Exploring homelessness through formal axiology

Axiology in Conversation: Homelessness Through a Hartman Lens

In this first conversation, Jonathan (Jon) Chiampi brings together two longtime Hartman practitioners, Art Ellis and Steve Byrum, to explore the complex issue of homelessness through an axiological lens.

Jon introduces the purpose of the series by emphasizing that formal axiology can be applied far beyond assessment and the HVP. The intention is to take difficult or controversial subjects and explore them without trying to establish a political position or definitive answer. Instead, the discussion asks: What might we see differently if we approach this issue through formal axiology?

Homelessness provides a particularly challenging starting point because it involves overlapping intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic concerns, as well as questions around safety, addiction, mental health, economics, community responsibility, and individual dignity.

Looking at the Person Before the Problem

One of the strongest themes throughout the discussion is the importance of maintaining an intrinsic view of the individual.

Art begins by connecting homelessness with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, noting the relationship between basic physical and safety needs and the possibility of moving toward higher levels of development. He also draws on his experience working with homeless veterans and emphasizes that people can arrive at homelessness through many different pathways, including the collapse of work or family life, addiction, gambling, mental health challenges, and other circumstances.

The fact that someone is carrying significant problems does not change their intrinsic value.

This leads to an important axiological question: How do we meet people where they are while still creating the conditions that allow them to move forward?

The discussion repeatedly returns to the danger of making people experiencing homelessness into an abstract social problem rather than seeing them as individuals.

Steve describes these as people who can become “faceless people”, highlighting how easily stigma can develop when we stop seeing the individual behind the issue.

Moving Beyond the Search for a Simple Solution

Another major theme is the complexity of the problem itself.

Steve reflects on Hartman's resistance to the idea that every problem necessarily has a quick, rational solution. Some realities require us to stay with the complexity long enough to understand them.

He recalls Hartman's teaching that “the most important thing we can ever give ... is our struggle.”

In this context, struggle means becoming engaged, listening, asking questions, and resisting the temptation to settle for an easy explanation.

The conversation also explores addiction from this perspective. Rather than viewing addiction simply as irrational behaviour, Art suggests considering it as an attempt at problem solving that can gradually remove other tools and experiences from a person's life. Once one solution becomes dominant, the individual may lose access to other ways of responding to life's challenges.

This does not remove responsibility or consequences, but it can change the questions we ask about how someone reached their current situation.

The Three Dimensions in Practice

The conversation naturally moves between the three dimensions of formal axiology.

Intrinsic asks us to recognize the individual as a unique person with inherent value.

Extrinsic asks what the person actually needs and what practical circumstances are affecting their ability to function.

Systemic asks what structures, organizations, resources, and policies can be put in place to respond effectively.

Art emphasizes that these dimensions need to work together. We cannot simply create systems without understanding the people they are intended to serve, nor can intrinsic concern alone solve the practical and systemic conditions surrounding homelessness.

An important practical suggestion is to ask people experiencing homelessness what they need and how they believe their circumstances could improve. Listening to their perceptions provides information that may otherwise be missing from conversations about them.

Fear, Safety, and Competing Values

The discussion becomes particularly nuanced when the group considers the legitimate safety concerns of people living near homeless encampments.

Steve describes experiences of violence within homeless communities and the fear this can create among surrounding residents. Jon reflects on his own experiences with homelessness in California and how encounters with people experiencing mental health crises can make the issue feel very different when viewed through a safety lens.

This creates a valuable axiological tension: how do we recognize the intrinsic value of people experiencing homelessness while also taking seriously the legitimate safety needs of the wider community?

Art returns to Hartman's concept of “perceiving the relevant in the complex.” The challenge is not to choose one side of the issue, but to distinguish what is genuinely relevant, identify the competing needs, and work toward responses that address them.

From Big Solutions to Meaningful Action

The group also considers whether the scale of homelessness can make the problem feel so overwhelming that meaningful action becomes difficult.

Steve suggests that focusing on the “littles that we could do” may sometimes be more productive than waiting for one comprehensive solution. He shares examples from Chattanooga where organizations have converted unused buildings into housing and connected people with healthcare, food, psychological support, and other services.

These examples demonstrate another important theme: good intentions become meaningful when they are translated into action.

The conversation ultimately returns to the importance of human connection, trust, and engagement. Steve recalls Hartman's advice about teaching and counselling: before trying to tell someone what they need to know or what they should do, establish enough trust for them to know that they are being seen as a human being.

That principle extends far beyond homelessness.

Key Takeaways

This conversation demonstrates one of the broader possibilities of formal axiology: using Hartman's framework to think more deeply about complex realities rather than simply applying it as an assessment tool.

The discussion encourages us to:

• Look beyond labels and see the intrinsic person.

• Resist simplistic explanations for complex problems.

• Consider intrinsic, extrinsic, and systemic dimensions together.

• Ask people about their own perceptions and needs.

• Distinguish genuine safety concerns from fear that may be based on assumptions.

• Recognize that meaningful change can begin with relatively small, practical actions.

• Use formal axiology as a framework for exploration rather than a mechanism for producing predetermined answers.

Ultimately, the conversation asks us to slow down, remain engaged with complexity, and continue the struggle to understand before deciding that we already have the answer.

Help Shape Future Conversations

These recordings were intended to open the door to a different kind of conversation about formal axiology. We would love to know where you think that conversation could go next.

What topics would you like to see explored through an axiological lens? Are there practitioners, researchers, or other voices you would like to hear brought together for a discussion like this?

If you have ideas for future topics, suggested participants, or combinations of people who could bring interesting perspectives to the conversation, please email membership@hartmaninstitute.org and let us know.