Our discussions about the structural causes of homelessness have begun to make me question the degree to which one is able to attribute misfortune and strife to external sources. Can you take the structural explanation too far? For example, I feel as if you could state that discipline in terms of reform of the individual is an obsolete idea. Could it be that values such as self-sufficiency and hard work are really just byproducts of the toxic and life-draining Protestant work ethic and the scourge of neoliberalism? Is the implicitly-stated importance of moving out of the house and not depending on my mother’s vacant basement that my godmother impressed upon me really a fallacy?
I discussed the structural explanations of homelessness with my friend this weekend on a quick jaunt to L.A. He, not having taken a class on homelessness, was quick to blame homeless people of laziness and personal vice, while I repeatedly stressed common external factors that lead to homelessness. Despite my macro-level sociological explanations, he essentially suggested that there is still somewhat of an impetus on the individual to get out of homelessness, and that there is still something to be said for not giving up in a society that is against you.
What do you all think are the limits of attributing suffering/strife/misfortune to structural elements? Where do y’all draw the “line?” Also, what do you all think is the “place” of values such as discipline and hard work in sociological outlooks like the ones we are adopting?
Also, what are your opinions on this course blog? Do you feel as if it is serving an important function for you?