A Walk in the Neoliberal Park
By Shawn Goldberg/Shutterstock.com
Par Shawn Goldberg/Shutterstock.com
Maliha Sarwar
(FR) Un total de 8700 personnes sont sans domicile fixe à Toronto. Tandis que la COVID-19 fait des ravages, certains d’entre eux se tournent vers le gouvernement en quête d’aide dans ces temps sans précédent. Cependant, leurs tentatives pour combattre la violence systémique sont peu souvent couronnées de succès auprès de la ville. Non seulement le manque de logistique est à plaindre, mais aussi l’hôtel de ville indique clairement sa position en sanctionnant sévèrement les actions entreprises par autrui afin de venir en aide aux sans-abri. Khaleel Seivwright est un citoyen de Toronto qui justement voulait apporter son soutien à cette communauté en construisant des « petites maisons » partout en ville. Son but ? Fournir des logements de fortune sécurisé et digne d’aider ces personnes à se remettre sur pied et les protéger de terribles hivers canadiens. Au lieu d’assister leur citoyen dans son projet, la ville de Toronto a porté plainte contre ce bienfaiteur. Ces actions paraissent contradictoires. Cependant, d’un point de vue néolibéral, il est évident que cette idéologie politique vise à négliger constamment les communautés marginalisées ainsi que les plus vulnérables de notre société.
One morning in downtown Toronto a man wakes to find a collapsed tent resting on his face (Toronto Tiny Shelters 2021, An Update). The nightly snowfall has brought down the flimsy structure and he is met by the cacophony of traffic and bustling of passersby, all of whom are blissfully ignorant to the plight of over 8,700 homeless people living in the city (Homefirst 2018). One man, Khaleel Seivwright attempts to ameliorate the city’s homelessness crisis by building “tiny shelters” and distributing them throughout the city. However, instead of meeting him with enthusiasm, the city of Toronto pursues a case against him under the allegation of Seivwright’s “dumping of illegal structures,” which is claimed to be preventing citizens from enjoying parks and therefore infringing upon a city bylaw (Draaisma 2021). The city’s message is clear: while all residents have the right to enjoy parks, they do not have the right to enjoy safe dignified housing, even in the midst of a pandemic. By both refusing to provide innovative solutions to its homelessness crisis and actively fighting those attempting to do so, the city of Toronto demonstrates how a neoliberal society disregards the lives of the most vulnerable.
Neoliberalism privatizes responsibility, promoting a strong sense of individualism that is reinforced by an ideology that holds the individual responsible for their success or failure to meet their own basic needs (Nouvet 2019, 90). Under this theory, hard work and sacrifice will be inevitably rewarded and therefore lead to good economic outcomes (Nouvet 2019, 90). However, in reality, this is not necessarily the case. Marginalized peoples continue to experience disproportionate levels of unemployment, discrimination, and mental and physical illness (Nouvet 2019, 84). As a result, basic survival is difficult for such groups, which further renders it nearly impossible for them to exert the effort required to do other tasks that could otherwise provide affluence according to neoliberalism (Nouvet 2019, 83). This skewed focus on hard work as leading to success creates a lack of understanding as to where issues such as homelessness stem from. As a result, homelessness appears as an extraordinary situation stemming from individual circumstance as opposed to a direct product of failing social structures and their privatization (Farrugia and Gerrard 2015, 274-75). These issues cannot simply be remedied by hard work.
As Toronto’s homelessness crisis is exacerbated by COVID-19, putting many shelters at capacity and making gathering in such places unsafe, people may wonder what caused such a backlash against Seivwright’s tiny homes (Toronto Tiny Shelters 2021, Statement). The city asserts that the tiny shelters pose safety risks to the community (Draaisma 2021). However, the structures are equipped with both smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers, and Seviwright also had the designs inspected to ensure that they met guidelines as outlined in various housing codes (Draaisma 2021). However, in the event that such safety concerns are credible, should the city not be required to either provide alternate solutions or guide him toward how to improve such concerns? The answer is no, as this does not fit the neoliberal model. The ideal individual looks after only themselves; to engage in large projects that would aid those struggling is antithetical to the neoliberal agenda, hence the constant red tape and bureaucracy Seviwright faces while distributing his shelters (Nouvet 2019, 90). One’s inability to receive support and express agency also prevents any kind of pushback against governments, thus inhibiting dissent toward exclusionary policy and allowing it to persist.
There are also many issues with the existing policy’s attempt to mitigate issues at hand. The hallmark individualism of neoliberalism fails to address the structural and systemic violence that contribute to housing insecurity. Low welfare benefits are a major factor in contemporary homelessness and are only furthered by current politics of privilege (Farrugia and Gerrard 2015, 275). By portraying homelessness as a burden that only the individual ought to bear, very little progress is made to create change. Solutions such as food stamps do not solve the issue of food insecurity that comes from homelessness, but is simply a band aid that works under the guise of incorporating marginalized people into a broken system (Allen 2021).
Numerous comments left on Seivwright’s YouTube channel describe the drastic impact the tiny shelters had on those able to utilize them. One user stated that the shelter:
Improved my physical mobility and my pain levels. I was able to sleep through the night for the first time. I did not have to go to sleep holding my medication and my cane, terrified that someone would steal them. It was warm, dry and safe. I had somewhere to recuperate and (for the first time), privacy (Toronto Tiny Shelters 2021, Statement, Wych).
These shelters are making a change in people’s lives, at a time marked by skyrocketing levels of suffering that disproportionately affects those already in difficult living situations. Contrary to the “laziness” rhetoric of the modern-day capitalist nation state, when these individuals are supported, they are actually able to recoup and effectively participate in society (Farrugia and Gerrard 2015, 269). Changes such as these are not simply a result of “hard work,” but require basic support from those in power to be implemented. Projects such as the tiny shelters undertaken by Seivwright highlight the fact that, when supported, there can actually be a place for marginalized people in society. This exciting prospect is shot down however, because, apparently, Torontonians do not like how it looks in Queen’s Park.
The reality of situational inequality means that some have private networks they can draw on before they need to resort to government support. While this can be the result of individual achievement, it is often tied up in intergenerational patterns of privilege and access, or lack thereof. Neoliberalism assures wealth and prosperity for a privileged few, but leaves those like the homeless of Toronto on the streets to weather storms on their own. It is only when support for all is deemed an absolute necessity that Toronto’s homeless people will be treated with respect and dignity, and finally be able to participate fairly in society.