Sweeping Away the Unseen: A Critique of California’s Homeless Policies through the Lens of History
California’s Governor recently announced a sweeping initiative to remove homeless encampments across the state, threatening funding cuts to counties that fail to comply. This aggressive approach might seem like a solution to the visible problem, but it raises profound ethical concerns. The rush to “clean up” the streets without addressing the root causes of homelessness—such as lack of affordable housing, mental health services, and economic inequality—echoes dangerous historical precedents. Using the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF), we can see how this exercise of power to control and remove the unhoused reflects a deeper issue: the failure to recognise and address the underlying threats and meanings attached to being homeless. By focusing on visibility rather than vulnerability, these policies risk repeating patterns of oppression that have historically targeted society’s most marginalised. In today’s article, I will draw parallels between Nazi Germany’s treatment of vagrants and California’s contemporary policies, demonstrating how the current approach dehumanises those it seeks to “help.” This historical lens underscores the urgent need for a compassionate, meaning-oriented response that truly addresses the complexities of homelessness, rather than merely sweeping it out of sight.
The Historical Context
In the 1930s, the Nazi regime systematically wielded power to control and ultimately eliminate those they deemed undesirable, including vagrants and beggars. This exercise of power was not just about removing individuals from public view; it was a calculated effort to dehumanise and oppress entire populations. Vagrants, who had already been marginalised by the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, were framed by the Nazis as a threat to the social order. They were labelled as “anti-social elements,” a term that stripped them of their humanity and justified their exclusion from society. The regime’s policies, which included mass round-ups, forced labour camps, and the eventual extermination of these groups, were presented as necessary measures to purify the Aryan race and maintain public order.
The PTMF helps us to understand how the Nazis used their power not just to control but to impose meanings that justified their atrocities. By framing vagrants as a societal threat, the Nazis attached a negative meaning to their existence, transforming these vulnerable individuals into scapegoats for broader social anxieties. This dehumanisation was further reinforced through propaganda, which depicted vagrants as parasitic burdens on the state, undeserving of basic rights or dignity.
It is important to note that much of Nazi policy on race and social control was influenced by Jim Crow laws in the United States. The Nazis studied American segregation and eugenics policies as models for their own racial purity laws. For example, the Nuremberg Laws, which institutionalised racial discrimination in Nazi Germany, were partly inspired by the U.S. laws that enforced racial segregation and anti-miscegenation statutes. Similarly, the Nazis’ approach to forced sterilisation was influenced by American eugenics programs, which had already sterilised tens of thousands of people deemed unfit. This transatlantic exchange of oppressive ideas underscores how these mechanisms of power and control were not unique to Germany but were part of a broader historical context of systemic oppression.
Through the PTMF lens, we can see how the Nazis’ use of power was intricately linked to the meanings they imposed on their victims, framing them as threats to justify their systematic elimination. This historical context serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of policies that dehumanise and marginalise the most vulnerable in society.
California’s Contemporary Approach
The California Governor’s recent initiative to remove homeless encampments across the state reflects a broader use of power aimed at controlling and marginalising vulnerable populations rather than addressing the root causes of their plight. By threatening funding cuts to counties that fail to comply with these measures, the state exercises a form of coercive power that prioritises visibility and order over meaningful, compassionate solutions. This approach is grounded in the desire to “clean up” the streets, making the problem of homelessness less visible to the public, rather than resolving the underlying issues such as lack of affordable housing, mental health care, and economic inequality.
Through the lens of the PTMF, this strategy reveals how power is used not only to exert control but also to impose specific meanings on the homeless population. Society perceives homelessness as a threat to economic stability, public safety, and social comfort, driving policies that seek to remove this “nuisance” from public view. The meanings attached to homelessness—often framed as a moral failing, personal responsibility, or a societal burden—justify harsh measures that dehumanise those affected. This narrative portrays homeless individuals as obstacles to community well-being rather than people in need of support and understanding, thus legitimising the use of forceful tactics to remove them.
This approach is alarmingly similar to the strategies employed by the Nazi regime, which focused on eliminating visible “problems” like vagrancy without addressing their systemic causes. Just as the Nazis framed vagrants as “anti-social elements” threatening the fabric of society, contemporary policies in California often portray the homeless as disruptive and dangerous, necessitating their removal for the greater good. The Governor’s actions, as reported by NPR, emphasise enforcement and displacement, with little regard for where these individuals will go or how their needs will be met (source). This echoes the Nazi emphasis on control and order over human dignity and social justice.
Moreover, by framing homelessness as a problem of visibility rather than a symptom of deeper systemic failures, these policies ignore the complex realities that lead individuals to become unhoused in the first place. Issues such as skyrocketing housing costs, insufficient mental health services, and entrenched economic disparities are at the heart of the homelessness crisis, yet the focus remains on punitive measures rather than structural change. The use of power to suppress and conceal homelessness, rather than to empower and support those affected, risks perpetuating a cycle of marginalisation and neglect.
In drawing this parallel, we see the danger of prioritising social order and public image over meaningful solutions. Just as the Nazi regime’s focus on removing the visible problem of vagrancy led to increased suffering and social decay, California’s current approach to homelessness, if left unchecked, could have similarly destructive consequences. The PTMF helps us to understand that the real threat lies not in the homeless population itself, but in the failure to address the systemic issues that create and sustain homelessness.
Ethical Implications
The exercise of power without compassion, whether in historical or contemporary contexts, has consistently led to the marginalisation and dehumanisation of vulnerable populations. In both Nazi Germany and modern-day California, we see how the unchecked use of power can result in policies that target the most vulnerable, stripping them of their dignity and further entrenching their suffering. The PTMF provides a lens through which we can examine how these power dynamics unfold and the profound ethical implications they carry.
In Nazi Germany, the regime’s reliance on forced labour was a key component of its strategy to control and exploit those deemed undesirable, including vagrants, political dissidents, and ethnic minorities. Many of these individuals were coerced into working for industries that remain operational today, such as Volkswagen and Siemens, which profited from their labour. This use of power not only dehumanised these individuals but also reinforced the systemic structures that perpetuated their oppression. The forced labour camps were not just sites of physical exploitation but also spaces where the Nazis imposed negative meanings on their victims, branding them as subhuman and disposable.
In contemporary California, the presence of the Exclusion Clause in the 13th Amendment, which permits involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, and the state’s own enshrinement of penal labour into its constitution, echo these historical abuses. By criminalising homelessness and funnelling individuals into the prison system, where they can be subjected to forced labour, the state continues a legacy of exploitation and control. This approach fails to recognise the complex realities behind homelessness—such as trauma, economic injustice, and mental health struggles—and instead exacerbates these issues by treating homeless individuals as problems to be managed rather than people to be supported.
From the PTMF perspective, this lack of understanding of the meanings behind homelessness leads to policies that not only fail to resolve the underlying issues but also perpetuate cycles of poverty and suffering. When power is exercised without compassion, it results in a punitive approach that strips individuals of their agency and humanity. Instead of addressing the real threats faced by homeless individuals—such as the lack of affordable housing, the inadequacy of mental health services, and the pervasive economic inequalities—these policies focus on controlling and removing them from public view, thereby deepening their marginalisation.
The ethical implications of this approach are profound. By prioritising social order and economic interests over the well-being of vulnerable populations, the state perpetuates a cycle of oppression that mirrors some of the darkest chapters in history. The reliance on penal labour and the criminalisation of poverty reflect a broader societal failure to address the root causes of homelessness. Instead of empowering individuals to overcome the challenges they face, these policies reinforce the very conditions that keep them trapped in a cycle of poverty and despair.
The parallels between the forced labour practices of the Nazi regime and the modern use of penal labour in California serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of exercising power without compassion. Just as the Nazi regime’s exploitation of vulnerable populations for economic gain led to untold suffering and injustice, so too does the criminalisation of homelessness in California perpetuate a cycle of marginalisation and dehumanisation. To break this cycle, we must move beyond policies driven by power and control and towards a more compassionate, understanding approach that addresses the real threats and meanings behind homelessness.
Learning from History
As we look to history, it becomes clear that the failure to address the root causes of societal issues, like homelessness, inevitably leads to increased suffering and deeper social fractures. The Nazi regime’s approach to vagrancy—characterised by control, punishment, and exploitation—only exacerbated the misery of those already on society’s margins. This historical lesson is crucial as we examine California’s current strategy for addressing homelessness, which similarly prioritises power and control over understanding and support. The economic circumstances of the 1930s, marked by widespread poverty, unemployment, and social unrest, created a climate where vulnerable populations were scapegoated and dehumanised. Today, California faces a comparable situation, with rising housing costs, economic inequality, and a frayed social safety net driving an increase in homelessness. Yet, instead of addressing these underlying issues, the state’s response has mirrored the punitive measures of the past.
Through the lens of the PTMF, we can see that California’s current approach, like that of the Nazi regime, risks deepening the crisis rather than resolving it. The exercise of power through the removal of homeless encampments and the threat of funding cuts does nothing to alleviate the economic pressures and social injustices that have forced so many into homelessness. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of control and punishment, where the focus is on making the problem less visible rather than addressing its root causes. This approach reflects a lack of compassion for those made homeless by the current economic situation, viewing them as nuisances to be managed rather than individuals deserving of support and dignity.
To avoid repeating the mistakes of history, there must be a fundamental shift in how power is used. Rather than being wielded to control and punish, power should be transformed into a force for empowerment and support. This means recognising the meanings attached to homelessness—such as the experiences of trauma, economic displacement, and mental health struggles—and addressing these through compassionate, systemic change. By understanding and responding to the real threats faced by homeless individuals, rather than merely trying to make them disappear, we can begin to break the cycle of marginalisation and create pathways for people to rebuild their lives.
The PTMF urges us to move beyond the simplistic dichotomy of power versus control and towards a model where power is used to uplift and empower. This shift is essential if we are to address the homelessness crisis in a way that is both ethical and effective. Just as the Nazi regime’s failure to address the root causes of vagrancy led to untold suffering, so too will California’s current approach if it continues down this path. The lesson from history is clear: real change comes not from sweeping the problem out of sight but from confronting and addressing the systemic issues that create and sustain homelessness. By transforming power into support, we can begin to build a society that truly values and cares for all its members.
Final thoughts …
To truly address the homelessness crisis in California, we must shift our focus from punitive measures to compassionate, PTMF-informed alternatives that tackle the root causes of the issue. Expanding affordable housing, improving access to mental health services, and establishing comprehensive social safety nets are essential steps in this direction. These policies must be designed to empower individuals, addressing the threats they face—such as economic instability, mental health struggles, and systemic discrimination—and helping them find positive meanings in their lives. By viewing homeless individuals as deserving of support and dignity, rather than as societal burdens, we can begin to craft solutions that are rooted in compassion and a commitment to social justice.
The Power Threat Meaning Framework urges us to reconsider how we use power in our policies. Rather than wielding it to control and marginalise, we should use power to uplift and support those in need. This requires a fundamental shift in perspective, where the emphasis is placed on human rights and the intrinsic value of every individual. Policies must be informed by an understanding of the complex factors that lead to homelessness and be aimed at breaking the cycles of poverty and marginalisation that keep so many trapped in precarious situations.
A crucial aspect of this transformation involves addressing the systemic roots of the problem, including the presence of the Exclusion Clause in the 13th Amendment and California’s enshrinement of penal labour in its constitution. These legal frameworks, which allow for the exploitation of incarcerated individuals as a source of cheap labour, perpetuate a cycle of dehumanisation that dates back to Jim Crow and continues to this day. It is no coincidence that these statutes have been maintained, as they serve to keep prisons full of enslaved labourers who help keep labour costs down for corporate and government interests. To create meaningful change, we must push for the removal of these oppressive legal structures as a necessary precursor to reforming our approach to homelessness.
Thus, the PTMF provides a powerful lens through which to understand and address homelessness. By recognising the power dynamics at play and the meanings attached to homelessness, we can develop policies that are compassionate, just, and effective. This requires a departure from power-driven, dehumanising approaches and a movement towards policies that prioritise human dignity and social justice. As advocates, it is our responsibility to push for these changes and to ensure that our society values and supports all its members, especially the most vulnerable. The time for action is now, and it begins with transforming our understanding of power, threat, and meaning in the context of homelessness.