The culture of poverty
The culture of poverty is an interesting topic for us to
have, given that it relates to the mission statement of most of our interning
agencies. Before going further in the analysis, I would like us to reflect on
what role do our agency play in either preventing or furthering the culture of
poverty?
Or, how does your agency come to have an influence on the
culture of poverty in the neighborhood that it serves?
After reading the both readings by Oscar Lewis and Patrick
Moynihan, I came to realize that there is no single element that causes the
culture of poverty, multiple factors internal and external contributes to the advances
of poverty in inner neighborhood. For example, Oscar Lewis focuses more on the
outside explore the origin of the “culture of poverty” a little deeper Oscar
Lewis theory of “Culture of Poverty”, where he argues that poverty experienced
by those who live in the slums is attributed by institution and also furthered
by the lack of organization and consciousness by those affected by it. After a
while, culture of poverty becomes a way of life, where those affected by it,
fail to see how they are affected. An example of this is yesterday’s scenario;
those who were the poor (residents of the Wagner houses) were having difficulties
admitting that they were poor. For most of them, crimes that happened around
their neighborhood were just regular incidents that can happen in almost any
community. (How does this relate to the normalization that Lewis argues in his
analysis?)
Why was that? Doesn’t
it just make sense that these people live there and have full responsibility
over what they deem to be right for their community?
Going back to the scenario from yesterday’s class, how is it
that those who do not reside at the Wagner houses get to make decisions for
those who reside there? Just like most agencies tend to have a solution for the
problem of certain countries.
When combining both Oscar Lewis and Moynihan’s explanation
on the causes of poverty, one can see the gradual characteristic of
poverty. Senator Moynihan deems the
origin of this culture of poverty to originate from the weak structure of black
nuclear families in America. The absence
of one partner in the house creates an imbalance in the life of the children
and increases the likelihood of the family to end up in deep poverty. It goes
on to the level of education that one attains in his life, and furthermore to
the job that one ends up doing in life.
Let see this issue from an international perspective, the
video that explained the social stratification, was more advancing the critic
that Vladmir Lenin, a Marxist ideologist who in his book, Imperialism the last Stage of Capitalism- raised in regards to
capitalism. He argued that capitalism would collapse after a certain period of
time, due to the inflation of profit that it acquires. This theory was
developed in the 1917’s, here we are in 2014 and capitalism is still going
stronger and stronger.
Another point that was made yesterday, I remember someone
mentioned that capitalism was a system that meant to oppress people and picked
on a specific group to oppress. Indeed, capitalism is a system of oppression.
However, it does not pick which group to be at the bottom. Instead, it
stratifies people into classes with unequal distribution of wealth. The
responsibility of the development of one group depends on the level of
organization that it holds. (See Antonio Gramsci, Formation of the
intellectual). If we will talk in terms of ethnic groups, look at the Jews, the
Indians and the Chinese, at some point in their history, they were subject to capitalism
oppression. But they came to realize the importance of developing economic
power in order to better their position within the system. Going back to Oscar
Lewis, he writes:
It is
the low level of organization that gives the culture of poverty its marginal
and anomalous quality in our highly organized society. Most primitive peoples
have achieved a higher degree of sociocultural organization than contemporary
urban slum dwellers…(pp. 23)
With this idea in mind, one reason why these poor community
fails to prosper at the same level as the other is not merely because of where
the ruling class wants them to be, but because of the absence of organization
and the ignorance of the actual state of matter.
To conclude, if we are experiencing all these issue due to
the capitalist system in place, would socialism be a form of social justice?
19 comments:
Kevin, I defintely concur that there is more than one issue which leads to poverty. To begin, I would like to comment on your question regarding our agencies. As I was reading Moynihan and Lewis, I found myself seething with hatred for these men who had this facade of care and worry for this "culture of poverty" but were completely distorting the facts and exacerbating the problem by inferring that "these slum dwellers" situation was hopeless and inescapable.
At CJA, I believe that we help this "culture of poverty." For one, we are on the side of the so called "slum dwellers." We try in every possible way to ensure that you will be released without bail. This helps you, as the defendant, return home to your family and your responsibilities more promptly. Lewis and Moynihan would think that by asserting this point of view I am "enabling" this "culture of poverty." How is a culture to excell if it being so brutally oppressed, albeit subliminally sometimes?
I found that Lewis and Moynihan created learned helplessness in the groups they were analysing. While I totally understand that this is a subjective belief and not an objective fact (because I don't make up statistics like certain authors we know), Lewis' analysis of "the culture of poverty" supported his theory that "this" culture has no hope for ever creating a better life for its people. Because of their analysis and how popular their opinions became, I assert that their theories definitely had a negative impact on a culture who already struggled with oppession and poor self-image in relation to the greater public eye. Lewis and Moynihan went and made a bad situation worse.
Before discussing what role do our agency play preventing the culture of poverty, I think it is crucial to identify what is culture of poverty and what defines this culture from the “idealized culture”. Lewis and Moynihan argued that culture of poverty includes a set of cultural attitudes, beliefs, values, and practices, and that this culture of poverty would tend to perpetuate itself over time. While reading these articles, I was confused. It seemed to me that poor people are being blamed for being poor. Why are these people being blamed for being in disadvantaged position? Do they choose to be born in poor neighborhood? In my view, it is a governmental decision to keep poor people poor.
“The culture of poverty” refers to political ideas. What is the difference between the child who was born in poor neighborhood and the child who was born in Upper East Side? They have the same qualities. The only difference is that some of them are denied resources for future development. Many people were able to leave poor neighborhood. They were able to good a good job. Is it changing their culture? As I mentioned in my last week’s post, I came from Russia, and I would never be able to become an American due to the cultural influence in the childhood. If the culture of poverty exists, so it should be stated that the person who was able to become rich, will still belong to the culture of poverty?? Is that true? Does Sonia Sotomayor belong to the “culture of poverty”???? I do not think so. Then, I would like to conclude that “the culture of poverty” is not a culture, but burden that was placed on poor people just to keep them poor.
Poor people are characterized by poor family structure. They have unstable families. Usually, boys do not have a male picture in their lives. Parents cannot invest sufficiently in their children’s futures. This children start committing crime. Why do they commit crime??? Today, society emphasizes monetary success. However, it does not provide legitimate means to achieve this success. That is why many poor people commit crime. This crime results in disfunction of the family and in continuing the circle of poverty.
Many projects at Vera are aimed to engage governmental officials not in helping poor people but in changing the situation in the society. It is crucial to reduce the domination of economy in the major institutions of society, such as family and school. However, in the capitalist society everybody is eager to get more money, even those people who try to work towards achieving social justice may end up looking for profit in the expense of poor people.
Hi Kevin, thank you for your post.
In response to your questions, I believe that one of the original goals of representative government was to elect leaders who would have the best interests of their constituents at heart and enact reforms/policies that would further those interests but I no longer feel this is true these days. I think there is a disconnect between lawmakers and the people they serve, and even then, the enactment of laws and policies are tied up with the purse strings of the government and only politically viable solutions are enforced. The poor and underprivileged often find themselves having no say, no representation in matters that determine their own fate, and if this is the case, we can no longer say our is a government “by the people for the people”. So how can we tweak the political process so that all communities can access a forum to voice their grievances? Is this even possible? Can our leaders gather the political will to give some power back to the people so their concerns can be taken seriously?
Politicians like John Boehner and Paul Ryan have labeled the poor as lazy and indifferent to work, but they are speaking from positions of privilege. Do they empathize with the abject conditions that the poor face? It is easy to blame the victims for their own plight (the media/general public seems to have no compunction doing this to victims of sexual assault) and characterizing their misfortune as entirely their fault: “you did drugs because you have self control, you went to jail because you’re up to no good, you’re jobless because you’re too lazy to find and keep one”. But taking a step back, and looking at the situation in its entirety, we might find that present structural conditions did not just come about arbitrarily. Instead, they are maintained over time and perpetuated by the dominant class/culture.
I think it’s easy to dismiss the concerns of the impoverished because they are seen as architects of their own misery, but that begs the question of how they ended there in the first place. Oscar Lewis argued that that the culture which developed (and was internalized) due to poverty will continue to transmitted intergenerationally long after material conditions have changed. I think this is his most problematic idea.
Was the “culture of poverty” idea perpetuated to permanently doom the poor to their fate? So that we see them as irredeemable regardless of their circumstances and we don’t need to commit to improving educational and employment opportunities for them because they can’t seem to escape the “culture of poverty”?
Why aren’t we learning about the culture of privilege/power and the pathologies of greed among the white collar classes then? I’m sure if the discourse was turned toward the “oppressors” we could come up with 70 traits to describe their “culture”.
Dear students. I have a very important question for all of you, starting with Kevin and extending to Lauren, Marina and Gina who have responded already, and to those of you will be responding soon.
By asking the question (this is Kevin's question), "What role do our agenc[ies] play in either preventing or furthering the culture of poverty?"aren't you ASSUMING there IS something that can be called "the culture of poverty"???
I think you need to ask yourselves this question: Is there such a thing as "the culture of poverty"?????
Gina's response starts to get at this question. I will ask all of you to take up the challenge of this question head on. Again, the question is: is there actually such a "thing" as "the culture of poverty"?
For those of you who answer "yes," then you need to provide the evidence for "it." For those of you who answer "no," can you explain what's the matter with the idea of it? Note: Gina refers to it as a "problematic idea."
Once we unpack this question, only then can we turn to a discussion of the causes and consequences of poverty and of the ways in which our agencies help address the causes and consequences of poverty.
As has been asked by Prof. Waterston, I don't think there is such as thing as culture of poverty. The idea is totally problematic and semi-ridiculous. It's also extremely belittling and deeming. This assumes that these individuals in this culture are not intelligent enough or driven enough to 'break the cycle'. This is saying that it is really their fault they’re in poverty. They've not bothered. They don't care. It’s saying that these people accept these circumstances and what to do nothing about it. They don’t have any motivation.
What is not being spoken about is the different vectors of oppression that result in these circumstances. Little black boys and brown boys in kindergarten are more likely to receive severe punishment (e.g. suspension) for the same actions or behavior as white boys. What message is this sending? Is it the same as the message being sent by cases like Mike Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Eric Garner? Isn’t this devaluating? Is this not dehumanizing? What about how little black and brown girls are hyper-sexualized and shamed for it? Does this have to do with the “black/brown teen mom” stereotype? What happens when these students become a statistic? Don’t black and brown students deserve to…study? Should low income high needs student get privileges … the way upper class white students do? Why should the education system INHERENTLY and really blatantly discriminate based on neighborhood? Do “poor” kids really deserve less? Shouldn’t they get the same education as privileged rich white kids? Shouldn’t they get the same resources and opportunities?
Doesn’t it start to become clearer that this is all a part of an oppressive white-supremacist-heterosexist-capitalist system that was literally built on the doctrine of racism. Looking at historical context…slavery…enough said. Wasn’t this the same kind of devaluation? Of dehumanization? Of “other-ing”? Is this not the same insult? I’m having a really hard time detaching race from this issue. Although classism is obviously different than racism they’re interconnected. These two intersect, as do gender and sexual orientation.
Missing from the discussion are how all these factors and characteristics tie in to leave people of color at a disadvantage. This leaves a bigger steep for people of color. It makes it harder for people of color to climb up. No it is not 70 ridiculous useless characteristics that make up this alleged ‘culture of poverty’ it’s our unjust, biased, racist, and sexist society that’s placing individuals at a disadvantage because of a sex organ or the color of skin. It’s our society that’s making it easier for some to get to certain places then others. It’s our society that builds obstacles for “others” so “others” won’t make it. black and brown lives really seem to be worthless…
I just have one last thing to add… while reading the “Negro Family” article, I was vaguely reminded of Freud and his obsession with heterenormativity and how you NEEDED a father and a mother figure and all this other cis-gendered nonsense. As if success only meant one thing and as if you needed a mom and a dad to be successful because, you know, single parents can’t raise successful kids…
So we as a team can conclusively smash the idea of a "Culture of Poverty", we can say lewis and moynihans thoughts on imoverished people and their self-perpetuating cycle of poverty are absurd (which they are) and we can say everybody should have access to unlimited education and have the social services they need etc etc (which they should), but I think we must be cautious to say that there is an ideal scenario. Monica ouched on this, not every family is a mom and a dad and two kids-- which is still seen as the standard and the best possible situation, anything less is imperfect and the "other".
American society is ripe with "right" scenarios and "wrong" scenarios. Well really there is one "right" scenario- a white family with a dog two kids, a mom and a dad and they are have or are going to get degrees from colleges and lead satisfying lives that contribute to the United States in some way.
So often I hear folks saying "oh, this program makes person B's life better this way"
What do we mean by making lives better? do we mean closer to the American ideal? or do we mean that we've brought them closer to achieving whatever they want in life. We've debunked the myth of this "culture of poverty" as Lewis and Monynihan have identified, but if there is a shred of legitimacy to these arguments it's that some folks may truly be most fulfilled by living as though they are in poverty when in fact they are actually just fine, though to be honest i'm not exactly sure what this will look like.
I think more important than helping people find ways out of poverty we should be helping people find a way obtain agency over their life. To help them find a way to choice not to the conveyor belt of American Life.
sorry guys, john is actually me. not sure how that happened but it posted through my partner's email.
This is a complex and thorny issue, as evidenced by the Battistoni article in which she discusses how resilient the "culture of poverty" idea is (if you didn't get a chance to read it, it is short and clarifying). I agree with those voices here who call it a "myth" and who rightly deconstruct its many unproven assumptions.
But I also see how it is complicated. I'll give two examples. Lewis talks about "adaptive" behavior, and I suppose all cultures are to some extent shaped by the adaptive behaviors of its inhabitants. This seems common sense and one can see here how an observer/outsider might see these adaptive behaviors as essential: a mom doesn't read to her child and a Lewis/Moynihan-type might see this as evidence that the culture doesn't value education. But it could be the mom in question adapting to social realities (public funding cuts have resulted in the closing of libraries, $ might need to be spent on rent/food not books, books might read as "soft" and not the kind of hard life lessons a kid in a tough neighborhood might need, fatigue from working multiple jobs makes it challenging to find the time to read). So then the child in question might seem to be someone who perpetuates this lack of interest in education when in reality the odds are that this child's choices will be constrained by same social realities (even more so these days as economic mobility is stagnant in the US today). I am repeatedly struck by how my own motherhood -- one of the most essentialized roles in human history -- is shaped not by my inner mommy yearnings but rather social realities to which I adapt as a person constantly negotiating many factors. Sometimes this leads me to hugs and freshly-baked cookies after school, but most of the time I do not adhere to this cultural norm.
I also want to note that Monica uses both the words "culture" and "cycle" of poverty. I invoke Orwell here (always!) to think about what we are saying when we choose one of these words over the other. How can language here be thinking our thoughts for us, rather than the other way around?
p.s. I know Prof W is traveling, but I'd love to have her weigh in on whether my distinctly non-anthropologist understanding of "adaptive" behaviors holds any water...
Hello Everybody,
There is no such thing as “culture of poverty”. On his article, Lewis contradicts himself. He states that no all poor people live in “the culture of poverty”, but yet he describes all characteristics affiliated with the so-called “poor” to refer to “The culture of poverty”. There are people producing “little money”, lacking saving accounts, and property - because they don’t have any other option. There are individuals who try their best to get decent jobs that pays enough to rent an apartment and take care of their families - and I understand that no everybody try their best- but that is not enough to save in the bank or buy a house. As Battistoni mentions “Issues get more attention when they’re defined in cultural rather than structural terms.”
If this a problem of structure, how do we address the issue. CEO has been successful on changing some participants and employers' mindset. Some participants have been in prison for more than 5 years and come out of prison thinking they won’t be able to get a job. At CEO, we help them with resume building, life-skill classes, and mock interviews. Although it takes time and dedication, from participants and staff, our participants get to understand they have a fresh start. Some employers feel skeptical about hiring individuals who have been incarcerated. Some of them have in their mind that “ex-offenders” never change. Therefore, it is a difficult task to persuade those employers to hire our participants.
Should we blame corporations that only focus on getting as much profit as possible?, even if that means paying a misery to the employees, or should we blame the Government that fails to help individuals to come out of the line of poverty, and to effectively regulate corporations so that employees can get enough benefits and a decent salary?
After reading all of the discussion at first I was unsure whether or not I believed there was a culture of poverty. Once I read Gina's comment about the culture of privilege my question was answered. I remember reading the article by Moynihan and just feeling annoyed and though "here we go with the stereotypes". Coming from a impoverished neighborhood I constantly heard and experienced the difficulty and having equal access to resources. It was clear of "the have and the have not". Moynihan stated his view about this, "the common run of young people in a group facing serious obstacles to success do not succeed". Then I started wondering does the culture of poverty exist or is "it" stereotypes of those in poverty. After moving to New York I realized how family life is dysfunctional not only in poor families but very commonly in privileged families also. The traits that Orwell provided can also be traits of the privileged. I think the only difference between the rich and the poor is accessibility to resources and the way each group is portrayed in society.
Addressing Professor's Waterston question about whether there even is a culture of poverty, I think from a privilege position it is extremely EASY to assume that there IS a culture of poverty. Growing up in a privilege household, raised by professional parents in good economic position, one doesn't really get to see what one is lacking. Not only in regards to food and shelter but the resources that we don't even know we lack until we are exposed to the a more privilege group. For example, growing up in a low income community, one speaks differently, thinks differently, dresses differently, not because it is culture, but because one doesn't really know anything else, like the more privilege doesn't really know anything else. Except the privileged group is luckier because their "standard" is already what they need to succeed.
I don't want to be so abstract to confuse you, so I'd put it into context. Take, for example, mannerism and dress code. The privileged person knows what kind of suit to wear for an interview, the difference between business casual and business formal is. They know how to sit down at a table, the difference between professional language and the language spoken at home.
Growing up in low income communities, one is not exposed to professionalism. One only knows the environment in which we grow up. When one can't afford JCrew or Ann Taylor, when one can't tell the difference between ain't and will not and one can't really recognized how one is more professional than the other because we have grown up by parents who are also not educated or miseducated, how can the privilege person--who is looking from a third person perspective-- not assume that this simply culture, that the poor person is just too lazy to learn.
However, when one comes from a low income community, when one studies policy, education, lack of resources one can really see the problem. The problem isn't that poor have made a "culture" of their situation or that they are stuck in their way of think because they are too lazy to try, but rather that they don't have the resources to learn. When policy is shaped around these same ideals assuming that there is a "culture of poverty", when funds for education are getting cut down, when immigrants are not given their right for work legally so they can improve their lives, when we fail to create more jobs so people can actually get them, how can we blame the poor for being stuck in a system that they were born into.
The United States is a millionaire landowner who gives crumbs to the starving, working child so he can survive and then points a finger and says "If I'm feeding you, how come you're still not healthy enough to work 12 hours a day!", "If I gave you a piece of bread yesterday, how come you're sick today !". Hypocrisy at its best.
In regards to my placement and many of our placements: I think they are the crumbs that we give the poor. We are helping them survive, keeping them strong enough to work, to live somewhat of a life, but they are not raising a strong, educated, brilliant child who can be someday be a land owner. While some people do succeed, while some were strong enough to live off of crumbs and eventually grow up to bigger opportunities, our placements are not changing structures because they are not targeting the landowner and his riches, but rather managing how much of the crumbs gets to the child.
I think it’s hard to disentangle culture from what might appear to be a consistent set of adaptive responses to material conditions of living. I think it’s easy to confuse the latter for the former. What is culture though?
I would like to gain a clear footing on the meaning of the word before I use the it in the context of poverty. Is it a set of norms/values/beliefs/attitudes/modes of thinking that inform patterns of behavior or all of the above? Is it something innate? Does it develop in response to a set of particular material conditions/circumstances?
To what extent is “culture” mutable then? Will it persist even after structural conditions have changed? Will the traits that Lewis described and Moynihan endorsed, still persist even after structural conditions have changed?
Is that how we go about determining whether or not IT exists?
Also, what was the ideological agenda of Lewis and Moynihan? Social science doesn’t operate in a vacuum and it’s informed to a great extent by context. What where the political/racial/social agendas at the time? Could they have somehow informed the construction of this concept of “culture of poverty”?
As Danyeli so articulately stated, the issue with privilege is that it is extremely easy to close your eyes and pretend that it is not there. It is easy to deny that you have XXX advantage because of YYY factor. It is easy to talk about intrinsic forces and ignore extrinsic ones- "Fundamental Attribution error" (this is why I'm a psych major). It makes us feel better. This serves us. It allows us to give ourselves a round of applause and then to point fingers at others.
The thing is how much can we really tease our extrinsic factors. Can we really ever say that it's all intrinsic forces and characteristics.... how much does context impact the situation? Aren't we after all social beings?
In regards to placements, these are all bandaids. I don't think any of the placements we've spoken about are targeting the eradication of the current unjust system. Again, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Then all that's left is making sure the fish aren't somehow unjustly distributed & don't become extinct... At our placements... we're just giving them fish....
I would like to share a really interesting article I came across that discusses the Moynihan report, black-white wealth gap and property ownership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18gates.html?pagewanted=all
The author's thesis is this:
"for the black poor, real progress may come only once they have an ownership stake in American society. People who own property feel a sense of ownership in their future and their society. They study, save, work, strive and vote. And people trapped in a culture of tenancy..."
I think it's interesting he uses the phrase "culture of tenancy". Does he mean that as a subset of the "culture of poverty" (which we're still debating about). Perhaps his usage of culture refers to the set of adaptive responses to the material conditions of tenancy( a lack of personal property)?
I also think the whole issue of property ownership goes back to our in-class role playing. To what extent would the residents of the Wagner homes have felt the absence of a stake in society, given that they don't even have a decisive say in the fate of their houses?
I am so sorry. I was at a conference until early Monday morning and completely forgot to post.
I'm gonna start with my organization. I don't really believe in the "culture of poverty". I believe there maybe patterns of behaviors shared by impoverished people, but I don't think it persists past actually being poor. The individuals in my organization do not fit the "demographic culture of poverty". However, there is a similar situation that is constantly seen within the disabled community. Many individuals with disabilities display learned helplessness. They are told from young age that they can't or are unable to help and provide for themselves, so they do not try. They are never taught the skills needed to live independently despite that fact that many of these individuals could easily, or as easily as anyone else, live on thier own and provide for themselves. Jobpath works very hard to counteract the false beliefs of worthlessness and helplessness. It promotes independency, education, and self advocation.
I agree with Gina I think the "culture of poverty" is a societal opinion that is forced onto the impoverished people in a system that seems to continue the cycle of poverty. I also think Monica is right, blaming anything but the system that perpetuates the cycle is problematic and detrimental to society as a whole. Though, I agree you don't need and mother and a father figure for child development, I can see where the statistics suggest otherwise. From my point of view, I think it is less that lack of "father" causes bad child development and more that it is a correlation to the fact that in those situations lack of any parent cause financial, social, and emotional stability resulting in bad child development. I think that as long as there is stability in the home it doesn't matter how many or what genders that parents are, so long as the presence in positive and stable.
Most of you believe that culture of poverty does not exist. I did make my point regarding this issue in my previous point, but I want to come back to that again.
The "culture of poverty" is organized around the idea of the racial discrimination. Is that any white person ever listed in any readings? Not really. So, the "culture of poverty" is actually the culture of classism. This culture continues to harden in our schools today. There is a world outside John Jay. In this world professors do not believe that you are able to attend prestigious graduate school without getting help of hundred private tutors. In addition, we believe that poor people don't value education, that they are lazy, and that they are looking for easier way to get money by stealing them. Do not people who are given a nice job are able to steal money? What about White-Collar Crime?
If that is a culture that suppose to be some values and norms that are shared by people. If someone really really poor would be able to become rich, does that mean that he/she would loose the connection with the culture? If some poor person will be given a family when both parents take care of him/her, would it be another culture? The "culture of poverty" is created to discriminate people for their financial situation in order to give them idea of hopelessness and to keep them poor.
I like Marina's idea of reclaiming the term "culture of poverty" from lewis and moynihan. Marina identified some legitimate trends in american society that perpetuate poverty for people of color living life in the lowest classes of america. its this idea: this culture of white privilege (if I can take and attempt to expand marina's ideas)where only people with wealth can get amazing education that prepares them for the most prestigious learning institutions. These learning institutions, while we must take into account affirmative action,remain largely dominated by the people circling the 1% and, of course, the 1% themselves.
There is an american "culture" (depending on your definition of culture) that prevents people from accessing the tools needed to break out of poverty because they are impoverished. These institutionalized disenfranchisements (not a word, oops) are invisible to people of other classes and backgrounds and therefore leave ignorant folks with the notion that poverty "culture" is perpetuated by poor folks because they choose it. in reality they have almost no choice in any part of their life whatsoever.
I knew to wear j.crew to interviews not because it was my "culture" to know these things, I was given a career counselor in high school that equipped me with all the tools I need to succeed in this way. (to reference danyeli)
My high school (and schools prior to that) had the resources to enable me and my peers to succeed and so nearly all of us did.
Poverty isn't about culture, its about resources and agency.
I completely agree with Bekah. The "culture of poverty" is forced onto poor people because the system has not prepared or is not conducive for them to gain the knowledge and means to remove themselves from the system. Lewis's concept of the "culture of poverty" not only suggests that it is the attitude and actions of the poor that cause poor people to be poor, but also implies that if poor people were to change there "culture" (attitudes and actions) they would no longer be poor. However, it is not so. To piggy off Bekah's example, say a severely impoverished person had the attitudes or knowledge that Bekah received from her high school counselor (they wouldn't because the education system for poor areas is much much worse than what I presume Bekah had) they still would not have the means or resources to wear a J.Crew suit to an interview. So despite not adhering to the "culture of poverty" attitudes they are still poor, and that disadvantages keeps them poor.
It will be very interesting to analyze how the ecological systems theory can be applied to both perpetuate and dispel the culture of poverty myth. The chronosystem best describes how over time people are defined differently depending on the societal context. It's fascinating to track how people coming out of the Depression Era (noble, proud, and hard working) were perceived differently than people in the 1980's, influenced by Moynihan and Lewis (Welfare Queens mooching off the system) living in poverty. It's critical to look at the individual through the policies and institutions that affect the individual.
Post a Comment