Words: 1168
The gap between the rich and the poor is widening ‘ this is a reality that many societies in our world are experiencing today. As a result, we are forced to wonder what is happening in each of these groups that is leading to the growing inequality. We can assume that those who are wealthy will do pretty much everything they can to remain in that category. Can we assume the same for the poor? Are those that are faced with poverty behaving in such ways that perpetuate their low status? The culture of poverty thesis, as defined by anthropologist Oscar Lewis, locates poverty within an individual or group’s values, beliefs, and behaviours.
This essay will discuss and critically evaluate Lewis’ thesis. It has proven to be applicable in certain societies; however, research has shown that it is not consistent throughout different societies across the time and space. Some researchers and academics even claim that the culture of poverty simply does not exist, or at least that there is no evidence of it. Others hold that poverty can be explained through the situational theory, which concerns economic and social structures within societies. Still, despite extensive criticisms, the culture of poverty thesis remains to be seen within popular culture.
Oscar Lewis developed the culture of poverty thesis after conducting observational research in the slums of Mexico and the United States during the early 1960’s. The thesis states that certain groups and individuals tend to persist in a state of poverty because they have distinct beliefs, values, and behaviours that are incompatible with economic success. His concept, which was influenced by his Marxist background, holds that people develop common traits as a way of adapting to living in poverty within a capitalist society.
These traits are then passed on from one generation to the next. Lewis described the culture of poverty as “a way of life,” claiming that the poor develop their own specific subculture as a way of rejecting the dominant culture in society. According to Lewis, there are 70 different traits that lie behind this subculture. He categorized them into 4 different types ‘ relationships between the subculture and larger society; the nature of the slum community; the nature of the family; and individual attitudes, values, and beliefs.
Members of the subculture tend to either maintain distance or completely disengage from larger society, and typically do not get involved with their institutions or community life in general. This is usually a direct result of a general mistrust of the government and the police. Their community is characterized by poor housing in which families experience financial crises, including borrowing or using second hand goods, pawning personal goods, cash shortages and a lack of savings. Unstable marriages often constitute families, which explains the subculture’s high divorce rates.
Mothers and children are abandoned and soon become matrifocal families, where households are headed by women. Children receive inadequate education, and many members are virtually illiterate. Individuals may be fatalistic, and experience feelings of helplessness, dependence, and inferiority, as well as an attitude of “living for the present. ” Once this subculture has been formed, poverty is perpetuated and these characteristics are transferred to future generations through socialization. One criticism of the culture of poverty theory calls attention to the fact that it is not applicable in every cultural and societal context.
Lewis attempted to distinguish between the culture of poverty and poverty itself. He argued that there are many different kinds of poor people who experience many different degrees of poverty. However, the culture of poverty was used in reference to the way of life that stems from the poor’s social isolation. Lewis gave 4 historical examples of different societies to further illustrate this distinction: hunter-gatherer tribes, the Indian caste system, Eastern European Jews, and Cuba under Castro.
Though all of these examples experienced severe poverty, he found that they did not exhibit any of the traits associated with the culture of poverty thesis. According to Lewis, the culture of poverty did not exist within primitive and caste societies. Further, it tended to decline in fascist, socialist, and highly developed capitalist societies. Essentially, Lewis associated the rise of the culture of poverty with countries in the early stages of industrialization, capitalism and colonialism.
Another criticism of the culture of poverty concept arises from those who claim that their studies do not provide evidence to support it. Lewis inspired a flood of research around the world, and his hypotheses were tested empirically. The various studies reached a range of conclusions, yet many agreed that the culture of poverty does not exist, as there are just as many differences in values and behaviours among the poor as there are between the rich and the poor. Some interpret the culture of poverty as being constructed from a collection of stereotypes that have evolved into mainstream thinking.
They claim that there is no evidence that indicates that the deprivations of racial minorities, delinquents, and the poor are a result of constraints imposed upon them by culture. Finally, the culture of poverty theory is directly opposed by the situational theory, which locates the genesis of poverty in economic and social structures of society rather than in the value orientations of individuals or groups. Lewis and Miller argue that the culture of poverty expresses certain attitudes in reaction to a lack of opportunity and low income.
They maintain that if these causes were eliminated, the culture of poverty would be eradicated. The situationalist explanation of poverty asserts that the poor share the same values and beliefs as the rest of society, but their behaviour results from them realizing these standards and the feelings of hopelessness that follow from being unable to achieve those ideals. The culture of poverty thesis suggests that being in poverty is learned, and children are socialized by a passed-down set of beliefs and values that perpetuate their impoverishment.
Is this concept just another example of blaming the victims of poverty for their plight? Are we, in effect, seeing the results of a learned and transmitted set of beliefs, or the results of economic hardships and gross structural inequalities? The ideas of adapting to long-term deprivation can certainly help to better understand the behaviours of people living in poverty. However, the issue of poverty still requires more understanding and explanation. Due to the fact that there is evidence existing in support of both the culture of poverty theory and the situational theory, it is difficult to analyze the issue.
Thus, a consensus definition of poverty is required, as well as an awareness of the various cultural and societal contexts in which poverty persists. Works Cited “Poverty. ” Revision Notes – Free Study, Revision and Course Notes for students. 20 Feb. 2009 http://www. revision-notes. co. uk/revision/623. html. “Smart Library. ” Distinguishing Between Poverty and the Culture of Poverty. 20 Feb. 2009http://www. poverty. smartlibrary. org/NewInterface/segment. cfm? segment=1565.