<!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" -->

Origin

The idea of the subculture of poverty, originally referred to as simply the culture of poverty but more distinctly defined due to some controversy over distinguishing it as an entirely other category of culture, was first produced by anthropologist Oscar Lewis, in his ethnography ‘Five Families: Mexican case studies in the Culture of Poverty.”

According to Oscar Lewis, the culture of poverty exists in any number of contexts, yet it thrives in communities that have several distinct conditions. Those conditions include a cash economy with wage labor and production for proft, a continuously high rate of unemployment, low wages, the failure to provide social, political, and economic organization, the existence of a bilateral kinship system, and the existence of a dominant class that has a set of values that stresses the accumulation of wealth, the possibility of upward mobility, and understands the lower class as being such due to a personal deficiency. (Moynihan 188) Lewis states the culture of poverty as being “both an adaptation and a reaction of the poor to their marginal position in a class-stratified, highly individualized, capitalistic society” (Moynihan 188). This cultural distinction in a representation of the necessarily means for coping with the situation of hopelessness and despair that arises from poverty. Continuation of this lifestyle from one generation to another is a key element of the culture of poverty, as learned low income habits are passed throughout. With the culture of poverty, there is little in existence in terms of upward mobility. Along with the awareness of their own inadequacies, those people living within the subculture of poverty find themselves as having a realistic awareness of those living a middle class lifestyle and even sometimes can associate with them, yet do not themselves live that lifestyle. (Moynihan 190)

Oscar Lewis’s reasoning behind his ethnography, “Five Families,” was that many people know the facts and statistics of lower classes and impoverished nations, yet there is, or was, little known about the psychology of the people living in such conditions. (Lewis 1) Lewis’s claim was that there are a number of values that exists without boundaries cross-culturally and that are distinct to that culture of poverty. “One can speak of the culture of the poor, for it has its own modalities and distinctive social and psychological consequences for its members”(Lewis 2). He states that relationships are a key model of how the values of the poor play out, particularly family structure itself as well as the nature of kinship ties.

Defining Poverty

The early 1980s saw at least thirty two million people living below the poverty line, according the United States Census Bureau, with approximately twenty-five million being part of a family unit. (Beeghley 17) A definite measure of poverty did not always exists; yet in 1962, “The Other America,” a book written by Michael Harrington, is said to have sparked what is said to be the “war on poverty.” Harrington’s definition included not only the economic issues of those in low income brackets, but also the psychological side, which is inclusive to “a low level of self-esteem, a restricted view of personal effectiveness, and a sense of separation from the society” (Beeghley 17). The year 1964 brought a need for an index of poverty in response to President Johnson’s war on poverty. (18) The first measure was developed that same year by the CEA (Council of Economic Advisors) and identified individuals with incomes below $1500 and families with incomes below $3000 as poor. Due to the fact that the family income could not fluctuate for a higher number of members within the family, this measure caused a great deal of problems. The system was given another look by the Social Security Administration and revised for the sake of being able to count the number of people under the poverty level with the intentions of directing public policy to that group.

Racial Issues

Otis Dudley Duncan presents the culture of poverty not only as a vicious cycle, but one exists potentially due to racial divides; quoting others in saying that a person is born into poverty; he or she does not move down into it generationally, and therefore is at a disposition from the beginning. (Moynihan 85)

Otis Dudley Duncan questions racial issues in poverty by stating that some races are disadvantaged from the start—“…their poverty stems largely not from the legacy of poverty, but from the legacy of race” (Moynihan 87). He also states that “poverty is not a trait, but a condition”(Moynihan 88). Duncan claims that there are certain question that are crucial for understanding the “genesis of poverty,” namely what are the factors and circumstances that separate the rich from the poor as well as how the conditions can be predictable. However, he also says in his writing that it is important not to use the answers to these questions as hard and true facts, but rather models for understanding the existence of poverty. Duncan looks at several studies on socio-economic status, in an ‘arithmetic’ format, stating that what can be deduced is that there is somewhat of a handicap for already disadvantaged racial minorities. (Moynihan 95)

Despite this, since this handicap already exists, he poses the thought that it could be less of a handicap due to the fact that there is less of a difference between the occupational spans between minorities and their white counterparts. The minority group he focused on, almost exclusively, was that of blacks. He then goes on to state that even when blacks have a favorable social origin, that does not necessarily translate into any sort of advantage in the occupational world, and therefore, no advancements in jobs means no advancements in economic status. According to Duncan, minorities suffer from a sense of a double handicap, because not only do they have a greater chance of being on the lower end of the economic status from they beginning, they have more trouble advancing throughout the course of their lives, even if the skills exist to do so. The handicaps that exists are perpetuated throughout each stage of the life cycle, and therefore one cannot only look at the cumulative pieces that make up one’s socio-economic status, but also how these factors have further developed into monetary gain or loss throughout and within each stage.

Critiques

Controversies were founded on the basis that much of the research done concerning the poor have been on a small scale level, done only with a number of samples. (Moynihan 37) Other notes of discrepancy are the fact that there is not enough distinction between the classes to well-define a sense of consistency. /One other thought presented by Rossi and Blum is a questioning of whether or not those below the poverty line, the “lower-lowers” have become that way as a response to and rejection of core American values, and by doing so, creating a contra-culture. (39) The argument also exists directly against the culture of poverty, stating that the studies that have been performed to display the issue have been displayed in areas or territories that are poverty-stricken to begin with. (43) A reasoning for the generational passage of the culture is that the children growing up in low-income houses lack the resources for advance, as opposed to the idea that the culture perpetuates primarily due to a distinct value set being passed down.