A Dicourse On Povery Essay, Research Paper

A Discourse on Poverty

It is the common misconception that poverty is the fault of individuals, as we can see by the passing of various new laws and acts (for example the 1996 welfare reform act). But it is the imperfection of our social structure that is to blame. These flaws allow the perpetuation of poverty. This unending cycle is a stark contrast to the American ideal that everyone has the opportunity to succeed in our society.

A debate that illustrates this argument is centered on a concept known as the “culture of poverty” (Lewis, 1965). The question then becomes what is the culture of poverty?

The term culture of poverty is from the work of Oscar Lewis. Lewis as well as others argue that there are certain cultural characteristics among the poor in industrial capitalist societies. Furthermore, Lewis and others agree that poor people in such societies display characteristics and values that are not held by the non-poor in those same societies. “These characteristics are: the absence of childhood as a specially prolonged and protected stage in the life-cycle, early initiation into sex, free unions or consensual marriages, a relatively high incidents of abandonment of wives and children, a tend toward female or mother-centered families, a strong predisposition toward authoritarianism , lack of privacy, verbal emphasis upon family solidarity which is only rarely achieved because of sibling rivalry, and competition for limited goods and maternal affection.” (Lewis, 1965)

These characteristics are predominant among the poor because they allow the poor to adapt to their environment. This acculturation, however, makes the escape from poverty all the more difficult. Therefore, the effect of this cycle is that it is passed from generation to generation, thus keeping the poor people poor. As long as the poor retain their culture of poverty they will remain poor.

It can be said that this argument sounds as though the poor are responsible for their plight. But this is not the case. What then has caused the cycle of poverty to exist? Poverty is an economic problem and the roots of the problem can be traced back to unequal distribution of wealth. So as not to get into a long protracted explanation on the development of the modern industrial society, the subject will be surmised here. The wealth of nations has been historically concentrated in the elite few, i.e. industrialist, ruling elite, and landholders. The middle and working classes have generally had a small amount of capital gain and the wage slaves and poor have had the smallest amount of wealth. Each class has created different ways of adapting to their socioeconomic situation. The upper classes have a life of privilege and few concerns with their day-to-day survival. The middle and working classes have the opportunity of upward mobility but often live a life of relative comfort usually due to a system of credit, therefore allowing them to live a lifestyle beyond there economic means. Few middle and working class families can afford to pay cash for a house, car, etc; but the advent of credit has allowed the middle and working classes to achieve a level of comfort that belies there economic means. The wage slave and poor have an entirely different situation. The wage slave and poor live from hand-to-mouth, usually renting or accepting government assistance for housing and have few if any major material possessions.

With the detachment of the various classes comes the separation of opportunity. The wealthy and middle classes have the ability to increase their capital gains and have the option of upward mobility. They also have resources that allow them access to better education, work, and have contact with people in positions to help facilitate upward mobility. The poor do not have these same opportunities; therefore, they must find a way to survive in the whole of society, thus the culture of poverty.

In the 1960’s the U.S. Government published the Moynihan Report. This report still plays an important part in politics and it’s core issues are still brought up today under the guise of “Family values”.

Moynihan reported that statistics show above average rates of divorce, separation, and unwed motherhood in the black community, which together resulted in an above-average proportion of single parent, female householder families.

The key issue of the Moynihan Report is not the statistics, but rather it’s conclusions. Moynihan concluded his report by stating that the cause of continuing black poverty is the result of the black’s family structure. In his own words: “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time. The evidence-not final, but powerfully persuasive-is that the Negro family in urban ghettoes is crumbling. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantages will continue to repeat itself.” (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965)

Even though this report was written over three decades ago one find’s that incidents of the single parent family with a female householder has risen dramatically since the sixties. In fact the rise in single-parent family has cross cut all racial and ethnic lines. However, the rate of growth is higher among black families then among other groups. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992)

One can plainly see there are differences in income due to family type as well as the differences due to race. Note that regardless of family type, blacks, as well as Hispanic families, have lower median income.

Does this mean that single parenthood is the cause of poverty? The argument that single parenthood is the cause of poverty assumes that the single parent is the cause and the effect is poverty. This is not the case, but rather the opposite is true. Poverty causes single parenthood. Poverty prevents and disrupts marriage. In the U.S. we assume that the male is the primary means of economic support for a family. But with increasing joblessness and poverty in our inner-cities this is becoming increasingly difficult for African-American males to fill this role. This has several consequences. First the disruption of the marriages: lower socioeconomic status is associated with a higher divorce rate. Poverty is even more strongly associated with births outside marriage. Poor inner-city women experience a severe shortage of men who would make suitable marriage partners because many of the men available to them are either unemployed, imprisoned, or killed. Yet another factor in continuing poverty is the lack of knowledge regarding birth control, and, like everything else, the lack of adequate health care. It is for these reasons that poverty contributes to the single-parent householder problem.

Poverty is not the fault of the individual but rather the result of various social forces working against the individual. The lack of opportunity, not lack of material goods, causes the poor to stay poor. It can be said that the poor are poor because they do not know anything else. We would like to believe that in America anyone can become wealthy, but the reality is just the opposite. If we do not afford the same resources and in an equal amount to all the idea that anyone can become wealthy is farcical. Our society requires the disproportionate allocation of resources and thrives on class conflict. It allows an elite few to enjoy an abundance of these resources and allows the others to struggle for a small share of the remaining amount of wealth.

“In 1990, than 1 in 5 Americans – or 52 million – lived in a ‘poverty area.’”(U.S. Census Bureau, 1995) Poverty areas are census tracts that where at least 20% of the residents are poor. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995)

Poverty areas have a different racial and ethnic makeup than the rest of the United States as will be demonstrated here:

Percent distribution of persons living inside poverty areas and percent distribution of those living outside poverty areas, by race and Hispanic origin: 1990

In poverty areas, earnings are lower. People living in poverty areas earned an average of only $15,521, much less then the $23,122 earned by those living outside such areas. Individuals living in poverty areas are three times more likely to receive government assistance then those living outside these areas. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995)

Unemployment is higher in poverty areas then in nonpoverty areas; 12% versus 5%. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995) In addition, those in poverty areas are more likely not to have worked at all in 1989; 38% compared to 27%. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995) Conversely, persons in nonpoverty areas are more apt to work year-around, full-time; 43% verses 30%. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995)

Families maintained by women with no husband present were more prevalent in poverty areas – 29% verses 13% – and less likely to be maintained by a married couple; 65% compared with 83%. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995) Not only that, but one in twenty-five poverty area families consisted of seven or more persons, as compared to 1 in 75 in nonpoverty areas. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995)

Poverty area householders are less educated. 29% of poverty area householders have a high school education, 15% attended collage but did not obtain a degree, and 10% had a bachelor’s degree. Compare that to those living outside the poverty area where 21% attended collage and did not finish and 25% obtain a bachelor’s degree. (U.S. Census Bureau 1995)

This evidence suggests that, regardless of what people want to believe, poverty cannot be fixed by telling the poor they have to work. The resources and services are just not available. Since the end of WW II industry has been moving further and further away from the inner-city, making it harder for those left in the inner-city to find employment that will allow for an increase in the standard of living. This leaves a higher concentration of poor in the inner-city with a slim chance of escaping the bonds of poverty.

It is not the fault of the individual, but rather social forces beyond their control, that leads one into poverty. Also it appears that poverty strikes inner-city minorities more than whites. The perpetuation of the cycle of poverty and the lack of opportunity afforded to the poor causes the poor to remain poor. People do not choose to be poor, but rather poverty is thrust upon them and poverty is all they know. This does not discount the few who do make it out of squalor, but those individuals are exceptions rather then the rule.

Bibliography Lewis, Oscar. 1965. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty. New York: Random House Lichter, Daniel, Felica B. LeClere, and Dian K. McLaughlin. 1991. Local Marriage Markets and the Marital Behavior of Black and White Women. American Journal of Sociology 96:843-867. U.S. Bureau of Census. 1995. Poverty Areas. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P-60, no. 174. U.S. Department of Labor. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (The Moynihan Report). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Willson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press