11-12-2013
In the sociological study of the poor, two theories have emerged as to the nature and causes of poverty: The Culture of Poverty and the Situational View of Poverty. (Kerbo, 2003) These two theories have developed in response to the theory of Social Darwinism, which argues that the poor are in that condition because they lack the knowledge or skills to better their situation. (Kerbo, 2003) This theory, tied in with “Blaming the Poor” theories was challenged by two more sympathetic theories of poverty. (Kerbo, 2003)
The Culture of Poverty theory was developed by anthropologist Oscar Lewis. (Kerbo, 2003) Lewis postulated that the question on poverty could best be explained by finding out if the poor are somehow different from others, and if they are, what are the differences and how deep do they run? (Kerbo, 2003) Lewis came to five conclusions regarding these questions. (Kerbo, 2003) First, he argued that the poor face unique problems due to their poverty. (Kerbo, 2003) Second, that the poor cope with these problems in a unique manner. (Kerbo, 2003) His third conclusion was that because of isolation from the non-poor and the unique coping mechanisms utilized by the poor, they developed their own subculture. (Kerbo, 2003) Fourth is that this subculture is self-perpetuating, and finally, because the subculture shapes their personality and behavior, the poor will not be able to act in such a way to become non-poor. (Kerbo, 2003)
Lewis described some of the difference between the poverty sub-culture and mainstream culture. (Kerbo, 2003) He pointed out that people in the poverty subculture do not interact with the larger institutions that the non-poor do, with the noted exception of law enforcement and social welfare programs. (Kerbo, 2003) He also noted the lack of substantial childhood among the poor. (Kerbo, 2003) The young are initiated to adult issues such as sex and finances at an early age. (Kerbo, 2003) The individuals have a tendency to display characteristics such as helplessness, marginalization and inferiority. (Kerbo, 2003) The culture also turns out individuals who tend to be impulsive, and crave instant gratification. They do not plan for future events very well. (Kerbo, 2003)
It is this “present-time” orientation that social scientists point to as a key reason that upward mobility is difficult for the poor. (Kerbo, 2003) The tendency would make it difficult for the poor to participate in things such as job training, or any long-term fix for their condition. (Kerbo, 2003)
This theory has many things to recommend it. It reinforces the stereotypes about the poor without blaming them. (Kerbo, 2003) It also places blame on “society” as a whole and holds a sympathetic view of the poor themselves. (Kerbo, 2003) Despite these advantages, this theory has faced some criticism. (Kerbo, 2003) First, critics point out that the theorist who first formulated the theory, Oscar Lewis, never suggested that it had relevance in the United States. Second, the theory suggests that behavioral differences equal value differences. (Kerbo, 2003) Further, this theory suggests that the poor are a homogenous group, ignoring the working poor. (Kerbo, 2003)Finally the theory does nothing to suggest differing values among the poor, only behaviors, which could be dictated by need, rather than moral values. (Kerbo, 2003)
In contrast to the theory of the Culture of the Poor, the Situational Theory of Poverty was developed. (Kerbo, 2003) This offered a mirror-image of poverty and behavior, arguing that the poor behaved in certain ways because they were poor, rather than being poor because of their behavior. (Kerbo, 2003) This theory suggests that the poor do not reject the main stream values of others, and that differences found do not reflect a deeply held set of moral values. (Kerbo, 2003)
This theory refutes the contention that avoiding long-term gratification is caused by a moral position. (Kerbo, 2003) It argues that such behavior derives from the belief that long-term gratification is unreliable, and therefore not to be counted on. (Kerbo, 2003) The theory further argues that the circumstances of poverty compel people into a looser definition of family, and fidelity. (Kerbo, 2003) In sum, the theory suggests that while the poor may hold middle-class values, they are necessarily tolerant of deviations in behavior that differ from these values in that such deviations are necessary for survival. (Kerbo, 2003)
The differences between these two theories are important. (Wolf, 2008) The Culture of Poverty blames the poor for their behavior, while the Situational View blames the condition of poverty itself for the behaviors of the poor. (Wolf, 2008) The two theories are thus polar opposites in terms of cause and effect. (Wolf, 2008) This makes them incompatible in terms of how they may be applied to treatment of the problem of poverty. (Wolf, 2008)
Of the two theories, Situational Poverty theory offers more hope of the poor. Because the theory suggests that being poor is the cause of the problem, it suggests that simply providing basic needs would alleviate the problem of poverty in America. Cultural Poverty suggest that the poor themselves have to be “fixed” somehow, even if they are provided with the necessities of life. It is certainly more realistic to provide food and shelter for the poor than to provide deep psychological retraining to each individual in an impoverished state.
Work Cited
Kerbo, H. (2003) Social Stratification and Equality: Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative and Global Perspective. McGraw Hill Publishing. New York, NY.
Wolf, J. (2008) “Sociological Theories of Poverty on Urban America” Human Behavior In The Social Environment. retrieved November 21st from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J137v16n01_04#.Uo48AsRQFN8
