For class this week, I and the other members of my group read a book called Sidewalk, which detailed the observations of sidewalk life of several blocks of New York City in the 1990s by the sociologist and professor Mitchell Duneier. At the core of his argument was a condemnation of “broken windows” policies and an advocation for a ‘fixed windows” approach. Duneier suggests that sidewalk life and its participants can have beneficial effects, and that policy makers should accept the continued existence of sidewalk life rather than viewing it as inherently problematic.

I found solidifying my ideas on Duneier’s proposition to be difficult. On one hand, I agree that simply approaching those who live on the street as a problem and trying to eliminate the homeless by making life as difficult for them as possible, is not a policy I agree with. At the same time, I struggle to see the benefits of wanting to allow homeless lifestyles to continue. Yes, some benefits to some aspects of street life exist, but I still believe the end goal is to eliminate it.  i may not like the idea of approaching the homeless as broken windows, but i am not sure they are fixed either. Perhaps my difficulty lies in the fact that in “fixed windows” Duneier presents an alternative attitude, rather than a concrete approach, leaving the details of efforts to assuage homelessness to the reader.  Despite my reservations, I appreciate the added perspective Duneier provides to my understanding of homelessness, and I respect a great many of his ideas.