Analysis Of Homeless By Anna Quindlen

It’s shown satirically on television, made fun of in music, and joked about in day-to-day activities: being homeless. I don’t understand what’s so funny about being homeless. The struggle to stay alive in an uninviting climate with nothing but the clothes on your back, doesn’t seem very fun. Yet in the media, being homeless is still treated like a joke. In the essay “Homeless” by Anna Quindlen, the reader is shown what it truly means to be without a home. My view on the struggles that homeless people have to endure is very similar to that of Quindlen’s in her essay, which perfectly captured the reality of what it is like to be without a home, and what it truly means to be homeless; while simultaneously demonstrating to me the negative effect

Quindlen begins her essay by describing a homeless person by her name, emphasizing that this woman has a name and is a human being just like everyone else. Her goal is to show us that we should be looking at the homeless as the individuals they are, rather than categorizing them all into one group. As Quindlen words it, “It has been customary to take people’s pain and lessen our own participation in it by turning it into an issue, not a collection of human beings” (Quindlen 214). By calling them homeless, we are labeling them by the issue, being without a home, rather than giving them their individuality. The problem is that “We turn an adjective into a noun: the poor, not poor people; the homeless, not Ann or the man who lives in the box or the woman who sleeps on the subway grate” (Quindlen 215). This would be like being called ‘blonde’ instead of by name. Blondes are satirically viewed as ignorant in the media, so being called blonde instead of by name would be using a stereotype as an identity for someone; when in reality that may not be true. I already used the word homeless in this essay multiple times. We use it because it’s easier and quicker; but it can also be hurtful if used the wrong way. Using an adjective to categorize a group of people can be very hurtful, and as Quindlen

Having a house and having a home used to coincide. Families used to live in the same house for generations, but now the sentimental value of having a house has changed. As Quindlen puts it, “There was a time when where you lived often was where you worked and where you grew the food you ate and even where you were buried. When that era passed, where you lived at least was where your parents had lived and where you would live with your children when you became enfeebled” (Quindlen 215). However, over time even that changed. Now we have grown to live in a house and then move on like it was nothing. Sentimental value for a house has dwindled. Quindlen demonstrates that “suddenly, where you lived was where you lived for three years, until you could move on to something else and something else again” (Quindlen 215). However, for those without a house, they would give anything to have that sentimental feeling that used to come with having a house. But that’s just the problem; for most a house and a home no longer coincide. We can own a house but not have a home, or vice versa. After all, “Home is where the heart is. There’s no place like it” (Quindlen 214). People can have a home without having a house. A home simply means having a family,