Homelessness, Citizenship, and Identity: The Uncanniness of Late Modernity

5. Homeland, Homelessness, and Cosmopolitanism

129 Chapter 5 Homeland, Homelessness, and Cosmopolitanism Introduction I began this book by arguing that concepts of the home and homelessness provide the basis for a critique of freedom in the modern nation-state. I have interpreted homelessness in a double sense: both the physical dislocation experienced by the homeless, poor immigrants, and refugees as well as the political dislocation that occurs. This link between home and homeland is not a metaphorical one but “a reaffirmation of the duplication of the patria-household in the form of the patria-nation,”1 as discussed in chapter 2. Accordingly, political homelessness is an “uprooting” (in Simone Weil’s words2 ) from what is conceived of as a homeland. Nevertheless , the notion of being grounded in a homeland is specious: it is precisely due to rigid definitions of home and homeland that contemporary homelessness has been possible on such a large scale. Thus, while homelessness has increased domestically (most notably in the United States), the twentieth century was also the century of the refugee. In this way, just as domestic homelessness is a significant problem and has only increased with time, what has happened with various refugee groups such as the Albanian Kosovars is also a symptom of a growing homelessness, ironically necessitated by the modern nation-state and notions of belonging and citizenship, in addition to capitalist logic. Hence, the quest for home/homeland and self-determination ultimately causes less security rather than more. Instead, the effort awakens an irresolvable tension (and simultaneous violence) that is masked by the reliance on concrete identities and boundaries. Conversely, political spaces will only be more inclusive and accepting when they become more homeless. This is due, in part, to the fact that home and homeland are not simply physical locations but inextricably linked to citizenship, which is both represented and made possible by the home. Consequently, if citizenship is based on exclusive norms, the exclusion of those who don’t fit these norms signifies this uprooting from the homeland. One not only lives a precarious political existence but is denied the right to self-preservation . At the minimum, political exclusion can signify subordinating oneself to a normalizing process. At worst, it means arrests, harassment, and disrespect—based on economic and other differences and thus, status or identity, and not criminal acts. This exposes the growth of prerogative power accounted for by liberal thinkers and yet reinforced and deepened by the dictates of nationalism and capitalism. Accordingly, the political exclusion of guest workers in Germany can be compared to the status of the homeless in the United States, and both of these domestic cases can be juxtaposed to the condition of refugees living in camps. This is because in all cases, they represent a manifestation of power that both illuminates the growth of state—prerogative and bureaucratic—power, on the one hand, and the supreme importance of capitalist values that undermines efforts to achieve justice, political participation, civic duty, notions of political community, and other democratic values, on the other. Rather, the dehumanization of an Other or Others means just that: they are no longer treated as human beings. If self-preservation was the minimum goal of modern and liberal thinkers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, this is not even guaranteed to those who are stateless or disenfranchised. Thus, one’s “home,” even if only one’s photos and a few personal belongings or a cardboard box, can be burned or bulldozed. Similarly, a family or group can be relocated into camps or driven away because their identity does not fit notions of political belonging (for example, Gypsies in the Czech Republic, Kosovar Albanians in the Yugoslav republic, and Serbs in Kosovo). On the one hand, this is because notions of home and identity (and thus, citizenship) are conferred rather than reflecting lived, daily experience . On the other hand, when individuals, families, or groups become displaced, their existence is then considered subhuman and their keepsakes are no longer protected or seen as necessary for self-preservation. Accordingly, the Mexicans who do gardening, cleaning, and childcare in California may contribute to the economy and fill a need, but can be harassed , made to feel Other, subject to police brutality, or deported. They don’t belong because of status rather than fact. Analogously, the home130
Homelessness, Citizenship, and Identity less man who lived in the parking space next to my apartment on Venice Beach could be...