Homeless Guy

8/2/2019 Homeless Guy

1/18

Someone To Count On: Homeless, Male Drug Users And Their Friendship Relations

Author(s): Claire Sterk-Elifson and Kirk W. ElifsonReviewed work(s):Source: Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World EconomicDevelopment, Vol. 21, No. 3 (FALL, 1992), pp. 235-251Published by: The Institute, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40553234 .

Accessed: 12/04/2012 21:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Institute, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Urban Anthropology

and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=institutehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40553234?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40553234?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=institute


2/18

Someone To Count On:Homeless, Male Drug UsersAnd TheirFriendshipRelationsClaire Sterk-ElifsonDepartment of AnthropologyGeorgia State University

andKirk W. Elifson

Department of SociologyGeorgia State University

ABSTRACT: This paper reports he results of a study exploring riend-shiprelations fhomeless, male drugusers in an urbansetting. wenty-seven in-depthnterviews ere conductedamong men who were partofa larger tudy f 253 drug usingmales in Atlanta GA. The urban alien-ation thesis suggests thatthe urban environment roduces interper-sonal estrangement.A variation f this thesis was identifiedmong therespondents.The homeless, male drugusers were able to engage infriendship elationswith ndividualswho also were drug users, home-less, or both. These friendshipswere developed despite the complica-tions inherent n being a homeless drug user. Observers frequentlyclassifythese relationships s superficial,however,the respondents'experiences belie this conclusion.Theyviewed themselves as involvedin "safe" networkswhichoffered ocial support.The focus ofthispaperis on friendship elationsof homeless, male drugusers as well as thelinkbetween these relationships nd twodistinct atternsof crack use.These patterns nclude "pacing,"controlleduse, and "binging," ncon-trolleduse.

Interpersonal relationships in urban settings have intrigued socialscientists foryears. The classical theorists (Park 1916; Wirth1938) as-sume that the urban environment produces interpersonal alienation andseveral findingsfrom a number of studies provide support for the classicurban alienation thesis (Milgram 1970; Lof and 1973). Others, however,report some levels of social integration among urban residents (Gulick235ISSN 0894-6019, 1992 The Institute,nc.


3/18

236 URBANNTHROPOLOGY VOL.21 3),19921973; Fischeret al. 1977; Fischer1982; Anderson1990). Fischer 1981)suggests thatthese contradictoryindings an be understoodwithinhecontext f thecity s a heterogenousenvironment.The city nvironmentan be divided ntopublicand privateworlds.Social scientistswho differentiateetween public and privatesphereswithin he heterogenouscity nvironment ould likely eport hatthe ur-ban alienationtheysee occurs primarilynthe public sphere. Alienationdoes notnecessarily pervade people's private ives. For example, urbanresidentsmayfeelestrangedfromndividualswho are personally nfamil-iar and who belong to the "world of strangers" (Lof and 1973).Additionally,rbanresidentsmayfeel alienatedfrom trange ndividualswho look differently,ress unconventionally,r act oddly. The two di-mensions of strange,notknowing ach otherand the heterogeneity fthe citypopulation, nduce urbanalienation nthe publicsphere. Intheprivatesphere, however, ndividualsdo develop interpersonal elation-ships withpeople who are familiar uch as neighbors, olleagues, andclose associates.The situation f the homeless varies inthattheirpublicand privatespheres overlap.They,for xample,do nothave a permanentresidenceor live na conventional welling nd are unlikelyo have permanentobswhere theycan develop interpersonal elationships.This places the in-creasingly larger group of homeless (Snow et al. 1989; Saio andCampanelli 1991) ina relativelynique position see, for xample, Rossi1989; Coates 1990; Rosenthal 1991).The potential orurbanalienation mong drugusers is similar o thepotential mong homeless persons. Drugusers are also seen as strangeand often ack a residence or a steady job. This raises the question ifhomeless, male drugusers are totally stranged or ifnot,how do theydevelop and maintainnterpersonal elationships?The reference o homeless drugusers as strangehas negativecon-notations.The rolesof homeless and druguser are bothdevalued, thus,the respondentsare doubly stigmatizedGoffman 963). Labellingtheo-rists Lemert1951; Becker 1963) emphasize howcarrying negative a-bel can lead tosocial isolation r alienation.This wouldlead to theexpec-tation hathomeless, male drugusers willbe socially solated. However,theyhave theoption o develop bonds and personal networkswith amil-iar ndividualswho are also homeless, drugusers, or both.Generally, n-dividualsdevelop bonds and personal networkswithpersons of similarage, socio-economic status, or who share the same work or hobbies(Lazersfeld and Merton1954; Kandel 1978). This leads us to hypothe-size thathomeless, male drugusers willnot be entirelyocially solatedbutwilldevelop friendship elationsprimarilyith ndividualswhomtheydo notconsiderstrange.The opportunitiesndividualshave to develop social ties are usuallyrestricted otonly o familiar ersons,butalso tothose persons availableintheir imited ocial contexts.These contextsare thought f as all pos-sible settings nwhichpersonal relationships an be developed (Fischer


4/18

Elifson nd Elifson HOMELESS MALEDRUG USERS 237

1982; Feld 1982; 1984). The contexts in which homeless, male drugusers can develop friendship elationshipsmainly re limited o settingssuch as the streets, shelters,bus stations,labor pools, soup kitchens,and drugcoppingareas.Anindividual's ersonalrelationshipsncludekin nd non-kinuch asneighbors, olleagues, members of the same church or otherorganiza-tions,orfriends.Friendshipsdiffer rom therrelationshipsnthat t s alabel onlyused bythe individualwho deliberately elected the friends,whereas, relatives,colleagues, or neighbors are classified as such.Friendship ymbolizesthevoluntary atureofrelationswhichare subjectto private negotiationbetween two individuals, ach of whomconsidertherelationships valuable.Friendships ypically equiremutually ewardingnteractionnd thesharingof interests nd activities Homans 1974; Fischer et al. 1977).Thismight xplainwhymostdrugusers are initiatedntodruguse byanduse drugswithfriends Becker 1953; Preble and Casey 1969; Waldorf1973; Rosenbaum 1981). Friendship elations lso providean importantreferencegroup Singer 1981). Thus, friendshipsonstitute n essentialsource of recognition, elf-esteem, and social support (Liebow 1967;Anderson 1990).The mainobjectivesof thispaper are to explorethe alienation hesisamong homeless, male drugusers and to describe the friendship ela-tions of these men. The impactof the men's homelessness and druguseon the initiationnd maintenance offriendships illbe discussed. Inad-dition, he relationship etween several distinctiveruguse patterns ndfriendshipelations re considered.Methods

Qualitativedata were collected as partof a larger tudyamong 253male drugusers inthe Atlantametropolitanrea. Recruitment ftheserespondentsoccurredbetween December 1990 and August 1991 andwas conductedby indigenous ndividuals amiliarwithneighborhoods nwhichmanyhomeless concentrate and whichwere knownfordruguseactivity. argeted sampling, ncludingnowballsampling,was instrumen-tal intherecruitmentrocess (Watters nd Biemacki1989). Since the re-cruitment taffhad established contacts and trustamong drug usersduringpreviousworkactivities,recruitmenttartedalmost immediatelyafter nitiationf theproject.To be eligibleforparticipationnthe larger uantitativetudy, he re-spondents needed to be eighteenyears or older, livewithinhe bound-aries of the metropolitanrea, and be current sers of cocaine and/orheroin.Eligibilityas established using a screeningform.Being home-less and African-American ere added as inclusioncriteria orthe in-depth, qualitative tudy presented here. Homelessness was added be-cause preliminaryata indicatedthatthis had an unique impacton the


5/18

238 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL 21(3), 1992men's lives,forexample, interms of nothavinga access to a site in-tended forhabitation,not belonging to a particular neighborhoodorcommunity,nd livingt the subsistence level.Homelessness was definedas nothaving customaryor regular c-cess to a traditionalwelling Rossi 1989). No distinction as made be-tween those men who lived na public pace orina shelter t the timeofthe interview. he respondentswould often lternatebetween spendingthenightt a shelter r atpublic paces such as thestreet, arkbenches,doorways,or cardboardboxes, dependingon theavailabilityf a place atthe shelter nd their ruguse. Forexample,a respondentwho was drunkorhigh n drugswas unlikelyo spend thenightna shelter; hepolicy fmost sheltersprohibits ruguse. The African-Americanriterion as in-troducedbecause ofover-representationf thisgroup nthe larger am-ple.A totaloftwenty-sevenn-depthnterviews ere conductedamong agroup randomlyelected from hose inthethe larger ample who metthecriteria. t s unclearhowrepresentativehe larger ample is for hepopu-lationof male drugusers inAtlanta as the parameters ofthis "hiddenpopulation" re unknown.All n-depthnterviewsookplace at a centrallylocated interview ite in downtownAtlanta.Each respondent providedwritten nformed onsent and participationwas voluntary. he respon-dentswere assigned a studyparticipant umber nd no personal identi-fiers were collected. The screeningform, he standardized instrumentconducted in the larger study,and the in-depth nterviewwere linkedthroughhe studyparticipant umber.In-depthnterviewingas been suggested as a strategy orgainingan insiders'perspective, nthiscase theperspectiveof thehomeless, in-nercitymale druguser (Spradley 1970; Wiseman 1970; Geertz 1973;Waldorf 973; Rosenbaum 1981; Rosenthal 1991).The in-depthnterviewsncluded opicssuch as demographic harac-teristics,housing history, rug use history nd patterns,number offriends,ypeoffriendships, xpectationsofand reasons for stablishing,maintaining,nd ending friendships,nd future rientation. he lengthof the interviews varied between one and three hours. Followinggrounded heory Glaser and Strauss 1970; Glaser 1978), data collectionand data analysiswere conductedsimultaneously.General Sample Characteristics

A sub-sample oftwenty-seven espondentsofthe larger tudypopu-lation N=253) were includedin an in-depth tudy.Table 1 provides acomparison of the general characteristicsof the sample and the sub-sample. The ages of the twenty-seven espondentswithwhom an in-depth nterview as conductedrangedbetween 21 and 50 years,withmean age of 31 4 years. The mean age of the respondents nthe largerstudywas 32.2 years.


6/18

Elifson nd Elifson HOMELESS MALEDRUG USERS 239TABLE 1 ComparisonofSample and Sub-Sample GeneralCharacteristics*

Sub-Sample Sample(N=27) (N=253)EducationLess thanhigh chool 21 2% 16.1%HighSchool Graduate 44.4% 45.6%More thanhigh chool 34.4% 38.3%Income Level/Week*Less than$25 11.2%$25-$49 14.8%$50-$99 33.3%$100-$200 40.7%Marital Status*Married 14.8%Single (divorcedorwidowed) 63.0%

Single,nevermarried 22.2%Housing Status During the Last Six Months:(multiplenswers possible)Lived nownapartment 7.4% 11.1%Lived nrooming rboardinghouse 18.5% 20.2%Lived nsomeone else's house orapt. 33.3% 33.6%Lived nshelter/ ublic pace 100.0% 56.1%Number of DifferentPlaces Lived in During the Last SixMonths

Stayed inone place 0.0% 20.9%Moved once 21 .7% 18.7%Moved twice 25.9% 18.7%Moved three imesor more 52.4% 41 .7%Homelessness and Drug Use*Druguserprior obecominghomeless 66.6%Homeless priorobecominga druguser 14.8%Homeless and druguser atthe same time 18.6%'Data unavailable or he argerample.


7/18

240 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 21(3), 1992Almosthalfof the twenty-seven espondents (44.4%) finishedhighschool and one-third34.4%) reported ome post-high chool education(technicalor vocational training r college. The number of highschooldropout is relativelyow. The respondents' level of education is notinparitywith heir ncome level nor theirpositionon the labormarket.Theaverage weekly ncome was $91 Three-fourths77.8%) of themengen-erally pend all their arningswithin day or two on food, odging, lco-hol, and drugs. Most respondents (N=16) reportedmultiple ources ofincome ofwhich emporarynskilledobs, daily aborpool obs, yardwork,and assistingmoverswere the most common. Six respondentshad mis-cellaneous jobs such as windowwashingand collecting opper and alu-minum.Three other men worked as prostitutes,wo of whom also re-ported elling drugs.Selling drugswas the primaryource of ncome fortwo othermen.Rossi (1989) found that homelessness was synonymous with"spouselessness" and this s also truefor ur respondents;fourrespon-dents were married nd two-thirdsf them were divorced. The respon-dents expressed difficultiesn maintaining steady relationship ue totheirhomelessness and druguse.Two-thirds f the men fathered ne or more children range 1-11).Twelve men had not seen their hildrennmore than a year,while threemen reportedcontact within he previous month, nd one respondenthad nearly aily ontactwithhisdaughter.Those men withchildren nvariably omplained about the fact thatmost sheltersdo not llowcouples or families ostaytogether.Homelessness, while a constant threat forthese men, is not anunescapable fate.Sixteen respondentshad temporaryccess to a con-ventionaldwellingduring he six monthsprior o the in-depthnterview,whereas eleven did not. The timethe men had access to a conventionaldwellingduring he previoussix monthsranged between fourdays andfive months.The respondentsalso tended to be geographicallymobile

within hecity.The majoritymovedmore thanthreetimesduring hepre-vious six months.Two-thirds f the men were drugusers prior o becominghomelessand theirdruguse ranged between two months and fouryears. At thetime of the interview, ll respondentswere current lcohol users andsmokers of crack cocaine, while four men also reportedusing heroinand/or ocaine intravenouslynaddition o alcoholand crackcocaine use.Friendships: Who and Why?

The traditional hesis thaturbanenvironments estrict he develop-mentofinterpersonal elationships as been challenged inseveral stud-ies (Spradley 1970; Crowe 1978). Persons in urban areas tend to de-velop friendshipelations ntheprivate pherewithpeople who are simi-lar to themselves (Franck 1980). The situation fhomeless, male drug


8/18

Elifson nd Ellison HOMELESS MALEDRUG USERS 241users is complex inthatthere s no clear distinction etween theirpublicand privateworld. We hypothesized hatdespite the potentialfor ocialisolation, the respondents would develop social ties with other"strangers,"ndividualsna similar osition.TABLE 2: Contact withKin*Kin Percentage

Parent 33.3%Sibling 59.2%OtherRelative aunt,uncle,cousin) 22.2%Wife 14.8%Former pouse 14.6%Child 18.5%No contact 25.9%

'Multiplenswers ossibleBefore inquiring bout specific friendships, he respondents wereasked abouttheir ontactwith elatives.Table 2 shows that hemajorityfthem had contact with iblings, ollowedbytheirmother r another rela-

tive.One-fourthf the men (N=7) had no contactwith relative.The rela-tives of these respondentsdid not ivenearby.The majority f the respondents agreed that relatives could befriends, nd ninemen (33.3%) actuallyconsidered one of theirrelatives,primarilyheirmother r sister,a friend.Overall,however,the respon-dents mentioned otherhomeless and/ordrug using men as a friend.Daily contact was a criterion orfriendsother than relatives. Non-kinfriendswere oftenreferredo using kinship erms such as brother, ro,little is, or cousin. Other terms used included babe, buddy, runningbuddy, ady,homie,or referencesto someone's birth tate or city, .g.,Dakota or B'ham.These terms uggest a sociallyconstructed loseness.Three men included churchrepresentatives/socialervice providers sfriends.


9/18

242 URBANANTHROPOLOGY VOL 21(3), 1992TABLE 3: Numberof FriendshipRelationsNumber of Friends PercentageZero 25.9%One 18.5%Two 18.5%Three 22.2%Four 1 1 2%Five 3.7%

Table 3 shows thatthe numberof friends angedfrom ero to five,with n average of 1 8 friends. nparticular,hose respondentswith wofriends or less emphasized that being homeless complicates havingfriends ince theyare unable to share addresses and phone numbers.There is a significantinkbetween the extent of homelessness, mea-sured bythepercentageof time ived na shelteroron the streetduringthe last 6 months, nd the extent f solation, s measured byhavingrel-atives inAtlanta nd thenumber f friendsmentioned.Five of the sevenmost solated men were homeless for he entire ix months s opposedtoonly wo of thetwentyeast isolated men.The morefriends respondentreported,he less likely e was tode-scribe barriers o establishing nd maintaining riendships. he respon-dents illustrated hat heways inwhich heymaintain ontact are closelyrelated to theirpredictabledailyroutine. he mostfrequentlymentionedmeetingplaces included he street nor neardrugcoppingareas (N=15),at laborpools (N=9), insoup kitchen ines N=9), orinshelters N=4).The respondents were also asked what criteriathey utilizedforfriendship elations. The following wo criteriawere consistentlymen-tioned and considered to be the most mportant:eingreliableand beingtrustworthy.econdarycriteriancludedbeing willingo share money, l-cohol, or drugs and being accepting of the other. Interestingly,helength facquaintance was not ncludedas a criterion.Mason,1who hasbeen homeless for hreeyears, has been using drugsfor iveyears andreported wofriends, xplained the trivialityf time of acquaintance asfollows:


10/18


You're out there and you dont have the timeor moneytofigure ut ifyoushould associate with heperson. You have tomove fast on the street.. after while you develop an extrasense.Seven respondentsnoted that a "real" friendwould assist them inendingtheir ubstance abuse, althoughnone of themreported havingsuch a friend.The respondents impliedthat they do not have suchfriendsdue to their ubstance abuse and thatnon-drug sers distancethemselvesfrom ubstance abusers.The respondents' friendship relations primarily ncluded otherhomeless and/or rug usingmen.More specific nformation as asked about individuals he respon-dentsmight elyupon for ocial support.Table 4 shows thatundermostcircumstances the respondentssoughtto handle a situationwithout heassistance of relatives r friends.

TABLE 4: Social SupportBy Resource

Type of Support Kin Non-Kin Other No On


11/18

244 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 21(3), 1992I will never ask anyone forhelp.. .Society got me into thisand I have to live with t... went to the NAM (Vietnam war) andwas an addict by the time I came back.. .I have nobody to go toand I have learned to survive...! have a few buddies but what

can they do for me? It doesn't make sense for us to talk abouthow bad we feel.. A friendhelps you withdrugs and money orwe mightshare a blanket or a cat hole ifone of us is sick.. .Weare like cats. Ifyou have a problem you hide.. .If tgets real badyou mighttry o get busted and spend the night n jail... I've losttouch with the rest of society... All I have are my buddies whoare bums just like me.

The means available tohomeless,drugusers limitheextent fsocialsupport heycan offer;heir inancial ituation recludesthemfromoan-ing moneyand theydo not have a residence theycan share. Thomasalso hints tthe fact hat rom isperspective t s irrationalo expectemo-tional supportfrom omeone who is "inthe same miserable position."Several respondents concurred. Other reasons for not seeking emo-tionalsupportappear to be related to the respondents' druguse. One-thirdmentioned hat heyused to receivemoresupport rom heirkinbutthat this decreased as theirdrug habit increased. As Thomas puts it:"Whywould they et me stay if steal from hem and theynever knowwhenand withwhom mighthowup."Drug Use and Friendships

The friendship elationsof the homeless, male drugusers primarilyinvolved relatives and other homeless and/ordrugusers. The respon-dentsreported eeling lienated frommainstreamociety. Theydid,how-ever,develop tieswithndividualswho are ina similar osition.As one ofthem noted: "It's just easier. They understand where you're comingfrom..You don'thave to explainyourselfllthetime."The respondentsnoted thattheirdruguse added to the tentative-ness and fleetingnature of theirrelationships.Atthe same time,how-ever, they agreed thatdruguse was the social glue thatbonded themwith heir riends.Table 5 gives an overviewof the respondents'alcohol and druguseand shows thatall respondentsdrink lcohol and crackcocaine at leastonce a month nd that ntravenous ruguse is only practicedby15 per-cent of the27 men.


12/18

Elifson nd Elifson HOMELESS MALEDRUG USERS 245TABLE 5: Alcohol and DrugUse amongtheSample and the Sub-Sample

Sub-Sample sample(N=253) (N=27)Alcohol Use

Daily 27.7% 37.0%1-6 times/week 39.9% 48.2%1-4times/month 16.6% 14.8%Less than once/month 9.5% 0.0%NA 0.0% 0.0%

Crack Cocaine UseDaily 18.8% 14.8%1-6times/week 47.0% 70.4%1-4 times/month 20.3% 14.8%Less thanonce/month 13.9% 0.0%NA 0.0% 0.0%

Intravenous Drug UseDaily 5.1% 0.0%1-6times/week 16.2% 14.8%1 4 times/month 16.4% 0.0%Less thanonce/month 34.5% 0.0%NA 27.8% 85.2%


13/18

246 URBANANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 21(3), 1992

Fightsover drugs and moneycaused manyfriends o become ene-mies. The majority f the respondentsgave examples of situations nwhichtheyhad betrayed someone or theywere betrayedbecause ofdrugs. They explained thatcravingfordrugs is uncontrollable nd thatfriendshipnd loyaltyannotcompetewith ne's craving.James, one ofthe men, summarized the course of events on the path to homeless-ness:It's hardto believe that used to have a job as a mechanicand livedwithmywifeand two kids in a nice house. I starteddoing crack with some of the guys in my neighborhood...!spentoursavings and mywife eftme. I robbedmy wn motherand sister and back-stabbed my buddies and formercol-leagues...! trustedthe guys on the streetbut their ove wasgone as soon as my avings were...! have threegreatbuddiesbut also know heywould sell my acket whichhe stolefromnearbyschool) if heyneeded tc.People kill ach other overcrack.

Whiledeceivingorbetraying fellow ruguser runs counter o streetetiquette,this does notnecessarily lead to ending a friendship.A keymechanismfrequentlysed to defuse tension and to reestablish friend-ship relations nvolves humoror "jokingrelationships" Keesing 1976).One respondentoffered hefollowing trategy: you push the limits ndtry o crack the otherperson up justbeforehe gets mad at you."Allrespondentswere heavyalcohol users; the social organization ftheir alcohol use differs rom he typical"skid row"pattern n which agroupof males pools moneyand drinks ogether Bahr 1973). Amongthe meninthis tudy, lcoholis primarilyurchased and consumed on anindividual asis or with ne otherperson.Two dominant atterns f crackuse were identifiednthe data and anumberof the respondentsreferred o these as "pacing"and "binging."Pacing is the first attern nd it nvolves controlled rack cocaine use.This pattern s practiced by one-third f the respondents. Controlledcrack cocaine use refers o the fact hat he users do not use more crackcocaine thanthey ntended.These users are also referredo as "nippers"(Waldorf,Reinarman, nd Murphy 991). The second dominantpattern,binging, s practiced byanotherone-third f the respondents.This pat-ternrefers o individualswho engage incrack cocaine use sessions last-ing up toforty-eightours,followedby"rest" ays duringwhichalcohol isconsumed. The termspacing and binging nlyrefer o the respondents'

druguse. The remaining ne-third f the users engaged in a patternwhich was a variation n the twopatternsdescribed and which forfivemen included ntravenous ruguse.Several differencesn friendship elationscan be distinguishedbydrug use pattern.The pacers were more socially isolated than the


14/18


bingers.This is partly ue to the fact thatpacing is less expensive thanbinging. he bingers re more ikelyo work hroughhe laborpoolwhichcreates opportunities o meet otherpeople. The pacers, on the otherhand,need less moneyto support heir rughabit nd earn thisthroughmore solitary ctivities uch as windowwashing, collectingcopper andaluminum, r panhandling.Among drugusers, the pacers are accordedhigher tatus thanthe bingers Waldorf t al. 1991). The pacers inthisstudywere proud thattheycontrolledtheirdrug habit and frequentlyshowed their isgustwithsexual) activities hatoccurred ncrack houses(Sterk1990).The bingersprimarilymoked crack cocaine inthecompanyof otherusers in relatively protected" ettings uch as crack houses. The crackhouses created a distinction etween the bingers1public and privatesphere.Tim,one of the bingers,described the complications hat would oc-cur whengetting ighfor n extendedperiodof timeand nothavingac-cess to a relativelyrivate etting.Sometimes you smoke out on the street.Now, that's notas difficults shooting up but it still takes some creativ-

ity..Once you've takenyourfirst ityou hear sounds and seeshades. ..You thinkpeople are walking up.. You cant enjoyit..You inhaleand dont even have time o close youreyes.The pacers preferredo smoke crack cocaine ina publicspace, e.g.,an abandoned building,ar,ordoorway, ometimesaccompanied byonefriend.The pacers are more isolated from he drug scene than theirbinging ounterparts.It s notsurprisinghat hepacers who are less likelyo meetpeopleatthe laborpool orina crackhouse, report aving ess friendsmean 1 6;range = 0-4) thanbingers mean=2.4; range = 0-5). In addition,bingerswere twice as likely o have non-homelessfriends,mostofwhomtheymet tcrack houses.The respondentsreported hat t s almost mpossibleto maintain e-lationshipswithnon-drug sing ndividualsmuch nthe same manner hatRosenbaum (1981) described as "narrowing ptions" mong a sample offemale heroinusers. For the respondentsinthisstudythe options nar-rowfurtherince they re bothdrugusers and homeless. The pacers areverymuchestrangedfrom oth mainstream ocietyand otherhomeless,drugusers. The bingers,however,challenge the urbanalienationthesisinthat heydo develop friendshipelationswith therhomeless and non-

homeless drugusers. Theirdruguse facilitates he developmentoftieswithpersons otherthan the homeless, therefore,heyare less isolatedthan thepacers.


15/18

248 URBANANTHROPOLOGY VOL. 21(3), 1992

Summary and Concluding RemarksPersonal relationships,speciallyfriendships,must be interpretedna structured ocial context.While individualsdeliberately hoose theirfriends, ut nottheir elatives, hey re limited o a certainpool ofpeoplewhomtheymeetthroughheir ocial activitiesFischer1982; Feld 1984).The groupofpeople fromwhichhomeless, male drugusers can selecttheir riends s very imited. hey are not trustedbythe "straight"mem-bers of society,and veryoftenare seen as strangersand "bums" whoengage inillegalactivities. his excludes themfromheprivate phere ofmost urbanresidents.Theyare "unattached"menwho lackmanycharac-teristics frespectable,mainstream itizens Hannerz 1969). Inaddition,the respondentsthemselves tend notto trust straights,who from heirperspective reat hem na disrespectfulnd condescendingmanner.This limits he respondents1nterpersonal elationships o theirkinand other trangers, amiliarndividualswho are ina similarposition.Allbut seven respondentshad relativeswho livednearby nd theywouldin-teract t least once every ix months.One-third f the men listed a rela-tiveas a friend nd social supportwas soughtfrom elativeswhen the re-spondents needed someone to talkto or when theyneeded a place to

stay. Relatives were twiceas likely o provideemotionalas opposed tohousing support.According o the respondents,the resistance to offer-inga place to staywas mainly ue to their ruguse and nottheirhome-lessness.Several barriers o developing interpersonal elationships ven withfamiliarndividualsweredistinguished. here are no set times or reasonsto meet each other; no appointmentbooks are needed, nor are ad-dresses and phone numbersexchanged. Despite these barriers,how-ever, the majorityfthe men develop friendship elationswith limitednumber fpeople who shared a similar osition; ne-third f the respon-dents reported hreeor morefriends.The important ualities of friendsincludebeing reliableand trustworthyithinhe social context nwhichthe friendships ccur. In one sense the men have pseudo-friendships;they appear to be close, however,profound ommitmentnd loyaltyrelacking.No clear distinctionan be made between theirpublic and privatesocial worlds Fischer1981). The respondents1ocial environment fferslimitedpportunitiesordevelopingsolid social bonds and contributes othe potential or lienation.The tieswith therhomeless and non-home-less drugusers, however,are seen as very meaningful ythe respon-dents and these ties challenge the urbanalienationthesis. Urban alien-ation refers o thealienation rommainstreamocietybut notfrom amiliarindividualsna similar osition.nfact, he mportance frelationships ithsuch individuals s often mbellishedbytheuse ofkinship ermsor othernicknameswhich uggest intimacy.


16/18


Druguse appears to both facilitate nd inhibitmaintaining riendshiprelations.Drugs bringpeople togetherand function s a "social glue,"whilethecravingfordrugs frequentlyauses users to betray ach other.Pacing and bingingwere identified s the dominantdruguse patterns,and both are related to the friendship elations.The bingerstend to beinvolved n largersocial networks ncludingnon-homeless drug users.The pacers' drughabit s less expensive and theymainly arn moneythrough obs that do notbring hemin contact withothers. In addition,theywillprimarilyse drugswhen alone or inthe companyofone otherperson. In otherwords,the bingersare less alienated than the pacersdue to theirmore extensive contactswithotherdrugusers. The men'spersonalnetworksffriendsre an importantspect of their daptation otheir ife ircumstances nd should notbe ignored.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This researchwas supportedby an institutionalrantfromGeorgiaState University.he authorswishto thankthefollowingndividualsfortheirhelpand encouragementregardinghis rticle:NancyLorenz,DianeMorrison,tuart eidman, Sevgi Aral, nd JohnHagedorn.

NOTES1 "Mason" is a pseudonym s are otherrespondentnames mentioned.

REFERENCES CITEDAnderson,E. (1990). Streetwise:Race, Class, and Change in an UrbanCommunity. hicago: UniversityfChicago Press.Bahr, H. (1973). Skid Row: An Introduction o Affiliation. ew York:OxfordUniversityress.Becker, H. (1953). Becoming a Marijuana User. AmericanJournal ofSociology 59:235-42.Becker,H. (1963). Outsiders.New York: Free Press.Coates, R. (1990). A Street s NotA Home: SolvingAmerica'sHomelessDilemma. Buffalo: rometheusBooks.Crowe, P. (1978). Good Fences make Good Neighbors. Ph.D.Dissertation, ept. ofAnthropology,tanfordUniversity.Feld, S. (1982). Social StructuralDeterminants of SimilarityAmongAssociates. American ociological Review 47:797-801 .Feld, S. (1984). The Structured Use of Personal Associates. SocialForces 62:640-52.


17/18

250 URBAN ANTHROPOLOGY VOL 21(3), 1992

Fischer,C. (1981). The Public and PrivateWorlds ofCityLife.AmericanSociological Review 46:306-1 6.Fisher,C. (1982). To DwellAmongFriends: Personal NetworksnTownand City.Chicago: UniversityfChicago Press.Fischer, C, Jackson, R., Stueve, C, Gerson, ., Jones, L., and M.Baldassore (1977). Networks nd Places: Social Relations ntheUrbanSetting.New York: Free Press.Franck,K. (1980). Friends nd Strangers: he Social ExperienceofLivinginUrban and Nonurban ettings.Journal f Social Issues 36:52-71Geertz,C. (1973). The InterpretationfCultures.New York: Basic Books.Glaser,. (1978). Theoretical ensitivity. illValley,CA: The SociologicalPress.Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1970). The Discoveryof GroundedTheory:StrategiesforQualitativeResearch. Chicago: Aldine.Goffman, . (1963). Stigma. EnglewoodCliffs, J: PrenticeHall.Gulick,J. (1973). Urban Anthropology.N Handbook of Social andCultural Anthropology,J. Honigman. (ed). Chicago: Rand-McNally, pp. 979-1030.Hannerz, U. (1969). Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture andCommunity. ew York ColumbiaUniversityress.Homans, G. (1974). Social Behavior. (2nd edition).New York:HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.Kandel,D. (1978). Homophily,election,and Socialization nAdolescentFriendships.AmericanJournal fSocioloav 84:426-36.Keesing, R.(1976). CulturalAnthropology: Contemporary erspective.New York:Holt,Rinehart,nd Winston.Lazersfeld, P. and R. Merton 1954). Friendship s Social Process: ASubstantive and Methodological Analysis. IN Freedom andControlin Modern Society, M. Berger,T. Abel, and C. Page(eds). New York Octagon Books, pp.18-66.Lernen,E. (1951). Social Pathology.New York:McGraw-Hill.Liebow, E. (1967). Tally's Corner:A StudyofNegro StreetcornerMen.Boston: Little rown nd Company.Lofand,L. (1973). AWorld fStrangers.New York:Basic Books.Milgram, S. (1970). The Experience of Living in Cities. Science167:1461-68.Park, R. (1969). The City: Suggestions for Investigationof HumanBehavior in the Urban Environment.N Classic Essays on theCultureofCities,R. Sennett (ed). New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,pp.91-130.


18/18


Preble, ., and J. Casey (1969). TakingCare of Business: The HeroinUser's Lifeon the Street. International ournal f theAddictions4:1-24.Rosenbaum, M. (1981). Women on Heroin. New Brunswick RutgersUniversityress.Rosenthal,R. (1991). Straighter rom the Source: AlternativeMethodsofResearchingHomelessness. UrbanAnthropology0:109-27.Rossi, P. (1989). Down and Out in America: The Origins ofHomelessness. Chicago: UniversityfChicago Press.Salo. M. and P. Campanelli (1991). EthnographicMethods In TheDevelopment Of Census Procedures For Enumerating TheHomeless. UrbanAnthropology0:128-39.Singer,E. (1981). ReferenceGroups and Social Evaluations. IN SocialPsychology:Sociological Perspectives, M. Rosenberg, and R.Turnereds). New York Basic Books, pp. 66-93.Spradley, J. (1970). You Owe Yourself a Drunk:An EthnographyofUrbanNomads. Boston: Little rown nd Company.Snow, D., S. Baker,and L. Anderson 1989). Criminalitynd HomelessMen:AnEmpiricalAssessment. Social Problems 36:532-49.Sterk, C. (1990). Living the Life: Prostitutes and their Health.Dissertation.Rotterdam: rasmus Universityress.Waldorf, . (1973). Careers inDope. EnglewoodCliffsNJ):Prentice-Hall.Waldorf,D., Rienarman,C, and S. Murphy 1991). Cocaine Changes:The Experience of Using and Quitting. Philadelphia: TempleUniversityress.Watters,J. and P. Biernacki 1989). Targeted Sampling.Social Problems36: 416-30.Wirth, (1969). Urbanism s a Way of Life. N Classic Essays on theCulture fCities,R. Sennett ed).. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.pp. 43-164.Wiseman,J. 1970). StationsoftheLost. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Documents

Homeless Guy