Exclusion

Client: “You all actually coming and looking me in the eyes and smiling at me really means so much to me.”

ROC Member: “If there is nothing else we can do. We can always do that. We want you to know we see you, and we care about you.”

Client: “I like the way you all carry yourselves.”

ROC Member: “Thank you! I am glad that is visible. We want to be positive and uplifting with everything we can while we are out here talking to folks!”

ROC Member: “Hey, we have heard you might have some issues with your health and managing your diabetes here recently.”

Client: “Nah, nah, I’m alright. I still got my medicines, but the next time I run out, I will go down and get them refilled.”

ROC Member: “Alright, man. That’s cool. Well, remember we can be here to help with any of that. I mean, I am all good with bringing you this food and coffee, but all that is in the hope that you can eventually trust me enough to help with those types of things.”

Client: “Alright, yeah. I hear you. I have been seeing you all enough now; I might just do that.”

ROC Member: “Ok, great! We will get there! You got my card; just call me.”

The roots to the overwhelming disregard, obliviousness, and aversion to those experiencing homelessness run shockingly deep in our human psyche.

In 2002 psychologist Susan Fiske, through the development of the “Stereotype Content Model,” tapped into these roots. This model is based on the theory that we evaluate people quickly as either friends or enemies and assess whether people have power or resources. According to their findings, groups stereotyped as low in warmth and high in competence, for example, “the rich,” brought up feelings of envy. Groups stereotyped as high in warmth and low in competence, such as “the elderly,” evoked feelings of pity. Groups that were stereotyped as both high in warmth and competence brought up feelings of pride and admiration, for example, “the middle class.” Groups that were stereotyped to be both low on warmth and competence made feelings of contempt and disgust, for example, “the poor.” Their findings showed that the group that was ranked the lowest of the low was “the homeless.” This group brought about the biggest feelings of disgust, prejudice, disrespect, and dislike.

To take these findings even further, they took this a step further and took scans of random participants’ brain activity and took note of what sections of the brain became either activated or deactivated when shown images of different population groups. Most population images when shown to the participants seemed to highlight activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. This is an area of the brain that is activated in social cognition tasks. This is used for things like forming impressions of another person.

But when participants were shown images of populations who were presumably poor, living in poverty, and experiencing homelessness, their medial prefrontal cortex showed no signs of activity.

So what parts of the brain did light up when shown these images of the poor and outcast? The left insula and right amygdala, which are the same areas of the brain activated when viewing disgusting objects such as vomit. The region of our brain that normally activates when we see a fellow human being is not activated. But the region of our brain that activates when we feel disgusted by a gross inanimate object is activated. This is the neurological basis of how dehumanization occurs. This is the neurological basis of why language matters. This is the neurological basis of why we try our best to say “people experiencing homelessness” when in conversation or when talking about this population we work with and care so much about. This is the neurological basis that serves as the reminder to us—we, you, me, anyone, and everyone—that people are people whether housed or unhoused. Our brains are cognitively excluding people whether they are currently present in a physical space or not. How extremely sad and scary this is!

Just this last weekend this neurological shift may have been apparent in some of our living rooms or wherever we gathered with others to watch the big game. There were two advertisements broadcasted during this year’s Super Bowl that depicted these types of images of presumably homeless and poor people along with other populations typically associated with the off-putting populations from Fiske’s study. In this writer’s living room with friends and loved ones gathered around, the shift felt in the room when these images popped onto the screen could both be felt and heard. Statements of “What is this about?” rang out. As if saying, “Wait a second, my brain suddenly shifted somewhere completely different and very unexpectedly in this current setting I find myself in. I don’t feel comfortable with this. This feels foreign.”

This example and the one provided in the video below should be alarming to us all.

But alarming in a way that allows us to think about, see, seek out, and relate differently to PEOPLE experiencing homelessness. Let it no longer be so common that every time a large group of people are asked, “Who here cares about the issue of homelessness?” That almost 100% raise their hand. But when that same group of people is then asked, “Who here actually knows and has a relationship with someone who either recently was or is currently experiencing homelessness?” Only 10%-15% of the people raise their hands.

#ROCAndRoll

#ROCRetrospective

#Exclusion