not a neutral evolution; it is a civilizational hazard. When personhood is measured by productivity, whole categories of people become disposable.
Two Approaches to Homelessness: Infrastructure vs. Anthropology
One promising method already underway is long-term housing that integrates shelter with purpose. Initiatives like Community First! Village in Austin and OurCalling in Dallas build communal environments where residents participate in meaningful labor and social contribution. These models restore stability, foster social capital, and rehumanize individuals through belonging. However, they are resource-intensive and require sustained commitment from public and private sectors. They address the symptom with skill and compassion—but not the disease.
A more foundational approach reframes the question entirely: What if the starting point for social design was not performance, but personhood? As Joas (2000) argues, enduring values do not emerge from efficiency metrics or institutional rationality, but from lived experiences of vulnerability and recognition. If we view people as problems to manage, we create systems of containment. If we see them as burdens to regulate, we construct systems of manipulation. But if we begin with the claim that each person is an unrepeatable life whose value precedes their function, then our questions shift: not “How do we house them?” but “How do we dignify them?”
The Ethical Architecture of a Humane Society
This second method is more difficult because it cannot be programmed. It is architectural, not procedural. It shapes everything: laws, pedagogy, public discourse, and policy formation. It is slower, yes—but it is the only path to coherence. Without a framework that operationalizes ontological equality and non-instrumental worth, every intervention risks becoming another algorithm of exclusion.
Nussbaum (2011) reminds us that flourishing cannot be reverse-engineered from compliance. The capability to live a dignified life must be treated as a baseline, not a reward. Claridge (2018) echoes this from a social capital perspective: real resilience arises not from systems alone, but from mutual recognition and relational trust.
Consequences of Forgetting the Person
A society that forgets the value of the person will eventually forget the value and purpose of society itself. If we fail to build systems rooted in human dignity, we may appear efficient while hemorrhaging moral coherence. In this light, homelessness is not merely a policy failure—it is a litmus test for whether our civilization still believes in the worth of the human being.
Unless and until our institutions consistently treat the human person as inviolable by design, we will continue to construct elegant systems that subtly discard the very lives they claim to serve.
References
Claridge, T. (2018). Functions of social capital – Bonding, bridging, linking. Social Capital Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7993853
Hersh, J. (2019). Breaking the link between mental health and poverty. George W. Bush Presidential Center. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/poverty/hersh-mental-health
Joas, H. (2000). The genesis of values (G. Moore, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
Winthrop, R. (2020). The need for civic education in 21st-century schools. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/the-need-for-civic-education-in-21st-century-schools/
Leave a Reply