The “Culture of Poverty”: Different Definitions and Perceptions

Introduction:

This blog is inspired by Paul Ryan's view on poverty and culture.  I was interested in exploring other definitions and perceptions about the "culture of poverty."  This are a few alternative views that I have pulled from numerous books on poverty. 



Paul Ryan on Poverty and Culture:

“We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

Poverty: American Style by Herman Miller (1966)

Miller viewed the “culture of poverty” as a vicious cycle.  He states that “Poverty breeds poverty.  A poor individual or family has a high probability of staying poor.  Low incomes carry with them high risks of illness; limitations of mobility; limited access to education, information, and training.  Poor parents cannot give their children opportunities for better health and education needed to improve their lot.  Lack of motivation, hope, and incentive is a more subtle but no less powerful barrier than lack of financial means.”

 

Poverty: People Are Poor Through Their Own Behavior and Bad Choices by Blake Bailey (2003); Pg. 116

Bailey’s viewpoint on the “culture of poverty” is focusing the idea that people are poor because of their behaviors and bad life choices.  She sates “Among those who finish high school, get married, have children only within a marriage and go to work, the odds of long-term poverty are virtually nil.”

 

Poverty by Ruth Lister (2004); Pg. 106

In talking about interventions of social workers and other professionals to support and control “problem families,” she quotes American anthropologist Oscar Lewis’ definition of “culture of poverty (1967):”  He defined “culture of poverty” as a subculture with its own structure and rationale, as a way of life which is passed down from generation to generation along family lines.  He also says that this subculture was driven by a set of values, attitudes and beliefs different from those held by the majority.  Lewis emphasized that the culture’s “considerable pathology should not obscure its function as “an adaption and a reaction to the poor to their marginal position” in unequal capitalist societies.  He wrote of poor families’ “fortitude, vitality, resilience, and ability to cope with problems which would paralyze many middle-class individuals.”

 

American Experience: Poverty in American by Catherine Reef (2007); Pg. 195

In her chapter titled, The War on Poverty and Its Aftermath 1962-1980, she writes about the “culture of poverty.”  She writes “The culture of poverty seemed to flourish wherever conditions were right for it, in regions separated geographically from mainstream society, in urban slums and rural pockets, and among different nationalities.  The conditions for a “culture of poverty” included an economy in which people worked for wages and goods were produced for profit; chronically high unemployment or underemployment among unskilled laborers; low wages; a lack of social, political, and economic organization in the low-income population; and a prevailing belief that poverty result from personal shortcomings… Members of this subculture were likely to have low levels of literacy and education and to live in substandard housing, in crowded conditions, and in communities that lacked organization.”

 

The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist edited by Ann Lin and David Harris (2008); Pgs. 79-90

Lin and Harris In their subsection titled, Culture and Poverty Today, discuss 6 ways that culture has been conceived/examined:

1.        Culture as Frames:

a.        Sociologists traditionally assume that no one simply see things as they are.  Instead, every individuals’ perception of the social world - of social relations, the class system, the neighborhood, organizations - is filtered through cultural frames that highlight certain aspects and hide or block others. 

2.        Culture as Repertoires:

a.        Scholars conceived culture as a repertoire of practices, beliefs, and attitudes that individuals call fourth at the time of action.  “Culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented but by shaping a repertoire or ‘tool kit’ lf habits, skills, and styles from which people construct ‘strategies of action.’”

3.        Culture as Narratives:

a.        Narrative in this instance refers to people’s development of understanding of themselves, their environment, and others that shape their actions.  This approach speculates that when faced with two courses of action concerning, for instance, their project of social mobility, individuals are more likely to pursue one more consistent with their personal narrative, rather than one that might seem rational to an outsider.

4.        Culture as Symbolic Boundaries:

a.        Symbolic boundaries are conceptual boundaries between objects, people, and practices that operate as a system of rules that guide interacting affecting who comes together to engage in what social act.  Boundaries distinguish between who are worthy and those who are less so forth.  These boundaries are believed to reveal how individuals implicitly and explicitly characterize members of various classes, and particularly what they view as the characteristics and flaws of groups, including the poor.   

5.        Culture as Cultural Capital:

a.        Cultural capital refers to the “institutionalized, widely shared, high status cultural signals” used to exclude others in various contexts.  This concept has become widely used as an analytical device to understand how differences in lifestyles and taste contribute to the reproduction of inequality.  It illuminates how middle and upper-middle class adults pass on advantages to their children, mostly familiarizing them with cultural habits and orientations valued by the educational systems.  One question raised is whether or not various types of capital operate in different environments, and whether women, ethnic groups, the poor, or the working class have autonomous understandings of what counts are cultural capital.   

6.        Culture as Institution:

a.        Institutions can be loosely defined as formal or informal rules, procedures, routines, and norms, as socially constructed shared cognitive and interpretive schemas, or more narrowly yet, as formal organizations.  In all of the definitions, they enable or constrain shared definitions and experiences of race, class, gender, which in turn affect poverty.