In my opinion, Oscar Lewis’ article was very
schizophrenic; it had split meanings and often contradicted itself. First, “The
Culture of Poverty” generated diverging interpretations in the U.S. and
abroad. As Bourgois notes, “while Lewis’ books are read by a U.S. public as an
interpretation that…blames victims, in France his work is interpreted as a
critique of society’s failures to remedy…class based inequality.” Essentially,
these split interpretations come from the inconsistent, self-contradicting
arguments Lewis made in his article. While, on the one hand, he argues that
those afflicted by this “culture” needed some kind of rehabilitation, on the
other hand, he faults “free-enterprise, pre-welfare-state stage capitalism” for
the creation of it. So what is the main cause of poverty? Is it this
"culture" he speaks of? Is it our broken institutions? Is it both?
Neither? Which is it, Mr. Lewis? Thus, my first question relates back to
Orwell’s essay on politics and language. Battistoni points out the confusion
and furor created by Lewis’ thesis, while Bourgois points out that Lewis
himself was confused by his own topic. He left so much open to interpretation,
and at times it feels like his writing comes from split personalities. Does
this relate to a language problem? Did Lewis’ inability to express his main
idea clearly cause this confusion? Did you have any problem with the language he
used?
Another thing that struck me about the Lewis article
was this line, one that Andre alluded to in class: “The disengagement, the
nonintegration, of the poor with respect to the major institutions of society
is a crucial element in the culture of poverty.” This statement hands
responsibility to the poor for failing to engage in politics, and faults them
for their mistrust larger institutions. But isn't it the other way
around? Haven't these institutions failed to reach out to the poor? They have “disengaged”
from their responsibility to serve the lower classes, turned their backs to
them to serve more 'amenable' individuals, and perhaps they too are stymied in a “blame the victim” culture—a view that Battistoni holds. How can
institutional [political, economic, healthcare, etc.] change be fostered, and
how do you think our agencies play a role in this?
Lastly, I want to connect the Bourgois article to the
“town hall meeting” we had in class. At the end of his article, he states: “The
culture of poverty furore reminds us that academics fight so hard over so
little...concerned academics continue to fiddle in their ivory towers, arguing
over how to correctly talk about the structural violence of poverty.” At
that meeting, where we discussed whether to terminate the Robert F. Wagner
housing projects, we all played a certain “role.” I ended up being a fiscally
conservative Councilwoman, representing the neighborhood. My part of
the conversation and others, such as Lewis (Aaron) and Moynihan (Nico) revealed
that we were very disconnected from the poor.
Now that I look back, our ‘characters’ didn't directly
think about their needs—to counter violence, drug abuse, prostitution, etc. We
were too busy in our ivory towers, hooking our ideologies into the situation at
hand. This is too reminiscent to reality, as our politicians use the “culture
of poverty” argument to further reduce government’s responsibility to the poor.
But this is just my opinion. How did the rest of the class feel about this
discussion?
22 comments:
Thought-provoking post, Amara, thanks.
In regards to your first question on language, I do not believe Lewis was clear in his writing, although I am not sure of his true intentions. From Bourgois’ piece, for example, it’s noted that, “he [Lewis] was profoundly disturbed by the blame-the-victim interpretation of the causes of poverty that he triggered in the USA.” A quote is also included from Lewis in defense of his terminology: “There is nothing in the concept [of the culture of poverty] that puts the onus of poverty on the character of the poor.” I would have to disagree with Lewis here, though, and wonder if his comment was to save face from criticism. How can he say that, especially using the words “character of the poor,” when he tried to characterize the “culture” using his trait system? On that note as well, culture is not clearly defined, which adds to the confusion. His piece came off as reductionist and simplistic to me.
As we’ve discussed (and now have seen with Lewis), communication of our ideas in the clearest way possible is very important. Lewis, writing during a particularly politically important time for poverty—LBJ’s “War on Poverty” began in 1964-65; Lewis’ work came out in 1966—should have taken extra-sensitive steps to make sure his words were not lost in translation (especially if his intentions were, as he stated, not meant to “blame the victim”). The only way I can rationalize Lewis’ actions here is to say that he was brainstorming and writing a draft here. He had a lot of preliminary ideas and presumptions on the causes of poverty, but none were fully elaborated (or supported empirically); and like you said Amara, many were contradicting, thus causing confusion.
I don’t really think Lewis had a solid main idea, which is where the problem stems for me. He had a bunch of descriptive, scrappy pieces of data. And, rather than presenting this data for what it was, he extrapolated from it and generalized it to many individuals—forming a theory based on insufficient evidence (i.e. his murky “70 traits”).
To your second point on disengagement, I agree: It is not clear-cut. The causal nexus of the poor man not interacting with society’s institutions because of some culture-imbued, hopeless mindset, is again, simplistic. It is very well likely that the institutions themselves facilitate such a mindset and play a large role in disengagement…perhaps even thus leading to this form of self-identification with expected, stereotyped values with that we alluded to toward the end of class. How do our agencies play a role? I’m still developing my thoughts here, but I would echo my sentiments from class and say that advocacy, education of the public, and political mobilization is a good starting point.
Lastly, I take Bourgois’ quote there to also reflect the “impoverished research” that has resulted post-Lewis. I wonder if Lewis’ work may have lead to a minimization of the description of “the day-to-day survival among the persistently poor,” as Bourgois notes, particularly using ethnographic approaches, lest researchers be accused of perpetuating a blame-the-victim theory (Prof Waterston?).
On your final point, I think the class “town meeting” highlighted how we can get caught up in our expected “roles,” sometimes leading to discussions on political semantics, personal motivations, and academic theories rather than on practical implications.
I love this seminar.
Hello Amara,
In regards to your first question, I was bothered by the language that Lewis used. It was confusing for me to figure out where he was coming from and what his main ideas were. As you said, he jumped back from idea to idea. First he was blaming the victims for being in the condition of poverty that they were in. Then as the “Culture of Poverty” continued, he switched his argument by stating they that the individuals participating in the culture of poverty was doing so as a form of coping and dealing with the situation they were in. The individuals are in a hopeless situation, and they do as they must. Lewis then went back to blame the victim stating that by staying in the “culture,” they continued spiraling in the hopelessness, instead of coming out of their condition. The comparison Lewis made between being in the “culture of poverty” and those living in poverty were unclear to me. Personally, I felt that he never really provided a clear distinction between the two, nor provide a viable solution.
In regards to your second point, I agree with you. I do feel that it is the fault of the people with the power and their failure to reach out to the poor. As Joe said, “the institutions themselves facilitate such a mindset and play a large role in disengagement.” As per our “town hall” meeting on Thursday, given the limited availabilities of the poor and the situation they are under as a means of trying to survive, they don’t necessary have the time or resources to get engaged and be as involved as they may like. I feel that it is the responsibility of the higher class to reach out and provide some kind of solution to help the poor. I feel that institutions and even our agencies can bring about such change by advocacy, bringing awareness and education to the public, as well as integration and taking the time to listen to the needs of the individuals and incorporating them into ideas of change. By bringing together all parties, we are taking the time to understand, as well as work together on a solution that’ll be effective in the long run.
To answer your last point, it made me think and I realized that’s true. As both sides were arguing whether to close the Wagner Houses, I too saw the disconnect. The members for the housing projects were fighting to not destruct the houses because of their needs, their limited resources, and attachment to the community they have developed. The characters who wanted to terminate the houses were mainly arguing that these individuals needed to get out of their poverty and become more involved in the outside community of success, but they didn’t “want to”. Therefore, the houses must go. As Andre’s character kept emphasizing, there needs to be a new approach and new solution for the members to build themselves up. However, when asked where the members will stay, or what his exact idea for this approach was, he was unclear of the answer. This shows the disconnect between the poor and the ones in power. The ones in power all have these ideas of change, but as far as how to execute them or the next steps in what to do with the individuals involved, they are at a standstill. All these can see is the view from their “ivory towers” and not the reality for the individuals involved.
Walking into class on Thursday I was somewhat confused after reading Lewis’ piece, and to add to that I had to play Lewis during the town meeting. I thought to myself, “oh great, I have no idea what this guy is really trying to say. He constantly contradicts himself.” Throughout class I continuously re-read the article for clarification without any luck. Basic concepts such as who is to blame and what should be done were confusing according to Lewis. I think Joe is brings up a good possibility, that this seems more like a draft, with many idea but lacks concreteness.
Personally I think the blame falls on the institutions which have been constructed to aid those in dire situations. However complete restructuring of national systems seems unlikely in the near future and therefore I believe the solution should involve both those affected, in this case the poor, and the institutions. If the general public who require the aid are not able to participate to find a viable solution then it is quite possible that the new and improved institution, created solely by those in power, would fail in the same way as the current ones have.
I think the class “town hall meeting” was very insightful. In a way, putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes emphasized the cracks in Lewis’ article. The approach to discovering a plausible solution isn’t an easy one. As previously mentioned there is a disconnect that must be overcome and parties (gov, institutions, those living in poverty) will have to negotiate and compromise.
Thank you Amara for a wonderful (and wonderfully written post) and for raising those specific questions. I thought it was particularly interesting in the seminar how you (Amara) struggled to keep to your “position” (as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal) in the face of the “real” lives and struggles facing you (in the form of Sylvie, Minerva, David). You ended up giving us some double talk!!!
The whole discussion (and what emerged during our town hall meeting) makes me wonder, can we ever solve the problem of poverty (and its consequences) without abolishing its causes? And if that is true, what IS the cause or what ARE the causes of poverty?
Are we really examining those causes?
What distracts us from examining those causes??
On another note, Joe asked “I wonder if Lewis’ work may have led to a minimization of the description of “the day-to-day survival among the persistently poor,” as Bourgois notes, particularly using ethnographic approaches, lest researchers be accused of perpetuating a blame-the-victim theory.” My answer: it’s complicated (I know that’s a cop out answer, but it’s true. I hope we can discuss this in person at some point).
I also want to thank Amara for an exceptionally thoughtful and cogent post. Orwell would have been proud.
I just want to express some empathy for Lewis, as muddled and contradictory as his presentation may have been. As someone who also struggles with how to describe individuals in their social contexts, I feel the weight of his paradox. People shape societies, including institutions, through their different and relative contributions… societies and cultures grow powerful and impose a particular reality on individuals… individuals internalize that “reality” and behave in accordance with it. People and their cultures become inseparable but, when we try to talk about them, it becomes like looking at one of those figure/ground optical illusions. Whatever you are looking at in a particular instant, you tend to prioritize. The other thing just disappears. When you “see” poor people, you don’t “see” the structures complicit in poverty. When you see only structure, you lose track of people, who have idiosyncratic ways of absorbing and expressing cultural demands.
There is almost never a single cause for human behavior. Yet, when we are writing, it becomes very difficult to express the multiplicity of factors without feeling that we are “copping out” as Prof. Waterston fears or becoming “split personalities”, as Amara accuses Lewis of being. I could tell you a long story about a chapter I just wrote called “Masochism as Medium” that tries to hold the terrible tension of partriarchal demands that women stay passive and martyred together with the way that women’s internalization of those demands plays out in relationships, but I will leave it for another time. How to understand victimization without disappearing the victim is a very delicate operation, I have learned. Lewis, you make me mad but I also understand your dilemma.
Professor Stein's comment reminds me of a discussion on the blog years ago where we talked about the difficulties of singling out single factors from all the surrounding issues. In keeping with our consideration of multiple perspectives and how each individual sees something differently depending on where he/she stands, check out Dali's painting of Lincoln (or is it?). I'm hoping this turns out to be a link, but if it isn't cut and paste. http://www.scottmcd.net/artanalysis/?p=1131. Someone also tricks this out in 3D on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPH2CxoCrBo
If none of these work, you can do what I did and google "Dali's painting of Lincoln." Lots of interesting stuff comes up.
Hi Amara and everyone else!
Thank you for the insightful post.
In regards to your first question Amara, I agree with what Joe and you were saying about the language that Oscar Lewis uses. The language he decides to use is quite provoking and far from compassionate. However, on the other hand, I might have to disagree with some in the characterization that he is blaming the poor. Lewis was pretty clear in describing the culture of poverty. Lewis observed what he saw as a culture of poverty among these communities, which in turn contributed to self-defeatist, hopelessness, and pessimistic attitudes. Concepts, such as planning for the future and delaying fulfillment, seemed to be rare and insignificant for the poor. Attitudes and beliefs that are taught by younger generations from older generations for the youth are integrated into this culture. I guess, when I read Lewis analysis, I looked at it as a scientific study of culture. There are some references he makes about the culture like, e.g. why is it that the poor don’t value education and why don’t they save money.
Secondly, I would have to agree with both Joe and Michelle that it is in the power and hands of the institution to give people the power to make decisions in their community. I thought the class on Thursday was very helpful in demonstrating that for us. I’m not sure if I agree with Michelle in giving the higher class the power simply because it seems like it hasn’t been working! Throughout history and even today, most of the “elite” are detached from the experiences and obstacles that plague “non-elite” or “struggling,” which in turn prevents them from certain understanding. To put differently, elite experiences inhibit them from putting themselves in a shoes of someone living in a much different environment. For example, a common piece of rhetoric from the Republicans is that if you work hard you will succeed and overcome any obstacles. However, most of the individuals espousing this position fail to take into consideration that a lack of resources and access to certain opportunities pushes youth away from education. Along the same lines, I’m sure that some of you may experience this at your agencies. For example, at Safe Horizon there is this constant use of the word “victim” that gives the rest of this staff a “savior complex” which becomes scarring for the issue.
I would like to first address the issue of language. It may seem like a cop out but I believe it has become clear that there were some contradictory arguments that led to some confusion in Lewis’s writing. I do not intend to undermine this question Amara; I simply feel that my colleagues Michelle and Joseph have laid out the crux of the argument successfully.
The second question however raddles me. First, I personally feel that although there is a major disconnect between rich and poor, the separation is not absolute. I am always critiquing government for not paying more attention to crime stricken communities but they do still have a stake. Whether or not they use their influence is what the real problem is. For example, we discussed the negative and positives of social impact bonds a few classes ago. After participating in the “town hall meeting” it became increasingly obvious to me that in order to create systemic change for people at the bottom of the totem pole, we need to provide the people at the top with some incentive. Providing incentives for the rich is definitely a great way to bridge this gap.
My second point here is the town hall meeting. During the five-minute preparation at the beginning of class I decided whether I wanted to be the “fake” hero of the community by breaking down the projects and building business or being a real role model by building private business around the community that needs assistance. I chose the first simply because I thought it was more realistic. I forced myself to advocate the opposite cause that I believed in and yet I do not regret it because it solidified a few thoughts for me. The second method to solve this issue was to utilize my private business by building an import/export company around the projects without having to break down projects, parks etc. More business equals more jobs, which equals more money. More money eventually helps people break free from the public housing system that by its ideology was meant to be a temporary solution to poverty and homelessness. Give people the means to escape and I am sure they will welcome whatever opportunity comes their way.
My third point here goes towards answering professor Waterson’s question about the causes of poverty and what distracts us. During the town hall meeting, everyone noticed that I was backed into a corner that I had trouble fighting out of. By the end of the meeting I even openly changed my opinion. However, I felt confortable changing my opinion at that time because the community had forced me to realize my interconnectedness with it as I once suffered from similar hardships that they were enduring now. Sylvie did a great job of personalizing her story and really humanizing the struggle. This humanization is the necessary first step. If we change the dialectic between rich and poor and view impoverished people as just that rather than numbers, we can at least foster a desire to assist people like me. Rather than ignoring us until we kill someone or each other, we can interject as the violence begins to rise and foster conversation, which will eventually lead to better community mobilization. My third proposed solution is to utilize the public sector and encourage people to seek guidance and help from non-profit organizations, school counselors, and afterschool staff members. Children are our future and we need not spillover our past issues into the next generations.
Finally, I would like to address your final question Amara. The town hall meeting seemed strategically set up for us to take on specific roles and justify our decisions about the projects based on our self interest. We sat comfortably in our ivory tower and we refused to give up our privilege. But the answer you are looking for, in my opinion, was answered during that meeting. In order to step out of the tower of academia, business, government etc., we must disassociate ourselves with these labels and call ourselves individuals. Only then are we advocates for justice and not simply “doing our jobs” in order to get a nice salary. I have realized that taking the streets and flipping cars over may be a strong statement but it does not always get the job done. What we need are advocates who simply want to hear about peoples stories one at a time and share their stories with the people with power; private government enterprises. It may sound unrealistic but I am sure you fellow verons can agree that you have already started listening. What’s our next step…
Nice work, Amara!
Your post highlighted several key issues, such as Oscar Lewis’s contradictory reasoning in the theory of the “culture of poverty and those scholarly critics who refuted Lewis’ viewpoint for the sole purpose to strengthen the reputation of their own school of thoughts. I wholeheartedly agree with you in that we should bear these points in mind at all times as we examine Lewis’s studies on poverty. Today, I want to concentrate on the issue regarding the contradictory nature of Lewis’s research findings.
I believe it is important to consider the objective that Lewis had in mind when he was developing his research scheme. It is reasonable to assume that, at least in my opinion, Lewis was determined to seek a flawless theory that could solve the “mystery” of a wide prevailed but divergent international phenomenon—chronic poverty. Since Lewis had set his vision on deriving a sound and valid argument from his research, it was very likely that he was convinced that there exists a single definite explanation that is capable of providing a thorough explanation of the continuity of poverty that exists in most parts of the world.
In my opinion, Lewis was probably aware of those contradictory elements in his theory, but since he was so determined to solve this “social mystery”, it is very likely that he chose to omit these contradictory viewpoints for the sake of producing a truth-reveling theory. One thing that Lewis probably did not want to admit was that what he defined as the “culture of poverty” is not an isolated and self-sustainable social phenomenon that is responsible for mass-reproducing poverty; rather, it is an social issue that intersects with nearly every other social problem, including, but not limited to, gender and racial inequality, class struggles, and disproportionate distribution of wealth. In other words, I believe the “culture of poverty is not the answer to the ongoing poverty across the worlds, let alone being the cause of such issues. In short, Lewis’s research findings have the tendency to oversimplify an extremely complicated issue, and this may be the reason why his theory is full of contradictions.
Did I mention that I love this seminar?
Hi Amara,
In response to the first question of language, I must say that you and most of our classmates are right to suggest that Lewis’s language, in this piece, was extremely confusing and at times it seemed that he was putting blame of the poor for their conditions. However I am not so sure that I see it that way. In his piece, Lewis states that the culture of poverty is one that “in the traditional anthropological sense, provides human beings with a design for living with ready-made set of solutions…..and serves as a significant adaptive function.” I interpreted this and other points he made in his piece to signify that the rest of society imparts a certain position for a certain group of people and expects that particular group of people to follow, or keep to, the designated position they are given and adapt these conditions, adhering to the particular set of conditions which are available to them. I think that Lewis suggested that the culture of poverty exists because we as a society are not inclined to help people find solutions for their own misfortune but are rather are more inclined to have them adhere to what-ever “set of solutions” have already been implemented for them in order to deal with their particular problems in a more genetic way, which in order to survive they, should learn to adapt to.
In regards to the second point about the disengagement of government and institutions in respect to the people they serve, I think that that there is a disengagement and that most people not only those in government and those who have power and a stable economic condition, but most of society believes that poor individuals are poor because they chose to be. I think that of us believe that if you work hard and fight through the obstacles you can succeed. However many times and particularly for people who are born and raised in certain impoverish conditions, this is not the case. There are a different set of rules, whether written or not, which govern how we respond to the need of our poor and our less fortunate then how we respond to those who have better opportunities. In his piece Lewis stated that “poor have been characterized as shiftless, mean violent, evil and criminal,” he also points to “the irreversibly destructive effects of poverty on individual character.” Referring to the confusion, from different government agencies, when dealing with the problems that face our less fortunate, I believe that Lewis is trying to say that if we cannot try to focus our attention on the different aspects of the problems we cannot find different solutions or form of help. We have become so used to blaming the victims for their conditions, because we are not the ones who suffer, that we forgot how devastating certain conditions can be and how these conditions can actually demoralize people and prevent them from acting any differently.
FYI
An article in today's NY Times stunningly illustrates the danger of individual prescriptions for social diseases. Here are two excerpts:
“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
The doctor is talking about prescribing Ritalin and other stimulants for children who do not have Attention Deficit Disorder but can focus better on their school work when using the drugs. The article goes on to say:
Dr. Anderson’s instinct, he said, is that of a “social justice thinker” who is “evening the scales a little bit.” He said that the children he sees with academic problems are essentially “mismatched with their environment” — square pegs chafing the round holes of public education. Because their families can rarely afford behavior-based therapies like tutoring and family counseling, he said, medication becomes the most reliable and pragmatic way to redirect the student toward success.
Read the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/health/attention-disorder-or-not-children-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.html
I was reading (novelist) Jane Smiley's biography of Dickens this morning and came across her characterization of Dickens's "reforming impulse": "The reforming impulse begins, perhaps, in criticisms of society, but it relies upon the faith that what is wrong is only somewhat wrong -- some money here, some effort there,some changes somewhere else, and the structure will yield to improvement. Additionally, improvements in the structure, be they sanitation, education, election reforms, or whatever, will produce better, more enlightened citizens, who will behave in a more community-minded fashion, turning away from evil and crime."
Dickens was a reformer, not a revolutionary (big difference), but one of his many gifts to us was how he showed the connection between structure and individual action.
As everyone have previously stated I would have to agree with the majority that Lewis’ statements were contradictory, which prevented others including myself from grasping his true stance on some issues such as the example Michelle eloquently stated in the “Culture of Poverty” where Lewis flip-loped between stating individuals participating in the culture of poverty was doing so as a form of coping and dealing with the situation they were in; to Lewis going back and holding accountable the victim. There were only a few ideas that he held a firm stance such as the example Sally gave “Lewis observed what he saw as a culture of poverty among these communities, which in turn contributed to self-defeatist, hopelessness, and pessimistic attitudes.” I wish to switch on Professor Waterson question on what the causes of poverty since my colleagues Michelle, Joseph and Sally seem to have answered Amara question fully.
I believe there are several issues that causes poverty, Mr. Lewis explained how he had criteria of 70 traits. I think the 4 main principles that Mr. Lewis highlighted were interesting; the relationship between subculture and larger society, the nature of the slum community, the nature of the family and the value and character structure of the individual. I think that Oscar Lewis is right when he mention that once the cycle of poverty has come into existence that it tends to perpetuate itself.
I believe the path to solving poverty is a very challenging issue, in the town hall, businessman Andre, congressman Amara, Nico (Oscar Lewis grandchild) and Aaron (Oscar Lewis) tried to alleviate the problem of poverty in one neighborhood by demolishing it and replacing it. Although it appeared to be a clean cut idea that would help everyone; it is a double edge sword, where it helps people as well as hurts a lot of people. I played the role of a tenant who lived in the neighborhood for several decades and would have been hurt by their plan to alleviate poverty. I believe that problems of such scale are not going to be solved without indirectly harming someone. I guess what the real issue is which group should suffer for the “greater good”. In the utilitarian argument, Jeremy Bentham’s argument is that the “greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. Andre, Nico, Aaron and Amara are of the few whereas I am consisted of the many in the project which in Bentham’s argument the many would win but the minority would suffer. I bring up the Bentham’s argument because it illustrates that someone will win and someone will lose.
Andre advocated for breaking down the projects and building new business. Even though the plan would put hundreds of people in the street such as my character, (my daughter’s) Minerva and Sylvie, Andre, Nico, Amara and Aaron were still for the plan, though the plan would alleviate poverty in one area as well as lower crime rate and other benefits, there was drawbacks such as poverty displacement as well creating a bigger gap in the wealth disparity among minorities and low income individuals.
Different people have different interpretations on how to solve problems which can cause harmful effects to society. Amara, Aaron, Nico, and Andre each had the intention to help society but their well-meaning intention cause harmed. Whereas Sylvie, Minerva and I were trying to stop the demolition of the neighborhood but at the same time not solving the problem and allowing the problems to continue such as cost overruns to poverty rate. Even when Andre switched his plan toward the end of the discussion it still potentially caused harm.
In regards to answering Waterson other question of what distracts I believe Andre has a good idea and agree with Andre that instead of being rigid with our iron clad ideologies we should be open to dialogue because dialogue can be the key to bringing together people of different income background to solve the problem.
In regards to answering your question Amara I believe Andre has the right idea going with “In order to step out of the tower of academia, business, government etc., we must disassociate ourselves with these labels and call ourselves individuals” I believe that in order to foster change the labels need to go away because labels create barriers that impede dialogue and change.
Nice responses, everyone! Glad everyone could get in on the discussion. I just want to respond to a few things:
I think Sylvie really hit the nail on the head as to why Lewis' arguments were so flawed: "Lewis was determined to seek a flawless theory that could solve the “mystery” of a wide prevailed but divergent international phenomenon—chronic poverty."
As others have noted, there is almost never a single cause to multi-faceted problems. Perhaps this was the very point where Lewis messed up--he started with his mind set on pinpointing a root cause, and in writing out his arguments, he never really found it.
There is always a danger in pressing on with such incomplete work, for example--the policy decisions that may result, or the mindset such work will foster. I sympathize with Lewis, as he really tried to put forth a true way to help the poor, but his work proved to be more of a set-back than a push forward.
Amara,
Great Post!
For me, after only been part of the Vera Fellowship and Common Justice a month, I feel that language has become much more of a conscious exercise. Lewis uses language that is in many instances very “politically correct”, especially when he acknowledges the effects or structural occurrences that happen due to capitalism. For me, this was a serious problem. While he blamed people for being caught up in a culture of poverty, one that they resisted to even leave, he touches upon the root cause, a capitalistic system, but his focus is so strongly focused on these 70 traits of the culture of poverty that regardless of how the system works, the people are still to blame.
I also agree that institutions have failed to bring people into the circles of “society”. I mentioned in class how this even occurs in the philanthropic world, with the fancy food and glamorous fund raising events at the NYC Public Library at 42nd street, where a ticket can cost about 500 dollars (usually much more). Furthermore, it seems that these institutions tailor to the “white man”, meaning that there is a certain degree of conformity that must be committed to if such institutions will accept you. I believe that our agencies often times try to tackle this systemic paradox, especially since we try to help those underprivileged. Where I intern, this happens on a very visible scale, by connecting with the people we work with be it with a conversation, how we look, respect, being “real” and honest, and demonstrating that we are not necessarily better than they are.
I agree with you, but I also think that there are different towers. Academics, (not the ones at John Jay of course) often times get lost in the ivory tower, discussing theory, practice, and do this over expansive stretched of time. Years pass by, and the discussion has perhaps moved two inched forward, while many people have had their livelihoods destroyed. Yet, there are other towers as well. Politicians have their own tower on Capitol Hill, muddled in taxes, profits, jobs, and how they will get re-elected. It is not to say that politicians sometimes want to make a real difference, but their reality is often times focused on those who have power, and that does not include the poor.
Re: the article Professor Stein posted. When Professor Reitz alerted us to it early this morning, I felt such anger and sadness at the same time.
Some Facebook "friends" are posting about it too. Here are two comments:
“I have no words for this. I literally just sat at my desk crying with rage while reading.”
“I read this article this morning too, and was simply stunned. Seems twisted and absurd. Some doctors recognize that structural conditions -- weak educational institutions, social inequality -- are the source of the problem, yet they still turn to drugs as a sort of individualized magic elixir for fixing things "one child at a time." They hope that by manipulating a child's biochemistry, they might help them overcome unfair social conditions... and in the mean time there is little information about the long term health consequences for the child.”
What will people say about us 100 years from now????
Prof. Waterston…I will take you up on that. Going back to Bourgois (p.11906, para.2), he talks about theoretical alternatives around this. Kinda had my head spinning, but it’s starting to make some sense, although it comes off as political and too abstract to me. The research aspect continues to interest me—academics, particularly “experts” in this field, surely hold some clout and influences when describing the phenomenon of poverty.
In regards to that: Nico, I do think academics can also get lost in their towers, but I wonder how much that comes down to politics and political correctness. Bourgois ends his piece on an interesting point: “Meanwhile, concerned academics continue to fiddle in their ivory towers, arguing over how to talk correctly about the structural violence of poverty.” I think theory and finding the “right” explanation can sometimes detract us from the ground level where the actual individuals we seek to represent and support are.
Prof. Stein, your first comment makes me take a step back and empathize (a little) with Lewis. On that point: Sylvie, echoing what Amara said, I think you may have captured the essence of Lewis’ dilemma—one based on a set vision from the beginning to “solve” the problem. What people write and think can be two different things (be it intentional, or in many cases, failure to “translate” what seems so clear to us mentally onto physical paper).
Lastly, the NYT article is quite disturbing. At the same time, I feel even more impassioned. I won’t get on my soapbox about the over-medication of our nation, but psychopharmacology interventions for young children are particularly disconcerting, especially when it is prescribed for non-medical reasons. I was shocked to read about the child who experienced psychotic symptoms as a result of taking these meds…and then was prescribed an anti-psychotic to quell the symptoms of said drug that was prescribed to quell the symptoms of something else (being disadvantaged/poor?). In the bigger picture, and in relation to social justice, I see a dangerous (desperate?) cycle of symptom treating. With long-term effects not understood for these medications, we run the risk of creating even more symptoms to treat.
Regarding the medicalization of social pathology, I felt that I needed to add: This is nothing new. Women before suffrage were sometimes institutionalized because requesting their rights was evidence of mental illness. Ditto homosexuality. This is the same stuff but now absurdly dressed up as a “social justice” alternative. By the way, it is not only the poor but boys in general who are being over medicated to “fit in” more docilely with the current educational system. Historically, psychiatry has played a major role in policing the behavior of marginalized groups which is why Lewis’s suggestion hit such a sour note.
Post a Comment