“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, Audrey J. Schwartz’s (1975) research in the slum areas – “barrios” – of Caracas, in Venezuela, revealed that people that live in those areas showed little evidence of apathy and resignation, present time orientation and above all, the subculture of the “barrios” did not perpetuate and maintain poverty (Haralambos, 2000, p. 320). Other research of Betty Lou Valentine (1970) suggests that the lifestyle of the poor changes from community to community and within it. Some sociologists such as Muriel Brown and Nicola Madge (1982) reached the same conclusion about poverty in Britain:
“All evidence suggests that cultural values are not important for the development and transmission of deprivation. Generally speaking, people do not necessarily bring up their children as they were brought up… Further, there is nothing to indicate that the deprivations of the poor, racial minorities or delinquents, to cite but three examples, are due to constraints imposed by culture”. (Brown and Madge, 1982, Despite the Welfare State, cited in Haralambos, 2000, p. 321).
Some sociologists say that the weakness of this explanation is that it tends to blame the poor for their own poverty, and implies that if only the poor would change their values, then poverty would disappear (Browne, 1992, p. 73). On the other hand, they suggest that this explanation is convenient for those in power, because it puts the blame of poverty on the poor themselves.
Another cultural explanation for poverty is the culture of dependency, which began with the politics of the Conservative government (1979-97) of Margaret Thatcher and John Major and was associated with the ideas of the New Right. They claimed that the welfare state was the cause of poverty, leading to a culture of dependency on benefits. Due to the increase of taxes, in order to support the bill of benefits, it discourages the efforts of businessmen to start new companies which would create new jobs. Besides, the welfare state undermines the will to work, providing free healthcare and financial support for those who do not want to work (Moore, 2001, p. 144).
David Marsland argues that the welfare “hand-outs” – benefits, encourages people to stay unemployed, discourages self-improvement through education (Haralambos, 2000, p. 318). Marsland believes that benefits should only be awarded to groups/individuals that are really in need, such as the sick and disable, or the people who are unable to help themselves. He is particularly critical of the universal welfare provision
(provision for all members of society regardless of whether they are on low or high income). Examples of this provision in Britain are: free education, free healthcare and child benefit (Haralambos, 2000, p.318).
The dependency in the welfare state has lead to the development of a new social class – the underclass, as the New Right thinkers Charles Murray (1990) and Digby Anderson (1990) suggests. This underclass is classified below the working class and depends on benefits. Murray says that the classical characteristics of the underclass are: family instability, violent crime, drug abuse, dropping out of education and the labour market. He claims that members of the underclass are distinguished by their refusal to look for jobs when they are unemployed, and by the fact that they don’t want to be responsible for their own welfare (Taylor, 1995, p. 182). Market liberal theorists argue that the poor need to take responsibility for their own situation; if the state continues to maintain the poor they will have no incentive to help themselves. This underclass is trapped in this cycle of dependency because they are better off not working due to the benefits that they receive for being unemployed. If they start to work they may loose their benefits and in some cases they may be financially worse-off than they would be if they were claiming benefits – this situation is called poverty trap.
The most relevant criticism to the culture of dependency came from the social democratic thinkers, who support the idea of the welfare state. They reject the argument that dependency is created by the welfare state because, for them, it’s the duty of the state to enable vulnerable and dependent individuals to participate in society in equal terms with other citizens (Taylor, 1995, p. 182). Another criticism is that poverty would increase if welfare state were abolished. The welfare state and the minimum wage help to protect workers from abusive (exploitative) employers. If the welfare state didn’t exist, society would be split between a wealthy minority and a big mass of poor who would have little interest or involvement in society (Moore, 2001, p. 145).
The cycle of deprivation is another cultural explanation for poverty suggested by Coates and Silburn, in a study of St. Ann’s in Nottingham “Poverty: The Forgotten Englishmen” and by Michael Rutter and Nicola Madge, in their study “Cycles of Disadvantage” (1976), and it’s strongly connected with the poverty trap of the dependency culture and with the perpetuation of poverty in the culture of poverty. In this explanation sociologists argue that poverty is cumulative – it means that one aspect of poverty can lead to further poverty. This creates a vicious cycle of poverty from which the poor hardly escape (poverty trap) and it carries on with their children – perpetuating poverty (culture of poverty). (Browne, 1992, p. 73).
Rutter and Madge found that a lot of factors can lead to cycles of disadvantage:
“Children from poor backgrounds were more likely to underachieve at school, become unemployed or end up in unskilled jobs, be convicted of juvenile offences and suffer from certain types of psychiatric disorder…. Some of these disadvantages may be the result of children from low income families being “labelled” as a problem”. (Taylor, 1995, p. 183).
However, Rutter and Madge also point out that half of the children who were born in disadvantaged homes do not repeat the cycle of disadvantage in the next generation. On the other hand, many people who weren’t brought up by disadvantaged parents became disadvantaged in some point of their lives. Another criticism is based on the fact that it only explains why poverty continues but not how it first begins (Browne, 1992, p.73).
In conclusion, for Oscar Lewis the cause of poverty is the different culture that the poor have, because it leaves them without hope for a better future (fatalism and resignation). Others sociologists argue that it’s the dependency on benefits that causes poverty because it discourages people from looking for better alternatives or jobs and keeps the poor dependent on the welfare state. Finally, others suggested that the cycle of deprivation is the cause of poverty because the poverty of parents is passed on to their children (Taylor, 1995, p. 183), creating a cycle of disadvantage. Above all, the different cultural explanations of poverty are all linked and they all blame the poor for their own poverty.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Browne, K., (1992), “An Introduction to Sociology”, Cambridge, Polity Press;
Haralambos, M. and Holborn M., (2000), (5th edn.), “Sociology: Themes and Perspectives”, London, HarperCollins;
Moore, S., et al., (2001), “Sociology for AS-Level”, London, Collins Educational
Stephens, P., et al., (1998), “Think Sociology”, Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes Publishers;
Taylor, P. et al, (1995), “Sociology in Focus”, Lancashire, Causeway Press;