Hi all!
Yesterday's class was certainly an interesting one! I wanted to raise an issue that unfortunately wasn't really touched on in class or in the readings as much as I would have liked (with the exception of Battistoni!) but that holds an important place in our discussion about social justice and culture. The issue being that of context and how that affects our understanding of both Oscar Lewis' "The Culture of Poverty" and Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", and in effect, our world.
When reading Lewis' article, I found myself questioning the traits that he associated with this "culture of poverty" and analyzing how he phrased these traits. Initially, it proved to be painful to read this article, because so many of the traits of the culture were found in my own life coming from a poor, second-generation immigrant family. But then I found myself becoming defensive and questioning the way he describes these traits (intentionally or unintentionally) as being a negative result of this culture which then, perpetuates the negative perception of those who are impoverished. Why isn't it a positive (and thus, normal) thing that women don't marry men so that they can have a stronger claim on their children and housing? I think this speaks volumes of what is expected within the dominant community; is this to say that women who marry are stripped of their rights and claims on their own children and home? How did this become a trait of poverty? This little piece of information, without the right context to give it meaning and life, stands alone unquestioned and accepted as one of the "negative" consequences of being "poor".
Likewise, when reading Moynihan, I was enraged at the information that was supposed to allude to some "pathology" of the "Negro American Family". He states: "the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which....seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole." Of course, we should remember that this was published in 1965, but let's keep in mind that this was the information being provided and taken as fact by the dominant culture.
The regular layperson reading these articles depend heavily on the writers to provide factual information and assume that the context (if any at all) is being given to the reader in order for them to process and determine if the information is important to them. This brings me to my overall question: how, when reading about a culture that we are not affiliated with, do we determine what that culture really is? I mean, let's ignore for right now that we've got two White scholars writing about poverty and people of color, but how do we determine the context of the supposed facts that are being given to us by them? If we are given these articles, and only these, how do we go about questioning their word (and in effect, their authority) if we're ignorant to its context?
In our internships, how do we determine if the information we're getting is being relayed correctly and in the "correct" context? (And if we feel like it isn't, how do we go about asking the right questions to challenge it?)
Best,
Apollonia
P.S. I really wanted to write something on how sexist these papers were (I wanted to pull my hair out!), but I'll leave those discussions for class!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Thanks for your post, Apollonia.
In America and perhaps, many parts of the world, the ideal life is defined in part by tradition and public opinion. Therefore, it is expected that any person who lives in conformity to the popular conception of the ideal life should be rewarded. On the other hand, some form of punishment should await any that does not conform to such conceptions. This is Moynihan’s explanation of matriarchy as a trait of poverty, and to be fair, it suffices for his purpose. With that said, Matriarchy as a problem might be a truth, but certainly not the truth.
Do you think that all married women are powerless with regards to “claims on their children and home?” Or is this powerlessness of women unique to marriages among the poor?
Your question on the accuracy of accounts reminds me of the In a Grove reading. As readers, we need to actively seek an understanding of subjects from multiple perspectives. Otherwise, we might become victims of what the Nigerian writer, Adichie, describes as the dangers of the single story. Why, for instance, did Moynihan and Lewis fail to study white poverty, even though there were almost equal number of blacks and whites below the poverty line at the time of their writings? If this culture of poverty is real, then both authors offer us all but a caricature of what that culture is in reality.
James, in answer to your question, I do not believe that married women become powerless after marriage in regards to their claims on their children and homes because patriarchy ensures that this happens for all women. Of course, taking privileges into consideration, there are different "levels" of powerlessness that ensue. One would posit that women of color have more power taken from them after marriage than White women; this is also true of socioeconomic status.
I say this occurs in marriages because the system is set up in a way where it is difficult for a woman to get out of a marriage without some extreme external forces (where then she can retain control over her children, and if she had her name on the house, the home as well). Once a woman is in a marriage, she is told by society that she doesn't wield much power (e.g., when a woman is raped by her husband, it isn't looked upon as rape because they are married).
On your point about Moynihan and Lewis' failure to report white poverty is an issue that we even face today. The reports that provide information about poverty are used to further one's own agenda. For example, when people assume that welfare is primarily a PoC issue, they aren't aware that welfare started as a means to assist white people.
This is what I mean about the importance of context. Unless we take it upon ourselves to critique every piece of information we are given to truly understand the motives and the reasons it exists, we are following blindly to the word of the author (who is influenced by the dominant culture!).
To interject in this back and forth between James and Apple, I want to say that I do agree with the latter's point in regards to how easy it is to fall victim to an author's agenda without critiquing him or her every step of the way. The fact that Lewis's theory of the "Culture of Poverty" (which I so shamefully had to support in my depiction of him in class)was a theory that was questioned by few but for the most part believed by dominant culture. To put this in perspective, the theories that Moynihan and Lewis popularized occurred while President Obama was a child in the 1960s and the talks in discrediting their "Culture of Poverty" theories were still being discussed in the last article we read which was published in 2010 (during his first term as President).
Also, the term matriarchy being used in such a derogatory way in conjunction with poverty was very offensive when put into perspective. Traditionally, the wealth of a family was based on the occupation of a man which was still very true before the women's civil rights movement of the late 1960s. Still, like the Negro-American movement, the idea of woman-centered family structures being seen as negative in dominant culture literature only further perpetuated these stereotypes which stifled progression towards social change.
Good afternoon all. Thank you for the posts so far, very thought provoking.
Last week's readings on poverty were the most difficult (in terms of comfort) for me. I was very angry when I read the portrayal of poverty and the "culture" of it. I agree that context is a very important factor to be considered when critically analyzing anything (as Apple said), but it does not make it any easier to hear. Sometimes the attitudes of others can help to create one of the traits that is associated with this "culture". For example, those that are not living in poverty, do not see the financially challenged (to use a politically correct term, so Orwell and Professor Reitz) as individuals but as a group. Therefore, often times it is said that it is inevitable, poverty will pass from one generation to another and even if one generation escapes, the subsequent generation will lapse right back into poverty. Sometimes hearing such criticism can crush people's wills, thus creating/perpetuating a trait poverty i.e. the acceptance of not and therefore an unwillingness to try as efforts seem futile. It seems predestined. I despise the term "culture of poverty".
Sadly, we have no control over what's written but we can control how we analyze and internalize the information that is given to us. As Apple asked, how do we get at the truth (to paraphrase)? I don't know as the truth is subjective and is sometimes sanitized (I forgot which of our classmates or professors used that phrase). I think part of it lies with parts of what James and Apple said; look at the context, critically read and analyze to avoid the dangers of the single story. I've often heard it said that there are three sides to every story: my side, your side and the truth which is generally found in the middle of both sides. We cannot change other people's biases but we can change our response and filtering of information.
The argument of culture of poverty is more than an academic argument. It's a debate about why poor people tend to stay poor and what people who haven't experienced poverty don't understand about a culture that includes positive aspects, like survival and resilience. These reading really made me upset because they failed to recognized that there is a large population of Caucasians who also live in poverty and children who are fatherless. I think that what happens with academics is that they do not ask the people who are actually poor themselves what they need, which is somewhat condescending in the extreme.
People can basically fall into poverty for many reasons in this country: lack of medical insurance, medical problems, unemployment, among many other reasons. And then when you become poor, there's a one-size-fits-all attitude that you're treated with. If the academics want to know how to solve poverty, they need to ask the poor themselves.
I completely agree that context of a piece of writing is equally important to its content; however,I do think Lewis had very valid points regardless of his bias. He did make some very offensive inferences of the poor (the majority of his paper in fact), but, speaking from personal experience, he pointed out some valid characteristics of the culture of poverty:
1. suspicious of dominant culture institutions
2. lack confidence in the political system
If a culture of poverty truly exists (even if not in the form constructed by Lewis), then these two traits are most certainly part of that culture. A culture can be defined as something that is passed from generation to generation and helps individuals make sense of the world and their surroundings (please correct me if I am wrong Prof. Waterston).
Growing up in the south Bronx, I was surrounded by this phenomenon Lewis called the culture of poverty. Reflecting back on my childhood influenced by this culture, my friends and I spoke about politics, world affairs, economics, and so forth (things we knew very little of as children) but would speak about global conspiracies to "keep us down." We would always talk about how things were created in favor of "white people." Sadly, we all got these understandings of the world from family members, music, or other friends. We just continued to perpetuate this false information (at least I hope its false). I even found myself teaching it to my younger brothers when they began to question things around them, passing this understanding of the world to the next generation.
Although I disagree with many of Lewis's other traits he attributes to those inflicted by the culture of poverty (i.e. that the indignant are more concerned with instant gratification than planning for the future), I do believe that the two I noted above are true.
Thank you Apple for this amazing post,
The readings were able to resonate with me because of the thought provoking ideologies of the “culture of poverty” and the “matriarchal family structure.” The questions that prompt the discussion from the journal helps put the ideas into perspective. The questions that ask about what resonates and what is true left was a struggle to answer. These two pieces made me feel as if I was having a battle with being an intellect or embracing the person that the authors attempt to create in both pieces. The pieces made me struggle because some of the factors that are present I can identify with. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York with a mother being the head of the household, and many of my friends having similar backgrounds. Some of the older gentleman of the neighborhood have their roots in the culture of poverty and are contend with the lifestyle. The younger men of my community have similar goals. Many of the friends I grew up with spoke about not getting into the “system” but many ended up dead or in jail very, few of us were able to “break out” of the culture.
I feel that both authors describe things, which they know nothing about. This causes the authors to speak out of “both sides of their mouth.” The information has many conclusions drawn in hindsight. I believe the authors lose credibility because they are both white men. Although both pieces are able to make changes, the time, and context, helps add fuel to the cause. The pieces of writing have connections today because many of the ideas people still identify with today. I feel that there are many different pieces to the culture in, which Lewis and Moynihan describe. The culture is different for everyone because of the experience not everyone, who is in poverty experiences a culture of poverty. The only way for one to know if they are in the culture of poverty is to operationalizes the definition of both “Culture” and “Poverty.” The coined phrase “culture of poverty” is an attempt to group individuals together, who people would assume share similar experiences. People who share similar experiences do not always have the same outcomes.
I would like to thank Apollonia for getting us started on this great conversation, as well as thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
Anthony, I do agree with your argument that suspicion of dominant culture institutions and a lack of confidence in the political system are fairly common characteristics of people in poverty, but I would have to disagree that this commonality is enough to validate any of Lewis’ arguments. The reason I feel this way is similar to the arguments I made in class. To refer to the similar lifestyles people in poverty share as a culture almost takes away from the true reason these people struggle. To say that there is a culture of poverty is almost a cop out that says “these people are poor because it is simply their way, its just a part of their culture.”
Although you provide a definition of culture above, I am very interested in how Professor Waterston responds because I still have an internal issue with using the term culture of poverty, as well as acknowledging this phenomenon as anywhere near true.
I still sit here and question what needs to be present to prove someone is entrenched in a culture of poverty. As critical academics we are all often suspicious of certain institutions that have been set up by societies dominant culture as well as we are critical of our country’s political institutions. I would also go as far to say that the majority of academics think this way too. Does the fact that people living in poverty tend to also think this way necessarily make it a part of their culture, or do these people perhaps have a heightened understanding of how the political system and societies institutions effect their lives? Perhaps the reason people living in poverty’s attitudes towards politics and societies institutions are labeled as “suspicions” and “lacks of confidence” is because these same institutions and politics are benefiting the majority of the population. Maybe these “suspicions” and “ lacks of confidence” are actually a representation of the truth tactfully labeled the way that they are so that these individuals can be further ostracized from a society where they are no longer holding attitudes that line up with the norm (which in reality is an acceptance of oppressive institutions and bad politics that benefit most people at the cost of the poor).
Anthony, I agree with what you stated above and would like to add one more thing. Orwell describes the "culture of poverty" as a Western subculture and states, "It is both an adaptation and a reaction of the poor to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individuated, capitalistic society". To a certain extent, I believe Orwell did underscore (what may be) an important characteristic of such alleged phenomena. The term, learned helplessness, may sound familiar to some of you. As described in the Encyclopedia Britannica, "it is a mental state in which an organism forced to bear aversive stimuli, or stimuli that are painful or otherwise unpleasant, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are “escapable,” presumably because it has learned that it cannot control the situation". I strongly believe there is a correlation with learned helplessness and the individuals deemed to be living in Orwell's proclaimed "culture of poverty". After a certain point of being repeatedly broken down and pushed away by society, individuals may more easily lose hope and accept their ascribed feelings of inferiority, and thus unsurprisingly "perpetuate the cycle". Unfortunately, there are only a few with strong enough mindsets that evade "the cycle".
In reference to Apple's questions about finding the truth, as college-students, it is our duty to question everything we read (or hear, i.e. in lecture) in order to be able to identify the biases (possibly being presented). We also have to remember that sometimes a "truth" may not exist. Especially when it comes to social justice, as we have seen, the "truth" is difficult to establish.
Great discussion, and I do feel like we need an "Anthropologist to the Rescue!" to address your questions. However, in terms of Anthony's point and Michael's response, does Orwell's insight about the problems of the English language provide a way of thinking about this? Here he is: "Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks." I think we all pretty much agree that "poverty" has political and economic causes; the problem is how to interpret what follows: the responses to these causes over time and in a range of contexts (rural white, urban p of c, etc.).
My heart is completely palpitating reading your blog entries. First, I LOVE that Apple titles this week's entry "Context! Context! Context!" because EVERYTHING has a history and a context!!
In terms of both Lewis's and Moynihan's work, part of the context (I believe this was brought up in class, actually) were the movements afoot--the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and revolutionary movements brought into the streets of US cities (often depicted as mobs of looters; their actions depicted as unrestrained lawlessness). The state responded in a number of ways, not least of which was to do "something" (develop social policy) that under President Johnson became the "War on Poverty." Some good programs came out of that. But let's not forget the central role of the state: to reproduce the larger political-economic system as it exists, minimize threat to the status quo, and to contain and control the population, particularly the restless and disaffected among them.
So...among the various social scientists who policy makers could have chosen to guide policy, whose (social science) voice got HEARD (and informed policy) and whose voice was IGNORED? There was literature out there (even in the "olden" days of the 1960s) who revealed the VIOLENCE of poverty in the US. There were social scientists who demonstrated in their research and writing what we tend to call in our class, the "root" of the problem. But these social scientists were dismissed as too radical, too revolutionary, too critical. But Oscar Lewis got heard in the popular press and in policy circles; likewise Moynihan.Please know they did not necessarily represent the voice of social science, of anthropology or sociology.
Bring the past into the present: We can still ask the questions: Who gets heard today? Whose research and writings get ignored?
...more...
...continued from previous entry...
Also, I'd like to reiterate a point Michael makes and respond to Anthony's comments. The thing about Lewis's piece on "culture of poverty" is that he is not at all consistent or clear in his argument. On one hand, he argues that this "so-called" culture emerges under conditions of poverty, and then later he says, well, if you get rid of poverty, you still won't get rid of the "culture." He is taking the word "CULTURE" and talking about "IT" AS IF that "IT" were a REAL THING.
Anthony observes that people in his family and community had "distrust" of the dominant society. Since Lewis CALLS THAT a "trait" of the culture of poverty and since Anthony observed that people felt that way, this leads Anthony to conclude that Lewis is correct--there is a culture of poverty. But there is something circular about this. The MISTRUST might have been perfectly REASONABLE under the circumstances. How is that CULTURE???? Why isn't it just one among possible LOGICAL responses to a situation??? This, I think, is what Michael is saying, and what Michael was suggesting when, in class, he offered a facetious description of the "culture of pain"!!!! (the attitude the person being beaten "develops" towards the one who beats him!)
Anthony, I have no doubt that it is true that people felt suspicious of dominant cultural institutions, and lacked confidence in the political system. Why would those attitudes be labeled distinct "cultural" traits, and negative traits to boot? Doesn't labeling it that way cut off discussion? Might calling it culture of poverty mean we forget to ask WHY people felt suspicious of dominant cultural institutions and WHY they lacked confidence in the political and economic system?
In class, I repeatedly raised the question of the so-called 70 traits of the "culture of poverty" because Lewis never provides those. He doesn't provide those because he COULD NOT provide those. Because CULTURE is NOT a list of (random) traits!!!!
Meantime, the idea of the culture of poverty, and the putting forth the "pathology of the Negro family" in scientific terms, was great fuel for the machinery of managing and controlling the poor: The problem of poverty lies in the poor themselves, not the system. The solution is to fix the poor (and if they won't be fixed, we can put them in prisons). Just as we can forget to ask WHY people feel suspicious of the system, we can also avoid making the system and the people who benefit from it accountable for the negative consequences on the (ever-growing number of) poor.
It's hard for me to stop here, and it's hard for me to keep writing. It's hard for me to stop because I have more to say. It's hard for me to keep writing because I can't say everything in a blog post.
Instead, I will email you some references, AND some of my own writings on the subject (not for you to have to read now, but to maybe save for some later time).
Spencer: Sorry I made you be Oscar Lewis, but you did a stand-up job!!
I must note that all the emotion I complained was missing from last week’s posts are here in abundance.
I have thought a lot about Prof. Waterston’s question, which was not so much “why does Lewis come to these conclusions?” but “why, given the availability of other accounts, is this the one that resonates in a particular time and place?” Just to look at the sexist overtones of the narrative, for instance, it seems to me that this was a historical era ripe with threats to patriarchy, both in the form of second wave feminism and the sexual revolution. Anti-matriarchy might have been a convenient stance that allowed white men to put their racism aside (I mean that facetiously) and bond with black men. Divide and conquer?
To me, it is far more interesting to look at why theories are embraced than to just demonize the theorists. For example, Freud is always bashed for saying that women had “penis envy”. Clara Thompson, a female psychoanalyst writing at the height of Freud’s popularity in 1950s America, said, alternately, “Freud was very perceptive but he was a man. Penis envy is a male concept. It is the male who experiences the penis as a valuable organ and he assumes that women also must feel that way about it”. Thompson’s theories were not embraced until the late seventies but their time did come. Besides, Freud did observe something true: those who had the penises had the money and power; who wouldn’t envy that? Freud wasn’t necessarily wrong in his observations; he was wrong in what he inferred from those observations. As many of you have noted, Lewis may have observed correctly; it was the attributions he made about those observations that were questionable.
I know little about Lewis beyond his culture of poverty work. I am taken with the fact that he does mention in the article that he only thinks his theories adhere in capitalist systems. So he couldn’t have been completely blind to the way that privilege operates. Moynihan, when I was growing up, was considered a left leaning progressive thinker. We have learned a great deal about how to deconstruct theories since then, look for areas of privilege and agendas that are hidden even from the authors themselves. Most importantly, scholarship today has a multiplicity of voices that can redirect conversations even though many groups still remain invisible.
Just because Prof. Stein mentioned the concept of "penis envy", I invite you all to read an essay Gloria Steinem wrote entitled "If Men Could Menstruate".
"The power of giving birth makes "womb envy" more logical, and an organ as external and unprotected as the penis makes men very vulnerable indeed."
http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/steinem.menstruate.html
(You're welcome!)
Great post, Apple! I, too, love the title of your post! Context, as we have all agreed, is so crucial when reading literature, particularly ones that discuss the "culture" of other groups of which the writer is not a part. Minority groups often find themselves the subjects of these writings by privileged people who observe them, and then proceed to enlighten the world with a simple solution that will fix it all. I feel that sometimes this urge to find a simple solution is not an an intentional, conscious action.
I am taking a course on Middle Eastern History, and in todays class we discussed the sectarian violence plaguing the region. Similarly, the media, mostly run by people uneducated about the issue, portrays a black and white picture of the conflict that people like to believe because its just easier.
However, I think that often times things are fabricated or exaggerated as a tool to a political or other end. For this reason, when deciding whose story was most credible from "In the Grove," I decided on the woman who was raped, because she had the least possible motivation (as far as we knew) to lie. In this case, as Professor Waterston said, this idea of the "Culture of poverty" is also used as a means of control. When someone is told something about themselves for long enough, they eventually begin to believe it. If those in poverty are constantly told that they are the reason for their poverty, they will no longer have the will to fight it because they will believe it is inherent in them.
I really enjoyed reading everyone insightful comments, so thank you all. I just love this class!!
Post a Comment