Is “Unhoused” Really Better Than “Homeless”?
The Left’s obsession with language is counterproductive
These days, I’m hearing a lot of journalists and other media types use the word “unhoused” when referring to homeless people. I appreciate what they’re trying to do. I think the idea is that “a house doesn’t make a home,” as the song goes, and there’s something presumptuous about assuming that lack of shelter means that a person lacks all the other things that make a home.
But what the proponents of “unhoused” may not realize is that their preferred euphemism may actually be more dehumanizing, both in itself and in terms of the consequences of its use.
Necessary but not sufficient
Maybe a house doesn’t make a home, but it’s very hard to make a home without a house, or at least some form of permanent shelter. The word “home” implies stability and security, a locus of family engagement, and a refuge from the world.
Referring to someone as “homeless” is a much more powerful way of generating sympathy for that person than calling them “unhoused,” precisely because it implies the lack of all these other things. Unlike “unhoused,” which sounds clinical and sanitized by comparison, “homeless” highlights the dread and anxiety of having nowhere to go.
