Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:

login

Log in through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Journal Article

Hilton jako „fekální dvůr„: Socioprostorové aspekty bezdomovectví

ONDŘEJ HEJNAL
Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Review
Vol. 49, No. 2 (2013), pp. 241-267
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23535226
Page Count: 27
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Hilton jako „fekální dvůr„: Socioprostorové aspekty bezdomovectví
Preview not available

Abstract

This article sets out to analyse the social (re)production of an object inhabited by homeless people that is located on the periphery of a mid-sized Czech city. Drawing on Edward Soja's model of the trialectics of spatiality and Petr Vašát's empirically based concept of heterotopia, the author describes three spheres (or space-types) of the object: (1) a historical and physical description of the object; (2) the dominant actors' representations of the object (including politicians, municipal police, public authorities, and the local media); and (3) the object as a heterotopic 'Hilton' (the emic name of the object). He focuses mainly on the differences or junctions of these spheres/spaces. The empirical basis of this study is formed by data from ethnographic participant observation of the homeless, interviews, and various texts (e.g. media messages, public notices), which are processed in MAXQDA. There are some areas of contradiction between the three spaces: the negative descriptions by the dominant actors versus the social practices (e.g. pooling, borrowing) and strong social relationships in the Hilton, the seemingly irrational patterns of exploitation of the Hilton, the contrast between the filth outside the building and the clean state of the rooms, i.e. between chaos and order, the disparate views taken of dogs that live in the Hilton too, and ecological and hygienic problems, and so on. The negative view taken by local residents generates a fear of the homeless, which partly legitimises the ritual police inspects of the Hilton, and puts the public in the paradoxical position of both wanting to solve the problem, but rejecting the available tools to do so.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
241
    241
  • Thumbnail: Page 
242
    242
  • Thumbnail: Page 
243
    243
  • Thumbnail: Page 
244
    244
  • Thumbnail: Page 
245
    245
  • Thumbnail: Page 
246
    246
  • Thumbnail: Page 
247
    247
  • Thumbnail: Page 
248
    248
  • Thumbnail: Page 
249
    249
  • Thumbnail: Page 
250
    250
  • Thumbnail: Page 
251
    251
  • Thumbnail: Page 
252
    252
  • Thumbnail: Page 
253
    253
  • Thumbnail: Page 
254
    254
  • Thumbnail: Page 
255
    255
  • Thumbnail: Page 
256
    256
  • Thumbnail: Page 
257
    257
  • Thumbnail: Page 
258
    258
  • Thumbnail: Page 
259
    259
  • Thumbnail: Page 
260
    260
  • Thumbnail: Page 
261
    261
  • Thumbnail: Page 
262
    262
  • Thumbnail: Page 
263
    263
  • Thumbnail: Page 
264
    264
  • Thumbnail: Page 
265
    265
  • Thumbnail: Page 
266
    266
  • Thumbnail: Page 
267
    267