Social capitol
“The first and highest form of the state and of the government and of the law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying, that "Friends have all things in common." Whether there is anywhere now, or will ever be, this communion of women and children and of property, in which the private and individual is altogether banished from life, and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and blame and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions, and whatever laws there are unite the city to the utmost-whether all this is possible or not, I say that no man, acting upon any other principle, will ever constitute a state which will be truer or better or more exalted in virtue. “
-Plato, “The Laws”, Book V
From the above statement Plato seems to see a connection between the communion of property and the very congruency between laws/ politics and the will and consensus of the people. This makes much sense considering we live in a society where virtually everything is in some way affected by social agreements, and because property ownership is historically one of the biggest sources of disagreements and factionism among people.
Social capitol is a term used in recent years by political scientist to describe a populaces willingness to engage with one another, their trust for one another, as well as the congruency between people and legislation or political leadership. Various studies have indicated social capitol has been on the decline for many in the U.S for decades. Studies have also linked social capitol to both crime and drug use.
How can the "open environment" provided by de-partitioned housing help address this? Simply put, it provides a place where people can be in one anothers presence relatively free of social and economic expectations (this is presuming $200-$300/ month in rent can be considered a minimal economic expectation) and one in which they stand with equal leverage. From here the rest ensues, i.e. rather than "leading" human nature, it provides a place where human nature can simply flourish as it was meant to.
The open environment is simply conducive to sharing of resources. Being free of expectations while still having the right to be around others is conducive to making connections and establishing group identity. The vulnerable act of sleeping next to one another as well as finding safety in numbers while being visibly exposed instead of hidden by walls promotes trust between people. Tensions are eased along with economic strife, and with people sharing resources with one another they are that much more likely to see a neighbor instead of a competitor- the cycle is reinforced. If nothing else it is just a matter of overcoming the time limits involved in most every group situation; people need time to get to know one another, to settle in, to self-organize, and to find opportunity to see the other side of human nature in one another. Deliberation and the social power needed to find congruency between people and political leadership/ policies is restored with finding shared space where people hold equal leverage.
Put walls in place and a very different reality ensues.
It should not be underestimated how much power there is in the simple act of sharing and reusing resources as well as in affecting the culture of over-consumption in the first place. I myself never appreciated the power of such things until I saw people sustain themselves almost entirely off of reused goods, and if given a place where they could clean up, store their stuff, and to simply BE during the day and night it was actually hard to even tell that they were homeless. Really it could not be said they seemed to be having much of a hard time at all- many seemed happier than most middle class.
I've even observed this in people living outside for a time while it was tolerated in Portland. Social capitol is like a drug that is passed around affecting the very perspectives of those it possesses. Even the way outsiders perceive the group who has it is affected and they will gravitate towards such a thing and label it with title's like "culture" and "originality". Just as social capitol grows from the evolutionary predisposition of finding strength in numbers, so too is confidence found in numbers. Never would I have imagined myself feeling at home under a bridge as wealthy and attractive middle class pass me by, but shame is a perspective thing, and if you have something as potent as compassion, your perspective is altered and your shame dissipates. In this regard being broken up and being unable to find compassion gives meaning to money, i.e. much of what money does is eliminate our sense of shame, not so coincidentally at the same time much of what money does is allow us to participate in activities and places where we are allowed to be in one another's presence (bars, clubs, shopping, coffee, college, homes which are in themselves places of congregation, etc.).
Unfortunately the reality is that we live in a society where homeless are either actively being broken up outside or struggling to conform to a society which has them indoors and separated. This kills a body of peoples ability to establish social capitol with one another and increases economic/ social strife in general. It helps establish the concept of living outside and being "homeless" as a strictly adverse one, but living outside is not inherently hard as we did it for millions of years. It is in us to build shelters and forts from an early age, but this intrinsically motivated activity is quickly stifled and we learn to normalize concepts of fitting in and meeting expectations all as part of the more general concept of property ownership.
PEOPLE make being homeless hard as they/ we obstruct the ability to come together, establish social capitol, and find compassion with one another. A lack of compassion (sharing anothers struggle) is in fact what makes homeless being hard, not simply living outside. But I just as well could have said, "a lack of compassion is what makes life hard - period". In this sense we are all homeless - we just have yet to catch onto it.
Just as roots need a place to grow, so too is habitat critical to many if not all social issues.
-Plato, “The Laws”, Book V
From the above statement Plato seems to see a connection between the communion of property and the very congruency between laws/ politics and the will and consensus of the people. This makes much sense considering we live in a society where virtually everything is in some way affected by social agreements, and because property ownership is historically one of the biggest sources of disagreements and factionism among people.
Social capitol is a term used in recent years by political scientist to describe a populaces willingness to engage with one another, their trust for one another, as well as the congruency between people and legislation or political leadership. Various studies have indicated social capitol has been on the decline for many in the U.S for decades. Studies have also linked social capitol to both crime and drug use.
How can the "open environment" provided by de-partitioned housing help address this? Simply put, it provides a place where people can be in one anothers presence relatively free of social and economic expectations (this is presuming $200-$300/ month in rent can be considered a minimal economic expectation) and one in which they stand with equal leverage. From here the rest ensues, i.e. rather than "leading" human nature, it provides a place where human nature can simply flourish as it was meant to.
The open environment is simply conducive to sharing of resources. Being free of expectations while still having the right to be around others is conducive to making connections and establishing group identity. The vulnerable act of sleeping next to one another as well as finding safety in numbers while being visibly exposed instead of hidden by walls promotes trust between people. Tensions are eased along with economic strife, and with people sharing resources with one another they are that much more likely to see a neighbor instead of a competitor- the cycle is reinforced. If nothing else it is just a matter of overcoming the time limits involved in most every group situation; people need time to get to know one another, to settle in, to self-organize, and to find opportunity to see the other side of human nature in one another. Deliberation and the social power needed to find congruency between people and political leadership/ policies is restored with finding shared space where people hold equal leverage.
Put walls in place and a very different reality ensues.
It should not be underestimated how much power there is in the simple act of sharing and reusing resources as well as in affecting the culture of over-consumption in the first place. I myself never appreciated the power of such things until I saw people sustain themselves almost entirely off of reused goods, and if given a place where they could clean up, store their stuff, and to simply BE during the day and night it was actually hard to even tell that they were homeless. Really it could not be said they seemed to be having much of a hard time at all- many seemed happier than most middle class.
I've even observed this in people living outside for a time while it was tolerated in Portland. Social capitol is like a drug that is passed around affecting the very perspectives of those it possesses. Even the way outsiders perceive the group who has it is affected and they will gravitate towards such a thing and label it with title's like "culture" and "originality". Just as social capitol grows from the evolutionary predisposition of finding strength in numbers, so too is confidence found in numbers. Never would I have imagined myself feeling at home under a bridge as wealthy and attractive middle class pass me by, but shame is a perspective thing, and if you have something as potent as compassion, your perspective is altered and your shame dissipates. In this regard being broken up and being unable to find compassion gives meaning to money, i.e. much of what money does is eliminate our sense of shame, not so coincidentally at the same time much of what money does is allow us to participate in activities and places where we are allowed to be in one another's presence (bars, clubs, shopping, coffee, college, homes which are in themselves places of congregation, etc.).
Unfortunately the reality is that we live in a society where homeless are either actively being broken up outside or struggling to conform to a society which has them indoors and separated. This kills a body of peoples ability to establish social capitol with one another and increases economic/ social strife in general. It helps establish the concept of living outside and being "homeless" as a strictly adverse one, but living outside is not inherently hard as we did it for millions of years. It is in us to build shelters and forts from an early age, but this intrinsically motivated activity is quickly stifled and we learn to normalize concepts of fitting in and meeting expectations all as part of the more general concept of property ownership.
PEOPLE make being homeless hard as they/ we obstruct the ability to come together, establish social capitol, and find compassion with one another. A lack of compassion (sharing anothers struggle) is in fact what makes homeless being hard, not simply living outside. But I just as well could have said, "a lack of compassion is what makes life hard - period". In this sense we are all homeless - we just have yet to catch onto it.
Just as roots need a place to grow, so too is habitat critical to many if not all social issues.
Group identification: confidence, shame, and Tiipping points
Homeless populations serve as a convenient and potentially enlightening macro scale study of domestication and group dynamics. At the risk of repeating some of the above, a more specific example is in order to elaborate on what exactly is meant here by group identification.
I myself have observed my own perspective shift from one of shame and confinement to one of confidence and contentment in many situations. It is like being in a place you don't want to be, surrounded by people you don't relate to, and everything you do cannot change the underlying problem so much as individual actions can only shift them around. You remember satisfaction by simple things, but nothing from simple to complicated will reproduce such results. Going somewhere else - if and when you can afford to do so - sometimes leads to the same thing in a different place. Options seem to narrow, and the world starts to look smaller. Your trapped. I think of Jack Sparrow and captain Barbbossa in Pirate's of the Caribbean when Barbossa said, "The world used to be a bigger place", to which Sparrow replies "No, there's just less in it". It is a perceptual thing, not just a matter of physical or circumstantial change.
Try as you might to "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps", ultimately individual well-being is inextricably tied to identifying with (not just being around) others, and this is inextricably tied to the environment we are a part of.
Corresponding to this is an observable shift between confidence and shame, the group of homeless themselves demonstrate much of the same; people will go from avoiding conversation to going out of their way to interact, previously dispersed individuals who seem to be almost hiding start forming groups in open areas. Suddenly a quiet crowd starts becoming an exited one. Sometimes it seems to be triggered by someone playing an instrument, sometimes it comes after a shared meal, sometimes it comes from finding refuge next to others for a nights rest, and sometimes it seems to be nothing more than a matter of giving people time to settle in, organize, and get comfortable.
Of course it happens in many situations beyond homelessness, it is just that homeless crowds highlights an interesting point; the dissipation of shame and the generation of confidence and social capitol has nothing to do with money. The most shameful position in society can become one of confidence, and the most unpleasant crowd will begin to show a different side of themselves.
Those outside pick up on it too. In fact they either gravitate towards it or seem to shrink from it - as if another groups confidence and capitol growing is a threat to theirs. Truly I believe this behavior goes on to help form laws and policies themselves as it keeps people from ever getting to see the other side of what they judge. And when the end result is societies where homeless people are routinely broken up before long, then this subjective judgement is only reinforced as the homeless crowds social capitol cannot take root.
In homeless crowds this state of social capitol or lack thereof seems to make the difference between angry, volatile, and depressed hobos who accuse one another of stealing and happy hobos calling one another brother or sister. It can make the difference in peoples dependency on alcohol or drugs, and whether or not they are out stealing or lounging contently in the park. It can even make the difference between whether they choose to try to work or not.
The question is what exactly causes it?
Malcolm Gladwells concept of tipping point seems applicable here. I'm trying to be objective in the ideas I put forth, so rather than attempting to identify what exactly causes this shift, I will just share what factors and commonalities I've observed to exist; a lack of expectations and space. If people have access to space, if they are not subject to time limits, and if they have a common interest then the ingredients are there. Whatever the tipping point factor may be, it seems to build off of these; the musician has an audience and an opportunity, the charity giver has opportunity to give food and share, the tired person has a place to find refuge and safety in the presence of others, and they all have time to do so.
Were it space designated for a specific purpose, restricted to only certain activities at certain times of the day, or reserved for specific people, then these tipping point factors would be limited. But they'd be non-existent were there no space for them to take root. Space free of expectations seems to be conducive to social capitol.
I myself have observed my own perspective shift from one of shame and confinement to one of confidence and contentment in many situations. It is like being in a place you don't want to be, surrounded by people you don't relate to, and everything you do cannot change the underlying problem so much as individual actions can only shift them around. You remember satisfaction by simple things, but nothing from simple to complicated will reproduce such results. Going somewhere else - if and when you can afford to do so - sometimes leads to the same thing in a different place. Options seem to narrow, and the world starts to look smaller. Your trapped. I think of Jack Sparrow and captain Barbbossa in Pirate's of the Caribbean when Barbossa said, "The world used to be a bigger place", to which Sparrow replies "No, there's just less in it". It is a perceptual thing, not just a matter of physical or circumstantial change.
Try as you might to "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps", ultimately individual well-being is inextricably tied to identifying with (not just being around) others, and this is inextricably tied to the environment we are a part of.
Corresponding to this is an observable shift between confidence and shame, the group of homeless themselves demonstrate much of the same; people will go from avoiding conversation to going out of their way to interact, previously dispersed individuals who seem to be almost hiding start forming groups in open areas. Suddenly a quiet crowd starts becoming an exited one. Sometimes it seems to be triggered by someone playing an instrument, sometimes it comes after a shared meal, sometimes it comes from finding refuge next to others for a nights rest, and sometimes it seems to be nothing more than a matter of giving people time to settle in, organize, and get comfortable.
Of course it happens in many situations beyond homelessness, it is just that homeless crowds highlights an interesting point; the dissipation of shame and the generation of confidence and social capitol has nothing to do with money. The most shameful position in society can become one of confidence, and the most unpleasant crowd will begin to show a different side of themselves.
Those outside pick up on it too. In fact they either gravitate towards it or seem to shrink from it - as if another groups confidence and capitol growing is a threat to theirs. Truly I believe this behavior goes on to help form laws and policies themselves as it keeps people from ever getting to see the other side of what they judge. And when the end result is societies where homeless people are routinely broken up before long, then this subjective judgement is only reinforced as the homeless crowds social capitol cannot take root.
In homeless crowds this state of social capitol or lack thereof seems to make the difference between angry, volatile, and depressed hobos who accuse one another of stealing and happy hobos calling one another brother or sister. It can make the difference in peoples dependency on alcohol or drugs, and whether or not they are out stealing or lounging contently in the park. It can even make the difference between whether they choose to try to work or not.
The question is what exactly causes it?
Malcolm Gladwells concept of tipping point seems applicable here. I'm trying to be objective in the ideas I put forth, so rather than attempting to identify what exactly causes this shift, I will just share what factors and commonalities I've observed to exist; a lack of expectations and space. If people have access to space, if they are not subject to time limits, and if they have a common interest then the ingredients are there. Whatever the tipping point factor may be, it seems to build off of these; the musician has an audience and an opportunity, the charity giver has opportunity to give food and share, the tired person has a place to find refuge and safety in the presence of others, and they all have time to do so.
Were it space designated for a specific purpose, restricted to only certain activities at certain times of the day, or reserved for specific people, then these tipping point factors would be limited. But they'd be non-existent were there no space for them to take root. Space free of expectations seems to be conducive to social capitol.
Social capitol to real capitol and a man named troy
Considering Carl Marx idea that capitol is a social relation, it is interesting to consider how the meaning of money may one day be given a physically tangible description in terms of neuroscience, i.e. social capitol becomes monetary capitol when we can literally see how and why confidence, shame, perceptions of safety, assurance of sustenance, and a sense of belonging/ group identity all fluctuate with space and visual/ physical exposure to others. Thus we'd understand in an entirely new way how and why people make social/ economic transactions as well as the social agreements that uphold property ownership.
Simply put, capitol and the concept of success itself will be recognized for what they are; a state of mind. Like the concept of 'fun' it will become abundantly clear these concepts are not inextricably linked to the tangible things we thought they were. Fun is a state of mind, activities which sometimes induce a state of fun are correlation not causation. Success is likewise arbitrary; it means different things to different people, but in all cases it might be said that success looses its original intent if you don't feel successful. And is not the value of money itself depreciated when a clearer picture of what we're after and how to get there is presented?
I think of a man named troy who I work with. With a head of hair like a rock-star, and a suprisingly handsome smile and functional build, he'll be the first to admit he's a meth addict. You don't even have to sugar coat it, he'll call himself a tweaker. In fact he's a walking talking encyclopedia of tweaker jokes and many others. After a day of working in his pajama pants he'll pull out his down blanket from the equipment room and toss it on a chair with his mid-sized bag. The thing is that it's not even rolled up. Shamelessly, he just tosses it over his shoulder and goes out the door conversing with anyone in sight. He'll tell you stories about the women he's slept with in doorways (here sleeping has a literal meaning) , the tweaker street kids he's interacted with, the friendly cops telling him to move for his own safety to which he promptly assures he'll do so before going right back to sleep, and the dogs he wakes up to trying to say hello to him.
There is a certain looseness in people like Troy which seems to lessen when a tent goes up, which of course would inhibit much of the aforementioned things.
Another gentleman I met briefly was much the same. The one hippie in the room most enjoying the music, he told me about how he's slept under a tree without the use of a tent for seven years, and how there is something to it, as if the tree looks out for him, and how he feels his warmth somehow fed the tree (I myself would attest there is a certain feeling of being looked over when taking refuge under a tree). He told me about how he walks nearly 25 miles most days with a big bag of cans over his shoulder. I asked him why not just do day labor and get twice the pay. Without hesitation he replied, "ohh no, I don't do what I'm told". A more than friendly guy, I did not take this as remark born of testosterone, just his individual sense of freedom.
What does money mean to people like this? Perhaps more relevant would be to ask, how many people are out there searching for some of what they have, yet regardless of how much they pay, just cannot find it? Again it is apparent how a world in which we must submit entirely to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle which revolves around property ownership and that of a carefree nomadic one is a world of extremes. People like this should not be kept on the run, isolated, and hiding for the life they live, and people on the other end of the spectrum may unexpectedly find something they've been searching for as well.
"The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money." - James Madison
Simply put, capitol and the concept of success itself will be recognized for what they are; a state of mind. Like the concept of 'fun' it will become abundantly clear these concepts are not inextricably linked to the tangible things we thought they were. Fun is a state of mind, activities which sometimes induce a state of fun are correlation not causation. Success is likewise arbitrary; it means different things to different people, but in all cases it might be said that success looses its original intent if you don't feel successful. And is not the value of money itself depreciated when a clearer picture of what we're after and how to get there is presented?
I think of a man named troy who I work with. With a head of hair like a rock-star, and a suprisingly handsome smile and functional build, he'll be the first to admit he's a meth addict. You don't even have to sugar coat it, he'll call himself a tweaker. In fact he's a walking talking encyclopedia of tweaker jokes and many others. After a day of working in his pajama pants he'll pull out his down blanket from the equipment room and toss it on a chair with his mid-sized bag. The thing is that it's not even rolled up. Shamelessly, he just tosses it over his shoulder and goes out the door conversing with anyone in sight. He'll tell you stories about the women he's slept with in doorways (here sleeping has a literal meaning) , the tweaker street kids he's interacted with, the friendly cops telling him to move for his own safety to which he promptly assures he'll do so before going right back to sleep, and the dogs he wakes up to trying to say hello to him.
There is a certain looseness in people like Troy which seems to lessen when a tent goes up, which of course would inhibit much of the aforementioned things.
Another gentleman I met briefly was much the same. The one hippie in the room most enjoying the music, he told me about how he's slept under a tree without the use of a tent for seven years, and how there is something to it, as if the tree looks out for him, and how he feels his warmth somehow fed the tree (I myself would attest there is a certain feeling of being looked over when taking refuge under a tree). He told me about how he walks nearly 25 miles most days with a big bag of cans over his shoulder. I asked him why not just do day labor and get twice the pay. Without hesitation he replied, "ohh no, I don't do what I'm told". A more than friendly guy, I did not take this as remark born of testosterone, just his individual sense of freedom.
What does money mean to people like this? Perhaps more relevant would be to ask, how many people are out there searching for some of what they have, yet regardless of how much they pay, just cannot find it? Again it is apparent how a world in which we must submit entirely to a sedentary agricultural lifestyle which revolves around property ownership and that of a carefree nomadic one is a world of extremes. People like this should not be kept on the run, isolated, and hiding for the life they live, and people on the other end of the spectrum may unexpectedly find something they've been searching for as well.
"The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money." - James Madison
