Culture of Poverty free essay sample

The belief that poverty stems from individual deficiencies is old. Religious doctrine that equated wealth with the favor of God was central to the Protestant reformation (Weber 2001) and blind, crippled, or deformed people were believed to be punished by God for either their or their parents’ sins. With the emergence of the concept of inherited intelligence in the 19th century, the eugenics movement went so far as to rationalize poverty and even sterilization for those who appeared to have limited abilities. Books like Hurrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994) are modern uses of this explanation. Rainwater (1970:16) critically discusses individualistic theories of poverty as a â€Å"moralizing perspective† and notes that the poor are â€Å"afflicted with the mark of Cain. They are meant to suffer, indeed must suffer, because of their moral failings. They live in a deserved hell on earth. † Rainwater goes on to say that it is difficult to overestimate the extent to which this perspective (incorrectly) under-girds our visions of poverty, including the perspective of the disinherited themselves. Ironically, neo-classical economics reinforces individualistic sources of poverty. The core premise of this dominant paradigm for the study of the conditions leading to poverty is that individuals seek to maximize their own well being by making choices and investments, and that (assuming that they have perfect information) they seek to maximize their well being. When some people choose short term and low-payoff returns, economic theory holds the individual largely responsible for their individual choicesfor example to forego college education or other training that will lead to better paying jobs in the future. The economic theory that the poor lack incentives for improving their own conditions is a recurrent theme in articles that blame the welfare system’s generosity on the perpetuation of poverty. In a Cato Journal article, economists Gwartney and McCaleb argue that the years of the war on poverty actually increased poverty (adjusted for noncash transfers) among working age adults in spite of unprecedented increases in welfare expenditures. They conclude that â€Å"the application of simple economic theory† suggests that the problem lies in the war on poverty programs: They [welfare programs] have introduced a perverse incentive structure, one that penalizes self-improvement and protects individuals against the consequences of their own bad choices. (1985: 7) This and similar arguments that cast the poor as a â€Å"moral hazard† also hold that â€Å"the problem of poverty continues to fester not because we are failing to do enough, but because we are doing too much that is counterproductive† (Gwartney and McCaleb 1985:15). Their economic model would solve poverty by assuring that the penalty of poverty was great enough that none would choose it (and welfare would be restricted to the truly disabled or otherwise unable to work). A less widely critiqued version of the individualistic theory of poverty comes from American values of individualism—the Horatio Alger myth that any individual can succeed by skills and hard work, and that motivation and persistence are all that are required to achieve success (see Asen, 2002:29-34). Self-help literature reinforces the belief that individuals fail because they do not try hard enough. Frank Bettger (1977:187-8), in the Dale Carnegie tradition, tells how he got a list of self-improvement goals on which to focus and became one of the most successful and highly paid salesmen in America. He goes on to say that anyone can succeed by an easy formulafocused goals and hard work. This is the message of hundreds of self-help books, articles, and sermons. By extension, this literature implies that those who do not succeed must face the fact that they themselves are responsible for their failure. While scientifically it is routine to dismiss the individual deficiency theory as an apology for social inequality (Fischer, et al, 1996) , it is easy to see how it is embraced in anti-poverty policy which suggests that penalties and incentives can change behavior. 2. Poverty Caused by Cultural Belief Systems that Support Sub-Cultures of Poverty The second theory of poverty roots its cause in the â€Å"Culture of Poverty†. This theory is sometimes linked with the individual theory of poverty or other theories to be introduced below, but it recently has become so widely discussed that its special features should not be minimized. This theory suggests that poverty is created by the transmission over generations of a set of beliefs, values, and skills that are socially generated but individually held. Individuals are not necessarily to blame because they are victims of their dysfunctional subculture or culture. American Sociology has long been fascinated by subcultures of immigrants and ghetto residents as well as the wealthy and powerful. Culture is socially generated and perpetuated, reflecting the interaction of individual and community. This makes the â€Å"culture of poverty† theory different from the â€Å"individual† theories that link poverty explicitly to individual abilities and motivation. Technically, the culture of poverty is a subculture of poor people in ghettos, poor regions, or social contexts where they develop a shared set of beliefs, values and norms for behavior that are separate from but embedded in the culture of the main society. Oscar Lewis was one of the main writers to define the culture of poverty as a set of beliefs and values passed from generation to generation. He writes, Once the culture of poverty has come into existence it tends to perpetuate itself. By the time slum children are six or seven they have usually absorbed the basic attitudes and values of their subculture. Thereafter they are psychologically unready to take full advantage of changing conditions or improving opportunities that may develop in their lifetime. ( Scientific American, October 1966 quoted in Ryan, 1976: 120) 8 Cultures are socialized and learned, and one of the tenants of learning theory is that rewards follow to those who learn what is intended. The culture of poverty theory explains how government antipoverty programs reward people who manipulate the policy and stay on welfare. The underlying argument of conservatives such as Charles Murray in Loosing Ground (1984) is that government welfare perpetuated poverty by permitting a cycle of â€Å"welfare dependency† where poor families develop and pass on to others the skills needed to work the system rather than to gain paying employment. The net result of this theory of poverty is summed by Asen’s (2002: 48) perceptive phrase, â€Å"From the war on poverty to the war on welfare. This theory of poverty based on perpetuation of cultural values has been fraught with controversy. No one disputes that poor people have subcultures or that the subcultures of the poor are distinctive and perhaps detrimental. The concern is over what causes and constitutes the subculture of poverty. Daniel Patrick Moynihan found the concept particularly applicable to his study of Black p overty in the early 1960s and linked Black poverty to the largely â€Å"dysfunctional† Black family found in central cities. Valentine (1968:20) criticizes E. Franklin Frazier, who with Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1965), portrayed the culture of the negro poor as an â€Å"immoral chaos brought about by the disintegration of the black folk culture under the impact of urbanization†. In other sub-cultural situations the cultural portrayal of the poor is more sympathetic. For example, many liberal scholars understand the cultural problems that Native Americans face trying to assimilate middle class value systems.