Advertisement

Beauty, Participation and Inclusion

Designing with Homeless People
  • Cristian Campagnaro
  • Valentina Porcellana
Part of the Comparative and International Education book series (CIEDV)

Abstract

Analysing the phenomenon of the homeless – the very definition of which is complex and controversial – means opening up an extensive and articulate reflection on interlinked aspects of urban complexity, poverty, marginality, difficulties affecting young people, the social exclusion of weak segments of the populations (women, the elderly, immigrants). It also opens up the themes of living, citizenship, social insecurity, economic precariousness, the welfare system and social policies.

Keywords

Welfare System Homeless People Wall Painting Housing Service Domestic Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted lives. Modernity and its outcasts. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnin, P., & Perrot, M. (1989). Le décor en Margeride. Terrain, 12, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnot, T. (2002). La vie des objets. D’utensiles banals à objets de collection. Paris, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar
  4. Bourriaud, N. (2010). La forma relazionale. In N. Bourriaud (Eds.), Estetica relazionale (pp. 11–24). Milano: Postmedia Srl.Google Scholar
  5. Brandolini, A., Saraceno, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (Eds.). (2009). Dimensioni della disuguaglianza in Italia: Povertà, salute, abitazione. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
  6. Campagnaro, C., & Porcellana, V. (2013). Habiter le dortoir. In C. Deschamps, B. Proth, Edifices remarquables et espaces ordinaires aux XXe et XXIe siècle. Dialogue entre architecture et anthropologie. Journal des anthropologues, 134–135, 267–290.Google Scholar
  7. Cardano, M. (2009). Disuguaglianze sociali, povertà e salute. In A. Brandolini, C. Saraceno, & A. Schizzerotto (Eds.), Dimensioni della disuguaglianza in Italia: Povertà, salute, abitazione. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
  8. Celaschi, F. (2008). Design as mediation between areas of knowledge. The integration of knowledge in the training of contemporary designer. In C. Germak (Eds.), L’uomo al centro del progetto (pp. 19–31). Torino: Allemandi.Google Scholar
  9. Chevalier, S. (1999). The French two-home project. Materialization of family identity. In I. Cieraad (Eds.), At home. An anthropology of domestic space (pp. 107–117). New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dal Lago, A. (1999). Non-persone: l’esclusione dei migranti in una società globale. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  11. Dei, F. (2009). Oggetti domestici e stili familiari. Una ricerca sulla cultura materiale tra famiglie toscane di classe media. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 2, 279–293.Google Scholar
  12. Fassin, D. (1996). L’espace politique de la santé. Essai de généalogie. Paris, PUF.Google Scholar
  13. Galliani, S. (2011). L’innovation Sociale: Miroir du pouvoir ou changement réel. Sans-abri en Europe, FEANTSA, Automne, 11–13.Google Scholar
  14. Giorgi, S., & Fasulo, A. (2008). I luoghi che raccontano/racconto dei luoghi: Spazi ed oggetti domestici tra biografia e cultura. Antropologia museale, 7, 37–47.Google Scholar
  15. Gui, L. (2003). Una ricerca di nuovi percorsi d’aiuto. In M. Bergamaschi, C. Landuzzi, & G. Pieretti (Eds.), Servizio sociale e povertà estreme. Accompagnamento sociale e persone senza dimora (pp. 111–112). Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  16. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Meo, A. (2000). Vite in bilico: Sociologia della reazione a eventi Spiazzanti. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
  18. Pellai, A., Rinaldin, V., & Tamborini, B. (2002). Educazione tra pari. Manuale teorico-pratico di empowered peer education. Trento: Erickson.Google Scholar
  19. Poggio, T. (2009). Le principali dimensioni della disuguaglianza abitativa in Italia. In A. Brandolini, C. Saraceno, & A. Schizzerotto (Eds.), Dimensioni della disuguaglianza in Italia: povertà, salute, abitazione. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
  20. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2000). Il sapere incorporato: Pensare con il corpo attraverso un’antropologia medica critica. In R. Borofsky (Eds.), L’antropologia culturale oggi (pp. 281–293). Roma: Meltemi.Google Scholar
  21. Segalen, M., & Le Wita, B. (1996). Chez-soi, Objets et décors : des créations familiales? Paris: Autrement.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Campagnaro
    • 1
  • Valentina Porcellana
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Architecture and DesignPolytechnic of TurinTurin
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Educational ScienceUniversity of TurinTurin

Personalised recommendations