CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS OF POVERTY

Authors Avatar

Critically examine cultural                                                                                   By Ester Moreira

explanations of poverty

CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS OF POVERTY

In order to analyse the different cultural explanations of poverty, first we have to understand what poverty is. It can be defined by an absolute or relative definition. In an absolute definition, poverty is the complete lack of essential means to survive, such as food, shelter and clothing. However, in a relative definition, poverty means:

“… the lack of resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which the individual belongs” (Townsend, 1979, “Poverty in the United Kingdom”, cited in Stephens, 1998, p. 259). 

Such broad definitions lead to several explanations of poverty. Some are cultural (where the culture or the individual is to blame), others are structural (the blame is on the society, its structures). This essay will only focus on the cultural explanations of poverty, by analysing the culture of poverty, the culture of dependency and the cycle of deprivation.

The culture of poverty is one of the cultural explanations and had its origins in the work of the American anthropologist Oscar Lewis, who studied poor communities in Mexico and Puerto Rico in the 1950s and 1960s (Taylor, 1995, p.182). He argues that in poor societies (Third World) the poor have different culture with values, norms and attitudes that are different from the mainstream culture. This culture is represented by attitudes of resignation and fatalism that makes the poor accept their situation instead of improving it. In this culture the poor is only concerned with the present, not the future. This “fatalism” prevents them to seek help, because they feel hopeless and marginalised. People don’t get involved in the community; they don’t belong to trade unions or other associations. For the majority of them, family is the only institution in which they directly participate (Haralambos, 2000, p. 320). In Lewis point of view, this culture is a way of life which is passed on from generation to generation, perpetuating poverty.  Usually, children born into this culture tend to follow the footsteps of their parents and will stay in poverty. They will not take advantages of good opportunities such as education which could help them to break this cycle.

Join now!

“As part of an unskilled labour force, the children studied by Lewis suffered from unemployment, under-employment and low wages, which meant a shortage of cash, little food, and over crowded, impoverished, living areas.” (Stephens, 1998, p. 289).

However, there are some criticisms to this explanation. William Magin’s (1968) research in the poorest areas of Peru – the “barriadas” (communities) showed that the “barriadas” had a high level of participation in community politics, they organise their own schools, clinics and transportation (Haralambos, 2000, p. 320), which is the opposite of what Lewis described in Mexico and Puerto Rico. Also, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay