With reference to Simmel's work, this article puts forward the notion of ‘stranger views’, which are expressive on the one hand, of the experiences of those who occupy a marginal position in society characterised by experiences of belonging and non-belonging, and on the other, of our own position as researchers, probing spaces of non-belonging and hearing stories that are then rearticulated for an academic audience. In doing so, it provides a reflective dialog between the findings of a research project on migrant homelessness in the UK and the methodological framework brought by New Area Studies. The article deploys the life story research method and focuses on views of the UK from the perspective of migrants from former European colonies who have been in the UK for several years but whose immigration status and lack of economic capital renders them vulnerable to destitution and homelessness. The article offers unique insights into the co-existence of belonging and non-belonging and the dissonance between these feelings. In providing a dialog between accounts deriving from life story interviews with migrants experiencing homelessness and a self-critical reflection about the knowledge produced with such accounts, our article contributes to debates on the sociology of marginality with a three-tiered discussion of migration, homelessness and methodological frameworks, which are rarely considered together.
{"title":"‘Stranger Views’: Researching Marginality and (Non)Belonging Among Migrants Experiencing Homelessness in the UK","authors":"Simon Stewart, Marianela Barrios Aquino","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.70033","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.70033","url":null,"abstract":"<p>With reference to Simmel's work, this article puts forward the notion of ‘stranger views’, which are expressive on the one hand, of the experiences of those who occupy a marginal position in society characterised by experiences of belonging and non-belonging, and on the other, of our own position as researchers, probing spaces of non-belonging and hearing stories that are then rearticulated for an academic audience. In doing so, it provides a reflective dialog between the findings of a research project on migrant homelessness in the UK and the methodological framework brought by New Area Studies. The article deploys the life story research method and focuses on views of the UK from the perspective of migrants from former European colonies who have been in the UK for several years but whose immigration status and lack of economic capital renders them vulnerable to destitution and homelessness. The article offers unique insights into the co-existence of belonging and non-belonging and the dissonance between these feelings. In providing a dialog between accounts deriving from life story interviews with migrants experiencing homelessness and a self-critical reflection about the knowledge produced with such accounts, our article contributes to debates on the sociology of marginality with a three-tiered discussion of migration, homelessness and methodological frameworks, which are rarely considered together.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"77 1","pages":"42-51"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.70033","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145187305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Perspectives on neoliberal political-economic practice often frame its dominance in terms of harms to ‘society’. Prominently, Wendy Brown (2019, 52) offers an account of the ‘neoliberal revolution’, claiming that, when ‘the social vanishes from our ideas, speech, and experience’, commonality disappears, democracy diminishes, and authoritarianism prevails. The paper considers this understanding to argue for the importance of political articulations of ‘society’, which reveal complexities that elude nostalgic accounts of how the social has been lost. Making this case, it works through real-world invocations of social commonality in the name of social cohesion. Social cohesion illustrates the multiplicity of objectives invoking ‘society’, ranging from the production of pro-social subjects to the pursuit of resilience against shifting scenarios of social collapse. On this basis the paper problematises perspectives that either treat the social as an artefact of administrative practice or that prioritize experiences of moral purpose and commonality. It argues that such positions risk mythologizing ‘society’ if they don't attend to the complex circumstances of its political articulation.
{"title":"Why Neoliberalism Doesn't Spell the Death of Society: Commonality, Regulation, and the Politics of Social Cohesion","authors":"Jan Dobbernack","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.70031","DOIUrl":"10.1111/1468-4446.70031","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Perspectives on neoliberal political-economic practice often frame its dominance in terms of harms to ‘society’. Prominently, Wendy Brown (2019, 52) offers an account of the ‘neoliberal revolution’, claiming that, when ‘the social vanishes from our ideas, speech, and experience’, commonality disappears, democracy diminishes, and authoritarianism prevails. The paper considers this understanding to argue for the importance of political articulations of ‘society’, which reveal complexities that elude nostalgic accounts of how the social has been lost. Making this case, it works through real-world invocations of social commonality in the name of social cohesion. Social cohesion illustrates the multiplicity of objectives invoking ‘society’, ranging from the production of pro-social subjects to the pursuit of resilience against shifting scenarios of social collapse. On this basis the paper problematises perspectives that either treat the social as an artefact of administrative practice or that prioritize experiences of moral purpose and commonality. It argues that such positions risk mythologizing ‘society’ if they don't attend to the complex circumstances of its political articulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":"77 1","pages":"19-29"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-4446.70031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145132444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}