From Explanation to Evaluation: The Moral Selection of Interpretive Frames

• In Event: Identities, Repertoires, and Interpretive Resources

Abstract

Public debates about homelessness often juxtapose structural explanations with punitive or
paternalistic responses, yet less is known about how housed residents navigate these
interpretations in everyday reasoning. Drawing on 37 semi-structured interviews with housed
residents in Berkeley, California, this study shows that interpretive shifts are organized by a
movement from explanation to evaluation. Participants readily articulated structural diagnoses
when asked to explain why homelessness exists, but when asked to evaluate what should be
tolerated in public space, who bears responsibility, and what obligations are owed, those frames
were frequently narrowed, redirected, or morally bounded. The analysis identifies three patterned
configurations: identity-based moral anchoring, emotionally activated boundary-making, and a
smaller set of cases in which structural frames remain stable because moral evaluation is directed
upward toward institutional abandonment and displacement-oriented governance. These shifts
represent situational moral reasoning under changing evaluative demands. By clarifying how
responsibility is allocated in moments of judgment, this study explains how everyday
interpretations help legitimate or contest enforcement-oriented responses to homelessness.

Author

• Raquel Xitlali Zitani-Rios, University of California-Berkeley