It is important to highlight the theoretical framework that supports and permeates our reflections. Enrique Dussel, a contemporary Argentine philosopher, proposed a Philosophy of Liberation based on the experience of oppressed and marginalized people, especially those of Latin America. This philosophical movement seeks to understand and confront the structures of oppression by questioning and breaking away from the Eurocentric dominance of philosophical knowledge, which has disregarded the experiences and realities of marginalized people and omitted them from the historical process of shaping modern society. In this sense, it proposes a reflection from the perspective of the Other—the victims and the excluded—aiming to generate critical consciousness and transformative action to foster the processes of social and cultural liberation.^(27–29) The Philosophy of Liberation starts from a relational premise that is, the forms of relationship between the self and the other, wich shape human life in society, inclining toward domination or liberation. Thus, two categories were introduced: Totality and Exteriority.⁽²⁷⁾ In this study, Dussel's categories were not applied as prescriptive truths but as analytical lenses to interpret how employees narrate their relationships with PeH and how institutional food practices reflect the dynamics of totality and Exteriority. Therefore, the interpretations reflect the intersection between empirical material and theoretical framing.

Totality is the expression of dominant power and refers to central, ontological grounded knowledge that is seen as the only acceptable truth. It encompasses more than that the set of known things are considered meaningful and defines each person's world. Totality places humans at the center of this world, and from this point of view, things are organized according to their proximity to this center: those closest being more meaningful and those farther away seen as less significant.^(27,29) When something (or someone) ceases to make sense of the dominant category or fails to fit within the established totality, it is cast out of this world. This constitutes the boundary of totality and the starting point of what Dussel refers to as Exteriority. Exteriority refers to the Other, minority, and socially excluded groups that are on the fringes and do not constitute the Totality. Under these conditions, humanity is not necessarily granted.^(27,28) Therefore, when humanity is not granted, commonly accepted moral foundations may no longer apply. This leads us to the justifications adopted for European domination over many people throughout the past centuries, according to which Black people, Indigenous peoples, and other minoritized groups seen as external and savages were to be colonized as a means of humanization and integration into Totality. Here, the Other is seen as something that constitutes a system and not as someone else.

Dignity is a central element in the Philosophy of Liberation that is essential to our discussion and reflections. According to Dussel, human life is the mode of existence of an ethical subject, and in its corporeality and vulnerability, this life presents intrinsic limitations such as basic needs for food, water, shelter, and safety. Beyond these natural needs, these limitations also include the need for communal life in all its social dimensions, differentiating human beings from other animals. These needs, biological and social, comprise the dignity of human beings and aims to ensure the production, reproduction, and development of human life in all its complexity.^(27,30,31) In this sense, dignity constitutes the highest premise of life, being ontological, ethical, and, therefore, non-negotiable. In the domain of Exteriority, human status is not given but must be continually reaffirmed; therefore, dignity too becomes contingent—a fragile achievement that can be revoked by the totalizing logic of Totality.

As previously mentioned, PeH are situated in a context of extreme vulnerability that goes beyond difficulties in accessing basic resources, such as food, water, and home, and involves the denial of social, symbolic, and individual needs, such as privacy, or the possibility of withdrawing from a private and safe space. Andrade et al.⁽²⁾ report that on the streets, these individuals lose their identities, being perceived as things, and as part of the urban scenario they occupy, such as sidewalks, squares, and overpasses. They constitute the Other—those who differ from the dominant group—being positioned within the Exteriority category discussed by Dussel,⁽²⁷⁾ where humanity, and consequently, dignity, are not necessarily applicable.

When we think about Totality in relation to PeH, society as a whole may be understood as Totality, comprising many individuals who, on a daily basis, walk past PeH without truly seeing them on sidewalks, in tents, or under overpasses.^(2,32) These individuals are often perceived merely as part of the urban landscape or, when noticed, are seen as those who deviate from the norms of a hegemonic, colonial system. Invisibilization and stigmatization are deeply rooted in different social strata and worldviews.^(6,32–35)

At the same time, we can also reflect on the different positionalities that emerge within this context and the various social spaces in which PeH are present. For instance, in the case of social assistance services that provide meals to these individuals, specific dynamics of power have been established. In these settings, employees occupy a position of dominance over PeH, embodying Totality. However, in other contexts, given their occupations, gender, race/color, and income, these employees are likely to find themselves in marginalized positions, facing oppression and stigma that silence and place them at the fringes of society, or in the Exteriority in relation to other dominant groups. Therefore, there is relative positionality for these employees: in some contexts, these individuals are placed in Exteriority, while in others, they occupy a position within Totality. While service employees may experience relative positionality, PeH remains consistently situated in the Exteriority. Their position is not circumstantial but structural, defined by a persistent exclusion that places them at the very margins of society, or, as Dussel⁽²⁷⁾ frames them, at the fringes of the fringes. It is from this fixed place of alterity that they encounter daily operations of institutional power. It is important to clarify that because this study does not include direct accounts from PeH, our analysis of these dynamics reflects employees interpretations rather than the lived experiences of the Exteriority itself.

In this dominant position in the services, employees have decision-making power in some aspects of PeH lives, that outside the situation of homelessness, would be personal and private choices, such as when to bathe or rest. More specifically, with regard to food, these employees decide what will be served, the seasoning to be used, quantity, and how, where, and under what conditions the PeH will eat. In this sense, even when there is an intention to recognize an individual's uniqueness, PeH are still reduced to a common category located in the Exteriority. There is an ongoing attempt to mold them according to the norms of Totality, rather than to include them within it, guiding them through imposed standards, rules, and regulations rooted in the logic of the hegemonic norm.⁽¹⁰⁾ Considering these concepts, we discuss the narratives of food workers who plan, prepare, and offer meals in services for PeH regarding ways in which emotions can be conveyed through food, encompassing aspects related to culture, belonging, autonomy, and dignity.

According to the employees, the food provided by services to the PeH can convey feelings when it is planned, prepared, and distributed following a calendar that includes commemorative dates and annual festivities. In this regard, celebrations such as Christmas, New Year, Easter, June festivals, and monthly birthday parties, which include typical foods, are included in the service agenda:

Additionally, the collaborators' statements show the concern in distributing preparations and foods that refer to the festivities and that are seen as "special," so that the PeH experience a moment of fraternization and belonging:

As shown in the excerpts above, nuances emerged regarding the importance of these moments, such as, socializing around food, valuing food culture, and the feeling of cultural identity. These nuances lead us to another dimension of dignity, as discussed by Dussel,⁽³⁶⁾ grounded in the social needs of human life, such as the cultural aspect of food. We observed that services aimed at providing food to PeH attempt to go beyond merely meeting basic needs by organizing cultural celebrations centered around meals and other rituals. However, it is important to note that these cultural events reflect the cultural identity of the Totality, since they are planned, prepared, and organized by service workers. These initiatives are rooted in hegemonic principles tied to their own understanding of culture and socialization. This interpretation reflects how workers construct their cultural belonging. However, the meaning attributed to these moments by PeH cannot be presumed without their voices, as documented by Plage et al.⁽²⁴⁾ and Sabatini et al.^(10,25)

Moreover, statements such as "to embed the importance of culture in food, commemorative dates, and socialization" may reveal an assumption that these dimensions are insufficiently present in the daily lives of PeH, reinforcing their place in the sphere of Exteriority, by marking them as lacking elements considered fundamental to full social participation. At the same time, such narratives position staff members as "saviors" (representatives of the Totality), responsible for restoring or reintroducing these cultural elements to the homeless population.

As discussed by Dussel,⁽³⁶⁾ the need for communal life or socialization is one of the elements that constitutes dignity and defines humanity, distinguishing humans from other animals. Living in a community implies a sense of belonging. Cosmo, an employee responsible for the distribution of the food in one of the services states that, "sitting at the table, even if it's in the middle of that rush, and they [PeH] sit down to eat, I think that the food creates this bond for them, making them feel like a person, feeling integrated into that community, into the group they're in," relating the sense of belonging to the experience of sharing a meal with others. Moreover, Cosmo's statement conveys the idea that these individuals remain external to Totality, excluded from what is socially and ethically recognized as being or feeling like a person. However, by sitting at a table and sharing a meal prepared by others, it is possible for them to be acknowledged as humans.

Fribourg⁽³⁷⁾ reported that eating is a marker of belonging and identity; however, the feeling of belonging occurs when the individual is part of, feels included, and belongs to a community or place.^(38,39) Sarason⁽³⁹⁾ states that belonging occurs in relationships with space, activities, and the people within it. Belonging, in these senses, is configured as part of a person's identity because when individuals feel that they belong, they identify with what becomes part of their life and are built along with a feeling of identity.^(35,40)Therefore, belonging establishes relationships that go beyond being and co-existing. Belonging also means recognizing the particularities, culture, and individuality of those who make up the group or place. However, as the trajectories within the services are shaped by staff members' perceptions about how to plan, cook, and distribute food, even when there is an attempt to break through the boundaries of Totality and Exteriority, the construction of belonging remains disconnected from what the PeH desires and believes, and because of that, it seems flimsy.

In addition to discussing the moment of the meal and the distribution of food within these services, some statements revealed an appreciation for the act of being served by others, as well as the affection and pleasure associated with that moment's experience said to be felt by service users:

In the context of PeH who rarely have the opportunity to be served or choose what goes on their plates, the idea of taking pleasure from being served becomes open to critical reflection. This appreciation and the idea of pleasure emerge from the perspective of employees—individuals who prepare and serve their own food daily. Once again, these statements reflect an understanding of the Totality regarding what is considered pleasurable during eating. When we consider the reality of PeH, particularly in food services where all stages related to meals are carried out by others, being able to serve oneself autonomously might represent an individual's primary desire.^(10,25) As stated by Stambe et al,⁽⁴¹⁾ care relationships are shaped by complex emotions; thus, the experience of being served among PeH may involve the dynamics of shame, anger, or hope. Our interpretation is constrained by the absence of PeH voices in this study; therefore, what we discuss here is grounded in a critical interpretation of employees' assumptions rather than the lived experience of service users. This brings us to the question of autonomy, another theme that emerged in employees' statements that appears to be intended but not truly realized.

Autonomy is related to freedom; that is, to the situation in which an individual has the power to make their own choices, act and shape the course of their life. In this sense, it places an individual under the condition of a free person.⁽⁴²⁾ When we consider socialization and life in the community, this possibility of freedom is built in relation to others, the collective, and the laws and rules that frame coexistence and community. Moreover, different social groups possess varying degrees of autonomy, to the extent that freedom is a consequence of the power relations established.^(43,44)

When we consider the autonomy of PeH in food services, we look at a context in which all stages involving the planning, preparation, and distribution of the food served are shaped by decisions made by others, in this case, employees. Many of these workers' statements concerned attempts to promote autonomy for the PeH, particularly relating to meal distribution. Therefore, the possibility for PeH to choose which food they want or do not want on their plate, and the quantity to be served, is expressed by the employees as autonomy: "Some participants will say, "no, not the beans." That is why they had the autonomy to pass by and choose. "I do not want the rice" or "I only want beans" and they go on putting together their plate" [Violeta, responsible for distribution].

However, this feeling of autonomy is relative and has been observed in the field. This is because users are only able to choose smaller quantities than the standard portions and people cannot serve themselves or put their own food on their plate. In this regard, there is a contradiction regarding such autonomy, which is also highlighted in service employees' statements:

Furthermore, the statements also highlighted the notion of "raising awareness" about the appropriateness of the amount of food on the plate in relation to the hunger experienced at that moment, thus avoiding waste, and being able to serve everyone in need of food:

This reinforces the idea that service users (PeH) do not have full autonomy to serve themselves and choose what and how much they will eat. This also suggests that these users do not have the power to make decisions regarding their needs or even their own hunger. In other words, PeH are, once again, positioned within the realm of exteriority and reduced to a context in which autonomy, possibility of choice, and desire are constrained. Similar criticisms have been reported by other studies. Plage et al.⁽²⁴⁾ show that services framed as "autonomy" often fail to align with the ways PeH themselves regarding choice, control, and dignity. Similarly, Stambe et al.⁽⁴¹⁾ emphasize that relationships between service workers and clients are relational, negotiated, and often marked by ambivalence, complicating simplistic notions of "empowerment" or "lack of autonomy." These studies help nuance our interpretation by demonstrating that service employees experience autonomy differently than PeH.

Sabatini et al.,⁽¹⁰⁾ drawing on an ethnographic study with women experiencing homelessness in the city of São Paulo that sought to understand what these women desire to eat, discussed the issue of autonomy, an aspect that cuts across emerging desires. Autonomy has been linked to matters such as the desire to cook one's own food, wish for abundant or healthy meals, and desire to access food with dignity. According to the women interviewed, all these aspects were denied to them when eating food provided by food assistance services. In this sense, autonomy was also denied even though efforts were made to promote it, as observed in our study.

Sabatini et al.⁽¹⁰⁾ argue that although these women make efforts to make decisions based on their own desires, there is a lack of legal structures that allow them to exercise freedom and autonomy in a genuine way grounded in their own experiences and needs. This is because the structures that underpin such efforts are based on knowledge and meanings that are disconnected from PeH lived realities. Even when these employees seek to meet the needs of PeH, their perspectives do not necessarily align with what they want precisely because they occupy different social positions. They are shaped by knowledge rooted in Totality, which again places PeH in the realm of Exteriority.

When positioned within Exteriority, humanity is not necessarily granted, as individuals are not truly recognized as people, but rather as figures outside the boundaries of what society considers normative. Given that dignity is intrinsic to human nature, when humanity itself is not recognized, it can become inapplicable. In Brazil, the National Policy for the Homeless Population.⁽⁴⁵⁾ brings respect to human dignity, family and community coexistence, and the promotion of cultural rights as principles and guidelines. In a broader context, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights presents human beings as members of society and highlights the inseparability of this condition from the guarantee of social and cultural rights and human dignity,⁽⁴⁶⁾ as also discussed by Dussel.⁽²⁷⁾ These normative frameworks, while affirming the indivisibility of human dignity and social inclusion, clash with the realities experienced by those relegated to Exteriority, such as PeH. This tension becomes evident when we consider not only how dominant elitist groups perceive PeH but also how those in institutional roles of care and assistance may reproduce similar forms of dehumanization.

One might assume that such dehumanization perceptions are mostly held by dominant and elitist groups that are distant from the reality of PeH, that is, those in the Totality of the Totality. This is also reflected in the statements: "they are not heard outside [the service]; they suffer a high level of indiscrimination; they are not heard" [Violeta, responsible for distribution]. However, we observed that these perspectives were also reflected in the understanding of those who are in proximity and interact daily with these individuals yet occupy a position of dominance over them: social assistance service employees responsible for planning, preparing, and offering meals to PeH. These perceptions emerge precisely because a dominant position seeks to affirm itself by relegating the other to a different reality.

In this sense, some nuances appear and can be related to Dussel's theory.⁽²⁷⁾ During one of the interviews, when discussing the food service menu, the manager of one of the locations stated, "We have red meat, pork, chicken, eggs. Thus, we offer a variety of proteins. Things that, many times, we, as normal human beings at home, end up not having" [Dália, manager]. In this sense, a distance can be perceived between us, workers and "normal" human beings, and them, individuals who, because they are experiencing homelessness, are not considered as "normal" human beings and supposedly should not have access to a variety of protein sources. This statement reflects the boundaries drawn between totality and exteriority in the context of food services, even if unconsciously. Complementing this, Plage et al.⁽²⁴⁾ suggest that the experiences of dehumanization among PeH are neither fixed nor uniform. The authors demonstrate that PeH actively negotiate meanings of dignity and personhood through their everyday food practices, challenging assumptions that their humanity is simply "denied" in a linear way. Bringing this into dialogue with our findings allows us to interpret employees' narratives not as definitive accounts of how PeH experience humanity, but as one side of a relational and contested field.

From this inevitable distance, efforts have emerged to bridge the gap and break away from this stigmatized view, which contributes to the dehumanization of PeH. Violeta, who is responsible for distribution, adds to the observation of the invisibility experienced on the streets by saying, "Here [in the service], we are able to stop and look at them as people, as human beings, as lives. […] It is a big challenge, but sometimes we manage to fulfill a more humanized side, which is to look at them with a bit of care." In this context, care and an individualized gaze toward PeH can be understood as forms of humanization.

In addition, some employees' statements emphasize food as a basic right and something essential that humanizes the individual:

In their understanding, offering food through services is a way to restore a sense of humanity that is directly related to dignity:

Seltser et al.⁽⁴⁷⁾ argue that the experience of feeling worthy is linked to the ways in which we are treated and seen by others. The validation of such feelings occurs from an individual's own perspective and an external perspective. Therefore, when these dynamics intersect with the experience of being homeless, they negatively impact personal, social, and cultural identity formation processes, as observed by Boydell et al.,⁽⁴⁸⁾ and McNaughton's⁽⁴⁹⁾ in studies conducted with homeless adults in Canada and the United Kingdom, respectively.

From this, processes around identity are neglected and can become impregnated with the non-human condition placed upon them.⁽⁵⁰⁾ Moreover, the quote above positions PeH as less than human, "Others," while positioning the employees as saviors responsible for restoring their humanity, in a process analogous to the European colonization. This also suggests that the PeH's human dignity is negotiable based on, for example, a plate of food.

Based on Dussel's theory,⁽³⁶⁾ dignity is understood as a higher and ontological premise, before any social, political, or economic system that may be established around the individual. Regardless of an individual's positionality, their value as human beings, and consequently, their dignity, is indisputable. For Dussel,⁽³⁶⁾ dignity is rooted in life itself, which implies a guarantee of biological needs, such as shelter, water, food, and safety, and social needs, such as community life and respect for cultural identity. Ensuring these conditions is indispensable for the production, reproduction, and development of life. Whenever any of these needs is denied or made inaccessible to an individual, life itself is denied, and therefore, so is a person's dignity.

This study is limited by the absence of evidence regarding direct perceptions of PeH. While our focus on employees illuminates institutional mediation in food provision, it restricts our ability to analyze how PeH experience dignity, autonomy, and food practices. This is particularly relevant because the theoretical framework draws on the perspective of Exteriority. Future research should incorporate narratives from PeH to develop dialectical and liberation-oriented analyses. Simultaneously, exploring employees' perspectives remains crucial, as it reveals the institutional logic, assumptions, and practices that shape how food is provided and how autonomy and dignity are mediated. Understanding these perspectives helps to uncover how charitable or welfare interventions can reproduce patterns of Exteriority and influence the everyday experiences of PeH, offering a necessary complement to future studies centered on service users themselves.

Returning to the context of social assistance services in which we are involved, we revisited the constructed positionalities: staff members occupy a position of dominance (the Totality) and service users are positioned in the Exteriority category. In the Totality, human life is taken for granted and basic needs are secured, leaving no doubt about the inseparability of dignity. In the Exteriority, however, humanity is not applicable, and vital needs are systematically disregarded, rendering their dignity socially invisible. Employees are in the Totality precisely because their institutional roles enable them to access rights, resources, and social recognition, all of which secure the conditions necessary for their dignity to be recognized, at least within the context of the service. Conversely, the PeH occupies the Exteriority because of its structural exclusion from social, political, and economic systems that guarantee the same conditions. Their positionality is marked by the denial of basic and symbolic recognition, rendering them separate from the sphere in which dignity is affirmed and recognized.

However, this does not mean that the dignity of those in the Exteriority does not exist; rather, it is simply not recognized by those within the Totality. This lack of recognition stems from the invisibilization, dehumanization, and stigmatization imposed on PeH, who are seen as objects rather than recognized as humans. Moreover, as previously discussed, in these services, all stages of planning, preparing, and distributing food for PeH are the responsibility of third parties (the staff) who are in the Totality. Thus, the concept of inferiority and subordination is further reinforced, as employees "enable" access to life necessities.

From this perspective, understandings and discourses, such as that by Florêncio, frame the dignity and humanity of homeless individuals as negotiable. This negotiation occurs through care, listening, belonging, culture, and a plate of food, which, at best, could bring these individuals closer to the Totality, but never fully include them, and temporarily allow them to be seen as worthy and right-bearing individuals. Thus, when dignity is treated as something that can be "granted" or "restored" through the goodwill of the Totality, we fall into a profound ethical distortion that dignity is conditional rather than ontological.

In conclusion, the answer to the question "can we negotiate dignity with a food plate?" is "no, we cannot negotiate dignity with a plate of food." Dignity cannot be given or removed as it is not the product of assistance, politics, or charity; it is ontological, inalienable, and irreducible. From this standpoint, when social assistance services aimed at the PeH operate under the logic of concession, they perpetuate a dominant structure that reinforces the invisibility and social exclusion of the Exteriority. In this context, the plate of food becomes a symbol of an unattainable inclusion, since the other is not recognized as a full right-bearing subject, but rather as someone to be "tolerated" by the Totality. Overcoming this ethical distortion requires a radical rethinking of our relationship with alterity, recognizing that dignity already exists in a life that resists, and that the role of public policy, including social assistance, is to ensure the conditions for the production, reproduction, and development of that life. True ethics, as proposed by Dussel,⁽³⁰⁾ are born when we listen to the voices of the Exteriority, allowing them to unsettle, displace, and hold us responsible.