Question

Article

Why Are the Poor Poor? Explanations of poverty, like explanations of inequality in general, differ in several ways. They may focus on individuals or on social structures. They may interpret poverty as inevitable—perhaps even necessary—or as the product of the efforts of the powerful and wealthy to protect their own inter- ests. Let’s look at some of these explanations, keeping in mind that despite their differences, each may contain elements of validity and therefore may offer at least a partial answer to the question of why some people are poor. Individual-Focused Explanations In explaining poverty, individual-focused theories stress the personal respon- sibility of people in determining their place in the social hierarchy. These theories fall closely in line with the popular thinking about the poor in America. This is because they complement well the dominant ideology of individual- ism. The essential idea is that if people are poor, it is mainly because of their own actions or inaction, as well as their personal traits. The source of poverty, in other words, lies with the poor themselves. The two major individual- focused theories emphasize either biological traits or cultural traits. Biological Explanations A theory once widely held maintains that people are poor because of inherent deficiencies in their character or mental makeup—that is, they are biologically less “fit” than others. Because they are genetically handicapped, they are bound to be poor. This biological deterministic explanation was popular early in the last century and was a basic part of the notion of social Darwinism. Some social scientists and commentators held that one’s wealth or poverty was a dem- onstration of one’s inherent capabilities. This idea was put forth by those such as British social scientist Herbert Spencer, who asserted that the emer- gence of the poor, as well as the emergence of an elite at the top of the social hierarchy, was a natural development. Spencer drew an analogy to Darwin’s notion of survival of the fittest among animal species. Applying the idea to human societies, Spencer maintained that through a process of free and natural competition, the most able would rise to the top and the least able would sink to the bottom. In this way the social Darwinists ratio- nalized the extreme inequality that typified the newly industrialized societies at the turn of the twentieth century, like Britain and the United States. If the poor were a natural development, so the theory went, there was nothing that could be done to alleviate their condition. Giving assistance to the poor would only extend their inevitable decline. Indeed, the most desirable occurrence would be the rapid extinction of this element of the society. Calls for social welfare programs of one kind or another to help lift the poor from their condition were therefore met with the argument that these were fruitless and wasteful efforts. Social Darwinism in its most crude form is an idea that no longer holds much weight among social scientists or even the general public. Yet there are remnants of a genetic explanation for poverty that occasionally surface. In 1994 psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and sociologist Charles Murray authored a controversial book, The Bell Curve, in which they proffered a theory of poverty that is well within the tradition of social Darwinism. The essence of their position is that IQ is the most significant factor in determin- ing people’s place in the social hierarchy. Herrnstein and Murray posit that intelligence, as measured by IQ, is in large part genetic. They see strong relationships between IQ and various social pathologies. Those with lower IQs have a greater proclivity toward poverty, crime, illegitimacy, poor edu- cational performance, and other social ills. Because IQ is mostly genetic, they argue, there is no way to change the condition of those with low intel- ligence through educational reforms or welfare programs. Because lower- intelligence people are reproducing much faster than are higher-intelligence people, the society is faced with the possibility of a growing underclass increasingly dependent on the more intelligent and productive classes. Her- rnstein and Murray hold that such an underclass is apt to remain in a state of dependency on the nonpoor and continue to engage in antisocial activi- ties. Thus, they question the value of welfare payments, remedial educa- tional programs, affirmative action, and other efforts designed to raise the social and economic levels of the poor. Herrnstein and Murray’s arguments were countered by most mainstream sociologists, who claimed that their methods were flawed and their reason- ing specious (Fischer et al., 1996; Fraser, 1995; Jacoby and Glauberman, in and adapt to the mainstream. The poor, then, are attuned to a dysfunctional culture. Although poverty is not seen as biologically based, it is nonetheless attributable, in this view, to personal characteristics of the poor. The idea of a culture of poverty was first put forth in the early 1960s by anthropologist Oscar Lewis, who studied poor families in Mexico City, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and New York City. Lewis lived among those families and concluded that there were basic behavioral traits and attitudes that typified the poor everywhere, which together constituted a coherent “culture of poverty.” Some of the key features of that culture, Lewis explained, were a present ori- entation (rather than the future orientation typical of the middle class), a fatal- istic view of the world and one’s place in it, a tendency toward female-headed families, authoritarianism within the family, a high rate of abandonment of wives and children, frequent use of violence in settling disputes and in disci- plining children, a high rate of alcoholism, a belief in male superiority, and a martyr complex among women (Lewis, 1961, 1965, 1966). Lewis maintained that these values and behaviors are responses to the conditions of poverty but that in the process they become well-entrenched cultural traits that are passed on from one generation to the next. “By the time slum children are age six or seven,” Lewis wrote, “they have usually absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their subculture and are not psychologically geared to take full advantage of changing conditions or increased opportunities which may occur in their lifetime” (1965:xlv). Lewis explained, however, that not all poor people necessarily live in or develop a culture of poverty. A related view of poverty and the poor is suggested in the work of political scientist Edward Banfield (1968, 1974). Banfield asserted that the plight of the urban poor was a result of their failure to adopt conforming, specifically middle-class, social values. He focused primarily on the urban black poor, claiming that their situation and their behaviors must be seen not as a product of racial discrimination but as class behavior. European immigrants of earlier decades, he pointed out, were also mostly poor and manifested high crime rates, unstable families, and low school performance, but they eventually assimilated to the dominant culture and improved their economic standing. Poor blacks are therefore simply experiencing the same process of transition to a higher class position. The problems of the urban black poor, in this view, will abate once they are solidly part of the middle class and have embraced middle-class values and lifestyles. As part of the culture-of-poverty thesis, structural factors and the “acci- dent of birth” may be acknowledged, but these are not seen as unconquer- able obstacles. People may not choose to be poor, but through their personal efforts, the road out of poverty is open to them. They need only subscribe to the mainstream culture. Critics of this cultural explanation of poverty have pointed out that the basic argument blames the poor themselves for being poor. That is, their condition is essentially a product of their failure to adopt middle-class norms and values rather than of a restructured economy or ethnic discrimination (or both) that makes escape from poverty, for most, difficult at best (Ryan, 1975; Valentine, 1971). Moreover, much debate has centered on the culture-of-poverty concept itself. Some sociologists and anthropologists took issue with Lewis’s conceptualization of the poor as a “culture.” Are the behaviors and values of the poor a culture in the sense of a way of life consciously passed on from one generation to the next, or are these traits simply adaptive mechanisms that would be discarded once the material conditions of poverty were removed (Gans, 1968; Lewis, 1967)? Critics of the culture-of-poverty thesis suggest the latter and contend that its exponents confuse cause and effect. Even if poor families could somehow be transformed culturally into some middle-class ideal (both parents present, working, religious), this would have very limited impact on preventing future poverty. Researchers Jens Ludwig and Susan Mayer (2006) explain that there is a dearth of evi- dence to support the idea that parents who choose to marry, work, and regularly attend church are more likely to produce children who will experience long-term economic success. Moreover, they show that a majority of poor adults have grown up in just such “pro-social” households.

Question

Which theory do you think best explains why people are poor in American society?

Why?

Answer 1

In 1994, psychologist j Hurrenstein and sociologist charles muray given a theory of poverty on the basis of tradition social Darwinism

The IQ of poor people and social pathology has relationship .so this genetic features of IQ play major role of poverty in American context .it is undoubtedly Said that Americans people genetically have more IQ level and which leads to great economic and proper human resources develoment of nation .million of job created per year in USA but still have large number people unemployed and sustained their lives in poverty line .in this theory stated that low IQ level person are more tend to be unemployment , crime, illigetmacy , and poor eductional performance because IQ is acquired through inheritance and poor are genetically disable .so they have less scope of development productivity and IQ will never change which remained them poor .so american socity mostly those people are poor whose IQ level inheritently low as compared other.

But this theory also show a hope for their upliftment from proverty .low intelligence can imporved through good Education and welfare of state.They needs to given more focus to remove their social and intellectual barrier . Government should provide oppertunity more making them self relient through skilledful and productive Education.so they can also develop social status.