The "culture of poverty" myth returns

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A homeless person sits on the sidewalk on skid row in downtown Los Angeles

By Alyssa Battistoni

The New York Times caused a stir earlier this week with its assertion that the "culture of poverty" theory of urban decline is back in vogue. But the real news isn't that it's coming back -- it's that it ever went away in the first place.

The theory may have been formally rejected by academic sociologists for a time, but the culture of poverty has remained a staple of the political discourse since its emergence in the 1960s. To be fair, the variation described in the Times isn't your mother's culture of poverty -- there's less focus on Reagan's mythological welfare queens and more on structural forces -- but still, the idea that there's some set of "attitudes and behavior patterns that keep people poor" persists. And it's a shame -- not because we shouldn't talk about the interplay of class and culture, but because the culture of poverty framework limits our ability to do it.

From Victorian-era almhouses that sought to teach the poor morality through hard work to the stigmatization of immigrants and tenement life to the temperance movement that saw alcohol as the root cause of growing urban poverty, America has long been fixated on identifying and reforming the supposed moral failings of its poor. But the "culture of poverty" refers to a very specific type: namely, black inner-city poverty and the "ghetto culture" associated with it.

The term itself emerged in the 1960s along with a burst of literature seeking to explain the increase in black urban poverty. Though many factors played a role -- including the migration of blacks from the rural South to Northern cities, "white flight" to the suburbs upon the arrival of blacks in urban areas, and misguided attempts at urban renewal via housing projects—cultural explanations got the attention, the most famous of which was Daniel Patrick Moynihan's report on the breakdown of the black family. Despite a backlash among liberal scholars, cultural explanations for poverty only grew more prevalent in the 1980s, as books like "Losing Ground" portrayed inner cities as wastelands populated by scheming drug dealers and slothful single mothers. The rhetoric was toned down in the debates over welfare reform in the '90s, but the idea that the poor were lazy and needed to be made to work remained steadfast.

It seems we can't say it enough: poverty is first and foremost a result of structural forces, from economic growth and job opportunities to segregation and discrimination. Structural poverty can shape cultural responses in ways that perpetuate poverty, but the relationship is much more complicated than the "culture of poverty" thesis implies. Rather than being self-destructive, many patterns of behavior among the poor can be seen as coping strategies that make sense given their circumstances. As Ta-Nehisi Coates notes:

It defies logic to think that any group, in a generationally entrenched position, would not develop codes and mores for how to survive in that position…the problem is that rarely do such critiques ask why anyone would embrace such values. Moreover, they tend to assume that there's something uniquely "black" about those values, and their embrace.

Indeed, poverty has come to be nearly synonymous with people of color, even though about half of those under the poverty line are white. Yet we should question whether this obsession with black inner-city poverty makes sense now, if it ever did: in 2008, the number of suburban poor surpassed the number of urban poor, but hand-wringing about the depravity of suburban lifestyles failed to commence.

In fact, poverty rose over the course of the Bush administration -- somewhat surprising, considering the overall economic growth in those years -- but few claimed that conservative cultural values were to blame. Likewise, it's rare to hear people decry higher rates of religiousness among the poor as responsible for so-called "pathological" behavior, and few have invoked culture to explain for the recent spike in the poverty rate. Instead, we note that globalization has decimated the number of well-paying blue collar jobs and that the areas of greatest job growth -- healthcare, the service sector -- pay low wages.

Furthermore, some of what we think of as part of the "culture of poverty" is simply the result of an extraordinarily slim margin for error. Most people make poor choices or indulge in so-called self-destructive behavior on occasion, but some people can afford to make mistakes and others can't. We don't like to admit that things like race, class, and gender can impact how our actions are perceived, but we heap scorn on conspicuous consumption among the poor even though national consumption patterns reveal that short-sighted financial decisions are by no means limited to lower tax brackets, and we denigrate the "culture of dependency" that supposedly exists in poor neighborhoods without paying nearly the same attention to dependency among, say, farmers receiving government subsidies.

Culture is generally difficult to talk about: it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we often conflate structural forces with values. If parents aren't reading to their children at a young age, for example, is it because they don't value education or because they never learned to read well themselves? When an estimated 15% of the population is functionally illiterate, and around 30% of functionally illiterate adults are poor, does a lack of books in the household still count as a cultural factor?

Unfortunately, though, issues get more attention when they're defined in cultural rather than structural terms. In their defense, the sociologists cited in the Times article are clearly hoping to redefine the conversation around culture and poverty, but the nuances of their new approach don't seem to have made it into the broader discussion. Conservatives are already seizing upon the opportunity to crow about the triumph of so-called family values, with Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute claiming a victory for the conservative obsession with marriage and the Heritage Foundation proclaiming that "the collapse of marriage is the root cause of child poverty in the U.S. today."

In the end, we have to question whether we can really have a productive conversation about sustained poverty within a framework that's so prone to distortion and demagoguing. Instead of "bringing back" loaded terms and concepts, we should be working to define a new approach that combines cultural and structural forces rather than separating them.

link

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Salon is showing its ignorance again I see.

Do people want to live in poverty? No, not necessarily. That much is true.

However, just like anyone else in our species, it becomes 'easy' to stick with the 'status quo' because that's what you know. That's what ultimtely makes you feel safe. When you are babysat all your life and then you're thrown out into the wild all on your own, then yeah you're going to be timid and scared and want to crawl back into the hole in which you came out of. It takes a strong individual to lift themselves up out of such a thing. This is just like those people who have talent, yet sit in a dead end job all their life. It becomes 'comfortable' and what they know, eventhough it'd be easy for them to go out and find something better that they are talented enough to do.

Of course, if we want to make this about race, give me a break. There are far many more 'white' poor people than there are poor black people. There are more middle class black families than there are poor black families, Sure if you go by "race/percentage" then it looks like more, but by sheer numbers whites still dominate those who are poor.

[thelastpetitioner 218]

i think another part of it that the article fails to mention is that people WANT people of color and immigrants to be the ones rolling in poverty.case in point the amount of opportunities that there are available in " ghetto " so to speak.its like people have locked up other people who came from a not so wealthy world in a place they call ghetto or projects and feel threatened by them.they are not offered the same opportunities by the government regardless of the social class,therefor i think the whole point that culture of poverty tried to make is invalid

[chri'stina 190]

I agree with this:

poverty is first and foremost a result of structural forces, from economic growth and job opportunities to segregation and discrimination. Structural poverty can shape cultural responses in ways that perpetuate poverty, but the relationship is much more complicated than the "culture of poverty" thesis implies.

And yes it's more complicated than color of skin or race or some ingrained culture. But it also can't be ignored that when people live in a certain way for a long period of time, it becomes a way of life. You don't have to look in a ghetto to see this. It's everywhere. From rich people in neighborhoods that have their own way of doing things to the way things are done in the ghetto. Not everyone will be the same but there will be similarities. And to change the way of doing things they have to experience something outside their own little worlds. I have friends who had so much potential but settled for just getting by. I worry for them. They didn't have anything holding them down, they had opportunities. They didn't take them. Some people just do not think outside their own box. That's reality.

i think another part of it that the article fails to mention is that people WANT people of color and immigrants to be the ones rolling in poverty.case in point the amount of opportunities that there are available in " ghetto " so to speak.its like people have locked up other people who came from a not so wealthy world in a place they call ghetto or projects and feel threatened by them.they are not offered the same opportunities by the government regardless of the social class,therefor i think the whole point that culture of poverty tried to make is invalid

Which people want that? I agree maybe some do, but only weirdos would WANT people to be rolling in poverty.

And this idea about immigrants doesn't make sense when you apply it to immigrants who have done well for themselves.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I agree with this:

poverty is first and foremost a result of structural forces, from economic growth and job opportunities to segregation and discrimination. Structural poverty can shape cultural responses in ways that perpetuate poverty, but the relationship is much more complicated than the "culture of poverty" thesis implies.

And yes it's more complicated than color of skin or race or some ingrained culture. But it also can't be ignored that when people live in a certain way for a long period of time, it becomes a way of life. You don't have to look in a ghetto to see this. It's everywhere. From rich people in neighborhoods that have their own way of doing things to the way things are done in the ghetto. Not everyone will be the same but there will be similarities. And to change the way of doing things they have to experience something outside their own little worlds. I have friends who had so much potential but settled for just getting by. I worry for them. They didn't have anything holding them down, they had opportunities. They didn't take them. Some people just do not think outside their own box. That's reality.

Which people want that? I agree maybe some do, but only weirdos would WANT people to be rolling in poverty.

And this idea about immigrants doesn't make sense when you apply it to immigrants who have done well for themselves.

Any politician who promotes increased welfare benefits, pushes more 'per child' welfare, pushes more and more 'social' expenditures.

[chri'stina 190]

Any politician who promotes increased welfare benefits, pushes more 'per child' welfare, pushes more and more 'social' expenditures.

Well of course you will think that while the other side will think the evil conservatives want people poor. The evil socialists vs the evil conservatives.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well of course you will think that while the other side will think the evil conservatives want people poor. The evil socialists vs the evil conservatives.

Well, in my experiences Democrats have always fought for more benefits without wanting to fix the problems and the Republicans have wanted to put time limits on the benefits, BUT offer job training programs to get people working....

[thelastpetitioner 218]

Which people want that? I agree maybe some do, but only weirdos would WANT people to be rolling in poverty.

with an economy as screwed as the one we are dealing with all over world,getting job is like a marathon,its highly competitive.i admit tho,there are a lot of immigrants who have managed to break what tends to be " the norm " and do quite well,not for just an immigrant,but for an active human being,however,because things as far as jobs and benefits go are so competitive at this point,i think people feel threatened easily.

at least thats how i look at it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The old issue of whether people that want to succeed have that opportunity. I believe that if there's any place on earth where you drive your own success - perhaps with some limitations - that place is right here in the the good old USA.

Is it more difficult for some to get their foot in the door and to climb the ladder? Sure. But if you don't try or give up because you feel (or even know) that you are facing obstacles that others don't face, then that's on you.

[alienlovechild 75]

i think another part of it that the article fails to mention is that people WANT people of color and immigrants to be the ones rolling in poverty.case in point the amount of opportunities that there are available in " ghetto " so to speak.its like people have locked up other people who came from a not so wealthy world in a place they call ghetto or projects and feel threatened by them.they are not offered the same opportunities by the government regardless of the social class,therefor i think the whole point that culture of poverty tried to make is invalid

Most people don't want see more poor people of any color as they are a drain on society nad blight on local communities. Of course most businesses don't want to be located in a ghetto so the answer is for the poor folks to move to where the better job opportunities are. There are poor people who want to better themselves and their families but many others give up early by dropping out of free public schools and refuse to work for chump change when entering the job market.

[thelastpetitioner 218]

Most people don't want see more poor people of any color as they are a drain on society nad blight on local communities. Of course most businesses don't want to be located in a ghetto so the answer is for the poor folks to move to where the better job opportunities are. There are poor people who want to better themselves and their families but many others give up early by dropping out of free public schools and refuse to work for chump change when entering the job market.

aka where the housing and schooling is more expensive,they wouldnt be poor if they could make enough money to afford that.

im pro any side that insist on making long term commitment to society as much as politically possible,and long term commitment doesnt come with anything but education in many fields and aspects.