There has recently been on television a series called Famous, Rich and Homeless. Five ‘celebrities’ volunteer to spend ten days experiencing homelessness in Britain. The programme is superbly produced, and extremely profound. By the end of the first (of two) episodes we start to comprehend the evil-circles that homeless people find themselves in, and comprehend the incredible pain and suffering that they have to handle. In the second episode, our understanding of the emotional, physical, social, and political plight of homeless people becomes quite clear. The series shows how the lives of the volunteers - normally enamoured with status, wealth, and influence - were (in all but one case) brought into sharp focus.
The 5 famous and rich volunteers
Bruce Jones
People’s attitudes to the homeless and homelessness
There is no doubt that most people do indeed behave “inhuman[ly]” towards the homeless, and do not “give a toss about what they’re going through”, and at night walk past the homeless as if they were “just a body in a bag”. Probably most people don’t realise just “how easily [homelessness] could happen to someone”. These are the observations of volunteers Rosie Boycott and Bruce Jones. Bruce said “the outrage” of it all is that those in our prison system “have human rights”, but “where’s the homeless’ human rights? Why is a man who can kill got human rights? A person sleeping on the streets has got no rights! … Society is flawed. Society is fucked up!”
Pain involved with homelessness
In thinking about the first episode, I began to ask questions about the pain of being homelessness. I think most people try to, if not consciously, then subconsciously, ‘rate’ pain or categorise it. I was comparing, in my head, the pain of homelessness to the pain of, for example, having ones community bombed. The pain associated with homelessness, it seems to me, is loneliness, helplessness, loss of esteem and hope, and general emotional blackness. For me, however, loneliness would be the most important here. If I was an Afghani villager whose community was regularly being bombed, if I had seen my aunt and cousins die, and if my family was constantly fearing death by forces beyond their control, without doubt there would be an imaginable sense of suffering. Yet, I was thinking, at least I would be able to ‘group’ together with others in the same situation, and seek and share strength with those around me.
Homeless people generally cannot do this - they cannot share their pain; they are alone. If you are homeless it seems that you generally have little or no chance to seek empathy, sympathy, or comradeship. This has to be completely emotionally debilitating. Some of the homeless people on the programme have been on the streets ’sleeping rough’ for 20-25 years, and have generally lived a life of solitude. Loneliness in homelessness has to be an overwhelmingly terrible emotion to endure.
Is it right, is it necessary, is it even acceptable to compare pains?
Yet, I will never be able to judge the pain of homelessness since I have never been there. The programme’s hidden message is that we should never pass judgement on the homeless. We know nothing usually about why or how homeless people became homeless. Moreover, if we know even something about their situation then, as the programme showed, it is likely to be a lie anyway - as it seems many have to lie to survive on the streets (concerning begging). Clearly I know nothing; I’ve never been homeless.
We must open our eyes. Society is indeed 'fucked' up.
I think most people have to open their eyes to the suffering of the homeless on our streets. Many, even most, people walk by the homeless as they sit on the street, denying their existence. The emotional and psychological effect of this behaviour on the homeless are sharply portrayed in Famous, Rich and Homeless.
The most recent episode is available to watch online (if you are in the UK) until midnight, 2 August 2009. The episode is anachronistic, so even if you haven’t seen the first episode, it doesn’t matter at all. I would recommend to anyone who has half an hour to spare that they watch at least some of the programme.
