While I think it's great what these outreach organizations have accomplished, the tone of this article is a perfect example of how journalists poorly depict homelessness.
It's de-humanizing.
For a second there I did a double take because it resembled an old article from The Onion, which was pointing out how journalists do this so often that nobody notices.
Do a search and replace on the article, replace the homeless man's name "Heavy" with "animal", and the article still makes perfect sense, except instead of being about sociology, it's now zoology, like one of those fluff local news pieces about some wild animal that ended up in the city limits and was causing a nuisance. Except it's a man.
That's a rather important difference though, don't you think? It's one thing to "make sense" after changing a name to 'animal' it's another for it to mean the same thing.
"There's one homeless man left in Times Square" That is news. The article does not stray very far from the point, and covers a decent amount in a limited space. It's an effective article.
It's one thing to "make sense" after changing a name to 'animal' it's another for it to mean the same thing.
I got the same impression as korch. In several ways, it does mean the same thing. They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements", figuring out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed him because it's actually bad for him.
People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but wild animals are. At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that Heavy is not capable of deciding what is in his best interest -- that he can't be reasoned with but that he might be coaxed to do what they want.
> They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements", figuring out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed him because it's actually bad for him.
> People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but wild animals are.
Actually, it sounds to me like scholars doing social science. They gathering facts and analyzing behavior.
> At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that Heavy is not capable of deciding what is in his best interest
Is this an assumption? Or is it a conclusion, based on evidence:
> “I just have this dream that all of a sudden something will snap, and he’ll say, I’d love to have housing,” said Amie Pospisil
> Heavy was far from alone on the streets of Times Square in the 1990s, when he began sleeping there frequently in the midst of a roiling mess of drug dealing, prostitution and crime.
> The social workers at Common Ground said they have no intention of pressuring Heavy to leave the streets.
It sounds like you are saying Heavy is capable of deciding what is in his best interest. If that is the case, then it follows that living on the streets of Times Square is in his best interest, since that is what he decided. Are you really comfortable with this conclusion?
The social workers, on the other hand, seem genuinely concerned for him, but they are hesitant to overstep the bounds of human dignity and 'pressure' him, physically or otherwise, to make more prudent decisions.
I see little justification for a critique of the social workers, here.
Studying habits and movements doesn't seem all that unusual to me. People do it all the time, it's called gossip, and when they get bored they watch TV where there are made-up people you can track.
The other option, to ignore him entirely, not track his movements and pretend he doesn't exist, is also a way we treat animals. Squirrels, pigeons, sparrows, ants, spiders... Yes, there is a striking parallel that's why the Onion parody was hilarious. But despite the grain of truth there isn't anything inherently evil about the tone.
As for telling the population not to feed him for his own good: is that a good thing or a bad thing to do? Ignore for a moment, parallels and parodies, and judge the facts as you know them. (Personally, I don't agree that they should admonish people for feeding him, but it has very little to do with the idea of misplaced paternalism.)
It's de-humanizing.
For a second there I did a double take because it resembled an old article from The Onion, which was pointing out how journalists do this so often that nobody notices.
Do a search and replace on the article, replace the homeless man's name "Heavy" with "animal", and the article still makes perfect sense, except instead of being about sociology, it's now zoology, like one of those fluff local news pieces about some wild animal that ended up in the city limits and was causing a nuisance. Except it's a man.