Nowadays, we see that many people are more inclined to accept some ideas as true and anyone opposing to this idea is considered an outsider person in the society, even if this person is right about his opposition. Generalizing this idea give us that an idea might wrong, however, if it is anonymous, it will be treated as true in society. Thomas tries to give an explanation for this by stating that “ the relevant audience might be unwilling to draw the conclusions which emerge in the course of the inquiry: either because they are in the grip of some religious or ideological dogma, or because they are overly reluctant to deviate from common sense or the views held by their peers, or because they think that it would be morally objectionable to believe certain things, or for some other such reason” (5). Subsequently, it is possible that some information or some ideas accepted by society as true might be wrong; and that raises a suspicion about the general acceptance of the public. How can we decide that the beliefs accepted by the society are true?
A Strong Belief on Poverty
There is a strong belief about poverty among many people all around the world: A person is poor because of his personal traits such as education level, laziness, working attitudes, personal preferences for life style and other similar ones or some countries are less developed because of their cultural and social backgrounds. These two claims are parallel to each other; the first one is at micro level and the second one is at macro level. Analyzing one of them can provide us some similar implications for the other one also. The first sentence basically tells us that some people, instead of developing themselves, prefer being lazy, staying inactive. Instead of working productively and surviving, they prefer staying inactive and receive some resources from other people. This strong belief in many societies omits a few points: 1) Any person does not want to be a poor, 2) No one can decide where to be born, 3) People can always develop themselves if necessary conditions are provided, and 4) Most of the people wants to develop them. The general belief about poverty is a kind of discrimination also. A study by the World Bank explains how a small group in society is discriminated by stating “the risk of violent conflict is somewhat higher if the society has one ethnic group in a majority, facing minority groups, but even this effect is quite small relative to other risk factors such as poverty” (129). That shows us that some people in the community are assumed to be having very low productivity and they can be blamed for this. This belief is approved by many people and it has become an anonymous. Bertrand explains this situation with a sentence in his paper by saying “nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion” (2). In this case some social beliefs on poverty are not questioned because the society has many sayings blaming some people to be poor because of their personal traits.
I would like to give a dramatic example on the poverty belief: almost all of the countries on the world has some beggars, even the most developed countries such as U.S., U.K., Russia, etc.. Most of the citizens in these countries treat these beggars as useless people who do an unfruitful job in the economy. This idea is generalized to all the poor people all around the world, from the gypsies to the people in the African countries. People assume that all the poor people has an unethical attitude and instead of working they use other people’s resource; and begging is an example of this. Even though poor people do not beg, they find a way to survive on the resources they do not produce. They consume without producing, and also it is almost impossible to transform them into productive individuals according to many people. We can find many articles trying to explain why the less developed countries fail to improve due to these countries social structure. In another word, some countries do not have a social structure to develop themselves, and even providing knowledge and other resources to these countries will not helo development and they will stay less developed. Even we can say that this idea is spread to countries aid policies. The millennium goals are expressed in 2000 and it was said that the developed countries will help the least developed countries by a certain amount of their GDP, and Chakravarti reminds us the millennium goals and underlines the necessity for a global cooperation by stating “ the last century drew to a close, the global community working together at several United Nations conferences evolved a number of goals with respect to reducing poverty and human deprivation around the world” (2), however, none of them kept their promises so far. The background of the developed countries’ aid policy for the less developed countries tells us that they do not expect these less developed countries can find a way to progress. All these prove that most of the people assume that poor people are getting what they deserve and being poor is their own fault.
Bertrand gives an example of unemployment case in 1920s given in his article (1928), parties have created different approaches to unemployment which caused confusion for people. Each approach stated another dimension for the causes of unemployment. However, finding a solution to unemployment could not be possible. In poverty, a similar story can be observed. There many theories trying to explain poverty under different conditions, but we still have a problem, furthermore we observe that wrong policies implemented by the governments.
Opposition to Poverty due to Personal Traits
Are really poor people preferring poverty and not working? or can less developed countries create a progress? If those are true hypothesis, then we can say that there is no way to help poor or less developed countries, because they enjoy being poor or less developed. It might be true for a small number of people who prefer more spiritual lives; however, we cannot say this hypothesis is true for all poor. There are obvious evidences for this; 1) No babe has a chance to pick where to come to this world, he might be lucky or unlucky, 2) When you are kid, mostly your parents decides for you, 3) Some people are more lucky respectively, they can get a better education and opportunities to survive, however, some people cannot get those even if they desire them, 4) Poor people also try to survive, unfortunately mostly it is relatively difficult for them to get education, job, a nice environment to develop themselves, and mostly they are forced to stay out of society (a discrimination applied to them; consider gypsies or Africans in Europe or other developed countries). 5) When a poor cannot manage to survive in legal ways, he prefers illegal ways, and drugging, kidnapping, stealing, other kind of illegal actions might be opportunities to survive for them. They commit these crimes even though they know they will be arrested and stay in a jail for the most of their lives. Ramathan give an example of illegality on housing by stating in his paper “ squatter settlements, where the urban poor find shelter and housing, are not invested with legality” (137). This illegality also creates another barrier for them to adapt themselves into community, and subsequently they start living apart from the society. (Here I do not assume that all the criminals are like that.)
Consequently, many studies on the subject of poverty state that the main reason for poverty is structural. Rank defines this situation as follows: “ poverty has been conceptualized primarily as a consequence of individual failings and deficiencies. Indeed, social surveys asking about the causes of poverty have consistently found that Americans tend to rank individual reasons (such as laziness, lack of effort, and low ability) as the most important factors related to poverty, while structural reasons such as unemployment or discrimination are viewed as significantly less important” (5). Cultural, economical and political structures lead some people into the poverty trap and they lose their abilities to provide a sustainable survival. Barriers occurred in front of them to develop themselves and they become kind of blind to find the ways to get out of the poverty trap. They need more education, communication with the society, self confidence to show off their abilities and get a job. However, they barely survive or they live on aids from other people or the governments and it is really difficult to imagine and create new opportunities for themselves. As a result of this poverty trap mechanism, they stay poor and their offspring also becomes poor.
We hear many dramatic stories that some people move to more developed countries and they find ways to develop themselves, or a sudden dramatic change in their minds help them out of the poverty trap. These examples tell us that if a poor can find a proper environment and imagine that he can be better off, then his life changes and he can develop himself.
How to Fight and Reduce Poverty
Poverty is a psychological and a sociological problem as well as it is an economical problem. Chakravarti suggests a consumer psychology approach and he explains this in his paper by suggesting “ consumer psychology research can contribute an understanding of the cognitive, motivational and socio-cultural dimensions of poverty and how it depletes and alters the human need and capacity to consume” (3). Poverty is a psychological, a sociological and an economical phenomenon. While fighting against it, a policy maker should take all these dimensions of poverty into consideration. If the policy maker neglects one dimension, then his policies of reducing poverty does not work. One of the most essential examples is the direct cash aids to poor. If any aid is not creating a social environmental change and creates opportunities for poor to develop him, then we observe the failure of this aid application. Giving money to poor only helps him to get some food etc., further than this; it does not help him to get a constant job and a better life.
Psychological barriers are the hardest ones for poor to cope with. All the people try to be a strong person in the community. Considering the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, all the people has some needs and following this hierarchy, they want to be a creative, productive, and logical individuals in the society.
If an individual fails to develop himself and tries many times again and again, then he becomes bored of trying and gives up trying. Convincing this person that there are other ways for him to develop himself becomes truly tough. Poverty reduction policies should provide assistance to these kinds of people and make them believe in personal development again (Sen, 2).
Sociological barriers are also difficult to solve. Many societies have lost their beliefs in poor and many people assume that poor people cannot have some personal characteristics that might help them to be productive. Also many people assume that poor people are burden on the society. The governments spend some resources for poor people, and poor people spend more than they produce. Considering more capitalistic countries, poor people are discriminated and kept away from the labor markets, better education opportunities, and even sometimes from health services. People have strong assumptions for this discrimination. If a person or a group does not contribute enough to the system, there is no right given to him. Sen gives an example of this in his book by stating “ poverty in Britain was typically attributed to economic change and fluctuations, Irish poverty was widely viewed in England as being caused by laziness, indifference and ineptitude, so that "Britain’s mission" was not seen as one "to alleviate Irish distress but to civilize her people and to lead them to feel and act like human beings” (5).
One of the most astonishing examples is the gypsies. Almost all of the countries have a gypsy population. Considering their social status, it is assumed that these people refuse to be a part of the system and they do not have the ethical principles that it is almost impossible to adapt them to the system. Even some parents rejects that their kids get education with the gypsy kids which is completely against the human rights. Most of the people claim they respect the human rights; however, they can discriminate against the gypsy people and other groups similar to the gypsy people.
A similar idea can be found in Bertrand. He gives the example of nationalism, and he states that: “When people are challenged as to why skepticism in such matters should be wicked, the only answer is that myths help to win wars, so that a rational nation would be killed rather than kill” (4). This sentence explains us that people cannot be rational. In the case of Gypsies, we all know, discriminating them is wrong and we should develop a new culture to accept them how they are, however this rational way does not work, instead, we still have a kind of hidden belief that we should separate them from the society.
Economical problems are actually results of the poverty trap mechanisms. Psychologically weak, sociologically discriminated poor people have many economical problems. First of all an information asymmetry exists for them. Because, mostly, they cannot get enough education and they have been kept away from the society, they do not have the information of reaching the labor markets. They are not aware of opportunities for them. They are mostly forwarded to the aid mechanisms which help them temporarily.
The Result
Assuming that poverty occurs because of personal traits or less developed countries cannot develop themselves because of their social structure or their cultures are not a true hypothesis. Many scientists have published many rhetorical studies proving this, but many people in their lives still have this wrong hypothesis. When a brave person speaks out for this wrong hypothesis, the people calls him Robin Hood or similar names are given to him. People actually feel responsible for poverty consciously, and to be able to feel better they give some resources to charities, however, in general, they still do not believe that poverty is a structural problem that created by the principles accepted by the community. These principles are not written anywhere; however, we know that they work.
Bertrand Russell’s skepticism idea gives us important clues to understand how our societies have created a meaning of poverty and poor people. We, human beings, have created some beliefs for poverty and without considering it rationally; our beliefs lead us to wrong policies. Any opposition to these set of strong beliefs are rejected or are not reflected to the poverty reduction policies mostly, and when we fail to creates an awareness of the real reasons behind the poverty, we fail to create efficient policies because even the politician creates right policies, they will not be supported by the public (Lawrence, 296).
References
Anonymous, (2002). Globalism, Growth and Poverty. World Bank Policy Research Paper, Copublication of World Bank and Oxford Press.
Chakravarti, Dipankar, (2006). Voices Unheard: The Psychology of Consumption in Poverty and Development. Journal of Consumer Psychology 16 (4).
Harrison, Lawrence E., (2000). Promoting Progressive Cultural Change in Harrison, Lawrence E.; Huntington, Samuel P., Culture Matters, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kelly, Thomas, (n.d.). Following The Argument Where It Leads. Working Paper, Princeton University.
Ramathan, Usha. (2006). Illegality and the Urban Poor. Economic and Political Weekly.
Rank, Mark R.; Yoon, Hong-Sik; Hirschl, Thomas A., (2003). American Poverty as a Structural Failing: Evidence and Arguments, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 30 (4).
Russell, Bertrand. (1928). On the Value of Skepticis. The Will to Dooubt, Historical Writings of Bertrand Russell, http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/On%20the%20Value%20of%20Scepticism%20-%20Bertrand%20Russell.pdf.
Sen, Amartya, (2004). How Does Culture Matter? in Rao, Michael; Walton, Culture and Public Action, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
