1. Grade Required
Exam Number: 334
JGD715
Class: Marginalization Sociology
Title: Marginalization Theories and the American Homeless
Characters in main text (inc. spaces): 34,246
Autumn Semester 2014

2. Index
Introduction 1
Definition of the Underclass 1
The American Dream 2
The Chronically Homeless as American Underclass 3
Defining Short-Term Homelessness 4
The Actor in Marginalization Theories 6
The Street Paper Model Proposal to Reduce 9
Marginalization of Homeless
Discussion: How Effective is the Street Paper Model? 12
Success Related to the Welfare State 13
Conclusion 14
Bibliography 16
Solemn Declaration 17

3. 1
Marginalization Theories and the American Homeless
Introduction
In general terms, the underclass is a subset group of individuals that are
considered to be the lowest social class in a society and the farthest away from social
integration. Literature about the sociology of marginalization focuses on issues
surrounding the underclass. The homeless individual in the majority of modern societies
epitomizes an image of the underclass for various reasons. This essay will analyze
stereotypes and demographic characteristics of the homeless in order to explain why this
subgroup is at serious risk of marginalization, especially within modern American
society. Marginalization theories will be discussed, and then accompanied by a proposed
model for the de-marginalization and reintegration of the homeless underclass.
Definition of the Underclass
By the end of the 19th century, three social classes emerged as a result of the
Industrial Revolution’s effect on reshaping society structure (Beck, 1991:87). This
underclass of Industrial society reflected characteristics of the “lumpen proletariat”, a
term coined and expanded by Marx (1998). The term ‘underclass’ took shape in
industrialized culture in order to describe a person that failed to contribute in a way
considered to be ‘valuable’ by the labor-centric society. Here, the underclass was
described as a subordinate group – a burden weighing down on societal progress and full
economic prosperity. The word “poverty” is also a characteristic used to describe
someone that may be considered a burden on society because of his or her dependence on
the welfare state. Thus, “poverty” is a characteristic that is commonly associated with the
underclass (see Abrahamson, 1998). But Mortensen (1995) argued that poverty is not the
only characteristic associated with the underclass, and that important behavioral traits
must also be considered (173).
Failure to make a meaningful contribution to the workforce (unemployment) was
also associated with the original appearance of the underclass in industrialized society.
Furthermore, the sociological theories of Moller (1995) and Lind (1995) argue that
employment is a key aspect of an individual’s integration in society. Here, the

4. 2
individual’s employment manifests a sense of personal connection to the welfare of
society as a whole. This contribution to the workforce may then successfully integrate the
individual by virtue of one’s adherence to societal norms. Furthermore, the employment
of the individual reflects personal responsibility for oneself, simultaneously excluding the
individual from categorization as a burden on society’s welfare state. Unemployment and
poverty represent a disruption in the harmony between the individual interactions with
society. As a consequence, the underclass may likely experience exclusion or repulsion
from societal “in-rootness” due to factors that will be discussed in more detail later on.
The American Dream
Unemployment and poverty are not the only characteristics associated with the
underclass in every single modern-day society around the world. Yet modern American
society reveals a unique case in which these two characteristics are indeed deterministic
factors attached primarily to the underclass. This phenomenon may be attributed to the
complex ways that the notion of the American Dream has shaped the nation’s history and
plays out in today’s modern society.
Rooted within the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, the American Dream
is a national ethos that has exhibited significant influence over the evolution and structure
of American society. The American Dream embodies the core belief that every individual
citizen has equal opportunity for prosperity, success, and upward social mobility
achieved through hard work. This notion manifests a social structure where employment,
success, and financial freedom are intrinsically linked together at the heart of society.
Contribution to the labor market (employment) enables societal integration via
participation in societal norms attributed to pursuit of the American Dream. Society’s
shared belief in the American Dream suggests that opportunity for prosperity and
integration varies as a function of the individual’s “hard work” and ability to achieve –
terms that also carry heavy associations with employment and financial success.
In a society largely motivated and driven by a prosperous capitalist market, the
American Dream transforms the terms “unemployment” and “poverty” into deterministic
characteristics that are inevitably attached to the American underclass. American writer
and historian, James Truslow Adams, defined the American Dream as the notion that,

5. 3
regardless of one’s social class, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone,
with opportunity for each according to ability of achievement” (Adams, 1931; cited by
Library of Congress). Although this national ethos does allow for fluidity across social
class, the characteristics of unemployment and poverty blatantly oppose the societal
structure governed by the notion of the American Dream.
Here, the underclass is suddenly faced with intensified social discrimination due
to the fact that society equates prosperity and social integration with one’s “hard work”
and “ability to achieve”. Through the eyes of governing social structures, unemployment
and poverty are perceived as an individual’s deviance from social norms, the personal
failure to meet societal expectations, and their failure to persevere. The characteristics of
“employment” and “wealth” associated with pursuit of the American Dream infiltrate
even the most basic forms of integration, and consequently marginalization as well.
Anderson (cited in Kristensen 2000) points at three basic marginalization forms (labor
market, social, and political marginalization) founded on the three pillars of the social
realm in modern western society (1996;8). The American Dream mentality is so
engrained in American structure that it has become absorbed into every facet of society,
encompassing the labor market, social, and political realms.
The Chronically Homeless as American Underclass
It is important to establish the differences between “short-term (transitional or
episodic) homelessness” and “chronic homelessness” in order to analyze the sociological
importance within such a diverse group of people.
Most researchers agree that the number of chronically homeless adults constitutes
as a small percentage (18%) of the overall homeless population in America (Caton,
Wilkins, & Anderson; 2007). The National Symposium on Homelessness Research
(2007) defined chronic homelessness as “a homeless individual with a disabling
condition” who has experienced either continuous or multiple episodes of homelessness
in more than one year’s time. These “disabling conditions” often include severe and
persistent mental illness and substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and physical disability (Kuhn
& Culhane, 1998; Burt et al., 2001; Kertesz et al., 2005). These characteristics of the
chronically homeless are also found in two of the categories used by Jencks (1989) to

6. 4
describe the underclass: the ‘moral underclass’ who treat social norms as ‘impractical or
irrelevant’ (1989:15), and the ‘educational underclass’ who lack the knowledge or
training to participate in the workforce. Thus, ‘the moral underclass’ would be used to
describe the chronically homeless individual with disabling conditions such as mental
illness or substance abuse - conditions which prevent adherence to what is considered
socially normal. The ‘educational underclass’ would then describe the chronically
homeless suffering from physical disability, HIV/AIDS, and again, mental illness –
conditions of the body and mind that prevent adequate skills required to participate in the
workforce.
Caton (2005) states that, in addition to serious disability, the chronically homeless
are also compromised by persistent unemployment that consequently results in a
dependence on the welfare state for things such as health care, sustenance, and daily
provisions. Furthermore, characteristics of older age, past or current unemployment, a
lack of earned income, and arrest history are directly correlated with longer durations of
homelessness (Caton et al., 2005). This demographic data is also described by sociologist
Wilson (1987:8) who defines the underclass by: the inability to participate in the
mainstream occupational system in America, including lack of skill, long term
unemployment, and long term periods of poverty and/or dependence on the welfare state.
Because the American Dream mentality encompasses all social realms (labor market,
social, and political), the chronically homeless´ failed adherence to this social norm leads
to their categorization as underclass.
Defining Short-Term Homelessness
In American society, individuals experiencing “short-term” homelessness
constitute the largest majority (82%) of the overall homeless population at any one point
in time (N.A.E.H). Short-term homelessness presents a marginalization phenomenon that
is much more complex due to the greater diversity of individuals within this group.
Nonetheless, individuals experiencing short-term homelessness are also characterized as
underclass, placing them at serious risk of marginalization. Although short-term
homelessness accounts for the majority of homelessness occurring at any one point in
time, research pertaining to this subgroup is rare and is seldom comprehensive or

7. 5
longitudinal in nature. This biased focus in research may be related to the chronically
homeless´ significantly larger dependence on the welfare state and the associated
economic burden on society. Therefore, one must use case studies about short-term
homelessness as a reflection of the overarching sociological situation at play.
Short-term homelessness often times occurs due to an unfortunate series of events
where the individual is left without any personal resources. This may result from a
variety of situations including: youth’s expulsion from the family home, an individual’s
release from jail, sudden loss of job, escape from domestic abuse, or a medical
emergency that has starved an individual of all financial resources (N.A.E.H). The most
deterministic factor preventing short-term homelessness from becoming chronic is the
individual´s social ties with family and community that may be willing to “take them in”
if hit with hard times (Kuhn & Culhane, 1998). The term “poverty” can be used to
describe those experiencing short-term homelessness due to the fact that they cannot
support themselves completely without dependence on the welfare state or social groups.
In contrast to chronic homelessness, these individuals are rendered homeless due to
situational phenomena and therefore, “unemployment” may or may not fully apply.
Despite the situational differences associated with chronic and short-term
homelessness, poverty and unemployment are collectively used to label these two
subgroups as underclass. Studies looking at the public opinion on homelessness also
support this idea and show that popular American media largely takes a “conservative
frame that draws heavily on the individualism underlying the myth of the American
Dream” (Huckin, 2002;360). In Huckin´s study (2002) that accounted for media
published in all major U.S. newspapers within the span of one month, four genres related
to homelessness emerged: causes of homelessness, effects of homelessness, public
responses to the problem, and demographic data about homelessness. Huckin concluded:
This inventory indicates that current [early 1999] public discourse in the
U.S. characterizes homelessness as follows: it is caused mainly by
substance abuse, mental illness, and poverty; it affects large numbers of
not only single men, but also families and children; and it is associated
with crime, violence, and vagrancy (359).
Notice how Huckin’s analysis reflects the public´s overall failure to differentiate between
characteristics of short-term versus chronic homelessness. With the American Dream

8. 6
mentality, those who are perceived to have failed to take advantage of the ´land of
opportunity’ only have themselves to blame. Here, the American Dream mentality
prevents the outside observer from recognizing the drastic demographic differences
between chronic and short-term homelessness. Society labels this group as “the other”
and promotes an enhanced sense of differentiation between the homeless and sheltered,
placing the homeless population at risk of marginalization.
The Actor in Marginalization Theories
The homeless in America represent an underclass group at serious risk of
marginalization due to a hotchpotch of relations between demographic data, stereotypes,
and crude generalizations established in public opinion. In order to examine
homelessness as a marginalization phenomenon, marginalization theories will be
discussed and then applied within the context of American homelessness.
Kristensen (cited from Townsend, 1979;Germani, 1980) defines marginalization
as a process that is unwanted by the individual. The phenomenon is characterized by an
exclusion from participation within some field of the societal life (praxis), which is
considered both central for the given society (objective importance), and for the
individual (subjective importance) (2000:3). Finally, marginalization is “incomplete
participation within one or more life fields” where the actor is neither excluded from one
particular field (praxis), nor from all fields completely (2000:6). Especially true in the
individual´s homeless situation, Svedberg (1995) emphasizes that complex interactions
between actor and structure coalesce in the marginalization phenomenon, and therefore,
cannot be explained simply by individual choice or involuntarism (1995;44).
Kristensen´s essay and the theories that she includes in her argument make a
weighted analysis comparing the actor to various social spaces within society, taking into
account all social dimensions involved in marginalization. The following marginalization
theories are founded on the belief that humans are social creatures by nature, and that
because of this; the individual (actor) is fundamentally always interacting and
communicating with society in some way (Frisby 1992:7). The actor’s contact and

9. 7
communication can take on various forms, leaving room for potential upwards,
downwards, and/or “neutral” changes in social mobility over time (Galicki
2000;2005;2006). Simmel (1908) described marginalization of the poor as “partial or
incomplete participation” with a given praxis on the basis of incomplete economic
activity – societal participation only by virtue of inclusion within an adhering social
group, such as a church or family unit (cited by Kristensen, 2000:6).
On the other hand, Park (1952) proposed that actors move to and move from
praxis, where praxis is understood as any specific social association, group, or
community (cited in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). Because the praxis functions as a
subgroup within the governing structure of society, relative social norms and values are
also associated with the structure of specific praxis. Therefore, ‘moving to’ and ‘moving
from’ practices determine the actor’s participation in certain praxis while also potentially
leading to marginalization of the actor from other praxis. Germani (1980) provides a
definition of marginalized groups identical to previous descriptions of the social
underclass. Here, marginalization is directly correlated with an individual’s failure to
participate in certain praxis where their participation is expected, as determined by and
according to social norms.
Tom Broch’s (1979) Constructive Theoretical Pluralism (CTP) is useful in the
analysis of marginalization situations because it concentrates focus on the actor’s
communication with the societal structure (rules and resources) as the primary driving
force behind marginalization. Broch’s CTP model identifies four general interaction
fields of the social reality: the social (formal), existential, civilizing, and historical (cited
in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). These fields of social reality are distinguishable by the way
that the actor is forced to take action and the respective communication required in the
given marginalization situation.
Therefore, direct actor-structure communication has an effect on all four types of
marginalization. Yet, only with the historical marginalization (hm) type does this
communication factor play a crucial and directly relevant role in the marginalization
phenomenon (cited in Galicki 2002;2005;2006). Citizenship and contribution to the
workforce are attaching practices that integrate the actor within society via creation of a
direct link between actor and structure. Therefore, poverty and unemployment

10. 8
(characteristics associated with the American underclass) function as detaching practices
in which the actor ‘moves from’ participation in social norms, while also ‘moving to’ the
praxis of underclass dependence on the welfare state. Failure to participate in the
workforce in a complete way prevents the individual from gaining social recognition or
integration, putting them at serious risk of marginalization.
The marginalization theories that have been proposed thus far require that one
accept conceptions of society that are “either directly grounded in or presuppose the
concept of interaction or reciprocal effect” (Frisby; 1992;7). In other words, the theories
of Park, Germani, and Broch demand that the individual must act on the stage that is
society because one cannot exist without the other for we are social creatures by nature.
Therefore, social detaching and possible marginalization must exist in each epoch and
will increase in complexity as a variable of modernity (cited in Frisby 1992). With
increased complexity comes enhanced differentiation across social realms, consequently
pushing “deviant” groups more towards marginalization and exclusion. This is especially
the case in modern American society where the homeless underclass individual struggles
to make any meaningful contact or communication with social entities. Bridge vendor
Linda Bozant explains, “No one listens to us because they assume that we are either lazy
or on drugs!” (The Bridge interviews, 2014). Homelessness in America therefore
represents an extreme case of marginalization where the individual actor cannot
communicate in any significant way with the society structure required in order to move
oneself from their marginalized situation.
Sociologists such as Wiese and Svedburg propose marginalization theories that
situate the actor’s movement and interaction within society on a much more
individualized, micro scale. Svedburg (1995) argued for a spectrum of social interaction
where the actor could be located anywhere between “rooted-in” group (far left),
“marginal” group (middle), or “excluded” (far right) (cited in Kristensen 2000:7).
Svedburg’s theory represents a less sophisticated version of Broch’s marginalization
typology in that it fails to fully address the individual’s complex social reality in modern
day society. According to Svedburg, the American homeless population is an underclass

11. 9
group situated on the right-hand side of the axis somewhere between “marginal” and
“excluded”.
Wiese suggested that society is an illusion and that human interactions are the
only phenomenon at play, representing a much narrower perception of marginalization
(cited in Kristensen 2000). According to Wiese, two basic phenomena exist and relate to
all human interactions: 1) the individuals come close to each other (attaching) and 2)
move away from each other (detaching). By using communication and contact, the
individual can move away from detaching processes (characterized by isolation,
unfamiliarity, differentiation, and hostility) to achieve attaching processes (characterized
by tolerance, compromise, adaptation, leveling, and unity) (cited in Galicki
2002;2005;2006).
Because society is an illusion, the individual’s practices relate only to the
participation in “group affiliations”. Here, attaching and detaching processes cannot be
equated with integration and differentiation. This is because attaching/detaching
processes do not relate to a whole, society, or social structure – they are terms used to
describe the individual’s social interactions (and not participation with certain praxis).
Wiese’s theory explains marginalization of the homeless as a social process related to
either detaching processes, a lack of attaching processes, or a combination of the two.
Practices using contact and communication would then enable the marginalized homeless
individual to move away from detaching processes and towards attaching processes.
Face-to-face (actor-to-structure) contact and communication is especially important given
the complexity of modern American society where differentiation and distance between
social realms is enhanced (Simmel 1908; cited in Frisby 1992). Because the individual
actor cannot hope to significantly change the state of society, one can only take measures
to change his own social situation. The street paper model provides a viable solution to
move the actor along the marginalization spectrum by addressing key factors contributing
to the phenomenon.
The Street Paper Model Proposal to Reduce Marginalization of Homeless
In very basic terms, a “street paper” is a newspaper or magazine sold by
individuals that are experiencing homelessness and/or poverty, and typically feature

12. 10
content related to issues surrounding these characteristics of the underclass. The street
paper organizations produce timely publications in order to provide the homeless with a
resource for employment, self-empowerment, and a voice within the given community
(INSP, 2014). After completing vendor training and certification, the homeless individual
may then purchase papers at a fraction cost of the selling value. The sales of the paper
allow the vendor to keep 75-90% of their profits (depending on the organization) while
also promoting self-empowerment through self-employment in the homeless individual.
The street paper model is a “hand up”, not a “hand out” and promotes relationships
between customers (community members) and homeless vendors. By analyzing the
contributing factors in marginalization theories, one will understand why the street paper
model may be used as a means to escape marginalization situations within specific
societal context.
According to Park (1952), a homeless individual’s participation with the street
paper model would function as a ‘moving to’ practice, eventually leading to social
reintegration back into society. The street paper organization and community would
function as praxis in itself, governed by social structures and values that mimic those
found in the society at large. Here, it is important that the publication content also
represents adherence to social norms (anti-drug etc.). Although the street paper vendors
are publically recognized as homeless individuals, their employment with the street paper
organization functions as a ‘moving to’ practice in realigning their individual image with
social norms and expectations associated within the American Dream framework (Park,
1952; Germani, 1980). The vendor’s employment also functions as a ‘moving from’
practice which distances the individual from negative associations related to the praxis of
homelessness (i.e. panhandling, begging, substance abuse). Self-employment with the
paper breaks down the stereotype that homelessness is caused by an individual’s laziness,
failure to persevere, and a personal decision to depend on the welfare state. Participation
in the labor market demonstrates the individual’s attempt to alleviate their dependence on
the welfare state.
The vendor’s unique contribution to the workforce through the sales of the paper
may also function as an attaching process. In regards to Broch’s historical

13. 11
marginalization associated with homelessness, sales of the paper put the homeless actor
in contact with both the societal structures (rules and resources) and also with in-rooted
actors in society (community members). StreetSense vendor, Jake Ashford, explains,
“You know, as far as with the paper, it gives me a change to meet the working class
people” (Dankey & Wiegand, 1998). As cited by Galicki (2002;2005;2006), the
communication factor associated with marginalization types is the main driving force
behind an actor’s fulfillment of the attaching/move-to process. Contact by means of
employment and active citizenship enable the homeless vendor to gain social recognition
and increase the likelihood of “upwards” social mobility.
Homelessness in America represents an extreme case of marginalization where
the homeless individual is limited from making any meaningful communication with the
in-rooted members of society (Kristensen 2000). Meaningful communication is limited
and often disregarded due to associations between homelessness and deviancy. Because
of this, the marginalization situation approaches exclusion and thus, widens the
sociological gap between the homeless and sheltered individual. Consequently, the in-
rooted individual experiences increasing difficulty to sympathize with the homeless
situation. Here, the street paper model represents a perfect solution in that it provides a
platform for contact and communication – crucial factors required for an actor to move
away from marginalization.
First, the street paper itself provides an outlet for expression where the voice of
the homeless may be published and heard by large numbers of in-rooted society members
(customers). Successful street paper organizations such as Chicago’s Streetwise boast
circulation numbers of 338,000 annually (Streetwise, 2012). The stories written by
homeless authors help to give a face to homelessness and promote empathy by
highlighting the marginalization phenomenon, a condition experienced at all levels of
social stratification (Giddens, 2001). Consequently, the sociological differentiation
between groups is minimized, which promotes an enlightened and sympathetic
perception of the homeless situation. Here, sociological barriers between the homeless
and sheltered are broken down. First-hand accounts of homelessness may change the
public’s perspective by calling attention to potential flaws in the welfare state that may

14. 12
contribute to homelessness. Examples include a lack of jobs, low-income housing
options, resources for the mentally ill, and a fully functioning health care system. Thus,
the street paper encourages the public to look at marginalization phenomenon with a
sociological perspective and to consider all factors that may contribute to homelessness.
The vendor-customer exchange is also a crucial factor in that it provides
opportunity for the homeless individual to build good quality contacts within the society
structure. The vendor-customer exchange represents a platform where both individuals
may interact on safe and equal grounds, allowing quality relationships (contacts) to
blossom through face-to-face communication. Establishing good contact and
communication with the society structure increase the individual’s opportunity for
employment and access to resources via in-rooted individuals or social organizations.
Here, the individual must be open to the idea of reintegration back into society and must
actively pursue this goal. No organization or model can change a person’s situation if
they do not want to, or simply cannot, change it themselves.
Discussion: How effective is the Street Paper Model?
Here, it is important to analyze the street paper model on a micro-scale in relation
to the single individual. Although employment through a street-paper organization is
effective in reducing marginalization of the homeless in theory, this model is not fully
comprehensive for escaping the homelessness situation, especially in cases of chronic
homelessness. Thus, efforts to reduce the marginalization situation of the homeless
cannot be fully successful until the individual literally transitions from ‘homelessness’ to
‘sheltered’.
With most street paper organizations, sales of the street paper cannot provide the
vendor with enough income to cover daily living expenses in addition to the substantial
savings required to secure permanent housing and transition out of homelessness.
Because many homeless individuals could make more money by panhandling and
begging (Danky & Wiegand, 1998), the long-term benefits associated with the street
paper model (social contact, community, and reintegration) do not outweigh the short-
term demand for daily survival needs. Here, the individual is faced with a paradoxical

15. 13
situation where one’s survival needs and efforts to reduce marginalization will inherently
collide.
For the individual that is homeless by choice, the street paper model provides no
social or financial benefit. In the case of short-term homelessness, the short-term benefits
of the street paper model (rapid employment and income) are enough to escape
homelessness and consequent marginalization. This is due to the fact that preexisting
social ties are maintained in short-term situations. Thus, social mobility is enabled
through self-empowerment. In the case of chronic homelessness, mental/physical
disability and substance abuse may prevent the individual from utilizing the street paper
model to the full extent required for reintegration. The existence of chronic homelessness
in America reflects a failure within the welfare state to provide adequate care and help for
the physically and mentally ill living in poverty and also those that are financially at-risk.
This is a substantial fault within American welfare state that no street paper organization
could ever fully address or resolve.
Success Related to the Welfare State
Although the street paper model is successful in addressing the overarching social
factors contributing to the marginalization of the homeless, full reintegration of homeless
individuals calls for a more holistic, comprehensive social formula. So it is important to
also consider the operational role of the welfare state.
The success of a city’s street paper is strongly correlated with the social structures
already in place meant to address homelessness. This theory helps to explain why certain
street papers succeed over others. First of all, the resources and support that the welfare
state is able to provide for the homeless is heavily dependent on government funding and
political influence in America. Research shows that the majority of government funding
from the past ten years allotted for addressing homelessness went to transitional or
permanent housing programs (N.A.E.H.). These efforts manifest biased longitudinal data
and simultaneously place a bandage over the real problem at hand. Government programs
involving these housing solutions fail to reduce the homeless population in more effective
ways through preventative measures.

16. 14
As proposed by Danish sociologist Gosta Esping-Andersen (1990), the American
welfare state is characterized as a stereotypical Liberalist model. This model describes a
welfare state that is based on capitalist market dominance and private provisions, where
social insurance is minimal and social stratification extremely high (Esping-Andersen,
1990). In Liberalist models such as the American welfare state, the homeless individual
receives little support from governing social structures. Welfare responsibility is placed
on the individual, which fully depends on employment and social status. Interestingly
enough, street paper vendors in Liberalist welfare states experience significantly less
success than their counterparts in Social Democratic welfare states such as the Danish
system (cited in INSP). By analyzing employment rates in street paper organizations and
circulation (sales) of the paper, one begins to understand that marginalization theories are
only successful when applied to societies that are inherently set up to favor reintegration.
Because the American Dream framework is pervasive in both the welfare state and social
stratification, the general (in-rooted) public will blindly perceive homelessness as a
choice or place blame on the individual unless social mentality is changed.
Mead (1986, cited in Andersen and Larsen, 1995) proposes a solution for
addressing the problems of the underclass (homeless) by making changes in social policy
itself. Mead (lbid.) argues that the implementation of new policies should be means-
tested in order to determine the most effective approach to integration. In regards to
marginalization theories, future research should focus on changes in social policies
according to the associated welfare state. Such changes in social policy in America may
include a focus on increasing resources for the mentally and physically disabled
underclass, job placement initiatives, and supportive programs for individuals that are
financially at-risk. More importantly, proposed changes in social policy must decrease
social stratification and de-stigmatize homelessness. Perhaps recent economic decline
will bring about a new epoch in America where marginalization is less extreme.
Conclusion
Marginalization theories may be used to analyze homeless American citizens as
part of the underclass. Due to the comprehensive influence of the American Dream on
modern society, the homeless underclass is subject to marginalization for reasons

17. 15
associated with poverty and unemployment. The street paper model offers a strong
proposal to achieve social reintegration because of the ways that it is able to address
social phenomena described in marginalization theories. Given the relative success of the
street paper model in regards to full social reintegration, a more comprehensive and
holistic approach must also consider the welfare state. Future research is required in order
to expand marginalization theories so that they may be realistically applied in Liberalist
welfare states where extreme and complicated social stratification damages social
progress.

18. 16
Bibliography
Abrahamson, P. (1998). The Social Quality of Europe . ln Combating social exclusion
and poverty in Europe. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 145-176
Adams, James Truslow. 1931. “The Epic of America”.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. “Risk Society: The Individualization of Social Inequality: Life
Forms and the Demise of Tradition”. Saga Publications.
Broch, Tom, “Forming and Social Constitution”, Sociological Institute, 1979
Burt, M., Aron, L. Y., Lee, E., and Valente, J. (2001). Helping America’s homeless.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute
Caton, C. L., Dominguez, B., Schanzer, B., Hasin, D. S., Shrout, P. R., Felix, A., et al.
(2005). Risk factors for long-term homelessness: Findings from a
longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults. American Journal of
Public Health, 95, pp. 1753-9
Caton, C. L., Wilkins, C., and Anderson, J. (2007) ‘People Who Experience Long-Term
Homelessness: Characteristics and Interventions’. In: Toward Understanding
Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research
Danky, J. & Wiegand, W. 1998. Print Culture in a Diverse America (History of
Communication). University of Illinois Press. Urbana and Chicago.
Epsing-Anderson, Gosta. 1990. “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Frisby, David, ”Simmel and since – Essays on Georg Simmel’s Social Theory”,
London, 1992
Galicki, L. (2002). “Typology of Marginalization Phenomenon”. Roskilde University
Centre. Revised edition: 2005; 2006. Copenhagen University: Sociological
Institute
Georg, Ritzer. 2000. “Sociological Theory”
Germani, G. (1980). Marginality. New Jersey: Transaction Books
Huckin, T. (2002). ‘Textual Silence and the discourse of homelessness’. Discourse
Society, 13, pp. 347
International Network of Street Papers (INSP). Accessed November, 2014. Scotland
Jencks, C. (1989) ‘What Is the Underclass – and Is it Growing?’ Focus, XII, pp. 14-26
Kertesz, S. G., Larson, M.J., Horton, N.J., Winter, M., Saitz, R., and Samet, J.H. (2005).
Homeless chronicity and health related quality of life trajectories among
adults with addictions. Medical Care, 43, pp. 574-85
Kristensen, J.C. (2000). Marginalization Concept Clarification. In: Larsen, Lund, and
Hornemann (eds.) Continuity and Change. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur
Kuhn, R., and Culhane, D. (1998). Applying cluster analysis to test of a typology of
homelessness: Results from the analysis of administrative data. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 17, pp. 23-43
Lind, J. (1995). Unemployment Policy and Social Integration. In: Mortensen, N. (ed.)
Social Integration and Marginalization. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, pp.
183-205
Lorber, J. (2009). ‘Extra, Extra! Homeless Lift Street Papers, and Attitudes’ New York
Times, April 13, pp. B5

19. 17
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1998). The German Ideology. Including Thesis on Feuerbach
and Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: Prometheus
Books
Mincy, R.B., Sawhill, I.V., Wolf, D.A. (1990). The Underclass: Definition and
Measurement. Science, New Series. 248 (4954), pp. 450-53
Moller, I.H., (1995) Some Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Labour Market
Marginalization. In: Mortensen, N. (ed.) Social Integration and
Marginalization. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. “The State of Homelessness in America
2014”. Homelessness Research Institute.
Prescott, L. and Samra, S. ‘Consumer Integration: Why it Matters, How it Works’.
HRC Webcast Resources (http://homelesshub.ca/resource/hrc-webcast-
resources-consumer-integration-why-it-matters-how-it-works)
StreetWise Annual Report. 2012
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and
Public Policy. London: The University of Chicago Press
Solemn Declaration
I hereby solemnly declare that I have written this paper in accordance with the
regulations concerning Academic Integrity established in “Disciplinary measures towards
students at the University of Copenhagen” and elaborated in the “General Instructions for
Examinations” written by the Department of Sociology.
In these two protocols it is emphasized that if you use quotations of literature in your
paper, the quotations must be clearly marked with quotation marks and followed by a
reference. If these rules are not followed it will be reported as plagiarism to the Faculty.
I have also been informed that any violation of the rules regarding Academic Integrity
will be treated according to the rules established in the “Disciplinary measures towards
students at the University of Copenhagen”.
Finally I confirm that the number of characters/spaces/punctuation marks etc. stated on
my paper is correct.
Date:
Signature: