Cultural Poverty in America: Essay

Discuss reasons why some social groups are more likely to find themselves in poverty

An essay by George Gill

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Poverty is an issue that has permeated every society since civilization began. The ancient Greeks and Stoics had their theories about how to mitigate its effects and proceeding societies have attempted to do the same, however, poverty still exists, and it seems ironic that in a world where somebody can die through obesity, others die through starvation. Poverty not only substantially attenuates one’s quality of life, but it also has detrimental effects on an individual’s Psychological health and the way they are perceived in society. In this essay, I will explain and discuss why some social groups are more prone to poverty by firstly discussing the different types of poverty and definitions, before proceeding to discuss why poverty has not been eradicated.

There has been intense debate on what constitutes poverty and the definitions have often been ambiguous, many have tried to operationalize and stratify poverty, therefore, before we discuss why some social groups are more likely to find themselves in poverty, we must first elucidate what defines this term. Firstly, poverty is measured as being either absolute or relative. Absolute poverty is measured with a poverty line - individuals or households that reside below this poverty line are defined as being in poverty, it is predicated on the idea of subsistence: do individuals possess the required resources to maintain an adequate existence? Do they have access to necessities such as food and water? If the answer is no, they are below the poverty line. Conversely, advocates of defining poverty as relative believe that it can only be measured in conjunction with the standards of a particular time and place—relative poverty; according to Peter Townsend (1928-2009) “poverty must be related to the needs and demands of a changing society” if a person is lacking in what other people take for granted they are in poverty. Sociologists also argue that poverty cannot merely be defined as a paucity of material possessions Townsend believed that we should study poverty according to the amount of resources individuals have available. The definitions of poverty have also been debated and sociologists have found it increasingly difficult to define absolute poverty. In 1995 the Copenhagen World Summit defined it as being “a condition of severe deprivation of human needs” However this definition was soon criticized for again being inconclusive: “Everyone needs food, but the test of what can be considered food changes from society to society” (Spickler 2012). In reaction to the debate about what constitutes poverty, the budget standards approach was posited which hypothesized that calculating the costs of purchases necessary to raise an individual or family out of poverty would be a more adequate way of evaluating poverty. This methodology which has been used very often to analyze absolute poverty in Britain came under criticism however, and as many argued that this would require judgment and a tendency to generalize about the income necessary for an individual, it would therefore be an unviable option. Despite this, it does allow sociologists to study whether benefits do help citizens and to what extent. Rowntree (1871-1954) studied issues such as poverty avidly and in 1899 he organized one of the first comprehensive studies of poverty in the UK. In his study, he created a list of household items that individuals required and recorded how many families could afford them. Those who could not afford these household items were in poverty. Although many supported Rowntree’s perspective, he was criticized as he was under the assumption that, for example, food, the cheapest option was always available. Another criticism of his study revolved around the fact that his studies were frequently undertaken by individuals who had no recognition of an impoverished lifestyle. In response to sociologists such as Rowntree—in 1979 Townsend who measured relative poverty decided to create a deprivation index. In this study, he asked the households a series of questions, for example, have you had a holiday in the last 12 months? If the participants received less than 150 marks on this index they were in poverty. Although this did give policymakers an idea of whether individuals were engaged in the customs of society it did not consider individual choices about whether people could participate due to a lack of wealth or choice. This argument was supported by David Piachaud (1981) who believed that the only way to completely eradicate poverty was for everyone to eat the same and do the same things which is not possible in a multicultural society.

Studies have shown that a particular social group does correlate with rising levels of poverty. Women, according to the equal opportunities commissioning report are 14 percent more likely to find themselves living in households with incomes 40 percent lower than the national average. Even more disconcerting is that almost half of all women in the UK have an average income of only £100 a week. However, it is worth noting that in a recent study carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), it has been shown that women in their 20s are earning more than men of the same age. Although inequality does indeed influence such statistics there may other reasons behind such findings. Men and Women have different proclivities. Psychologically speaking women on average search for professions that require more empathy and interpersonal skills; this would explain why the overwhelming majority of students enrolling in courses in social sciences such as Psychology are women, men, on the other hand, are drawn to things, another reason why fields such as engineering and IT are so male-dominated. Despite women being more likely than men to find themselves in poverty, (Lister 2004) the Department of Work and Pensions has substantiated evidence of a reduction in the levels of poverty experienced by women: in 2012 figures showed that 20 percent of women are considered to be living in poverty and 19 percent of men (Haralambos). Women also have a propensity to be overlooked in households; ‘Hidden Poverty’ hypothesizes that in a household an individual may be earning an above-average salary, while the other individuals living in that household may remain poor. Ethnic minorities are also overwhelmingly vulnerable to poverty. In fact, in 2007 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that ethnic minorities are twice as likely to find themselves in poverty. This was corroborated in a study, which used 60 percent of the median after housing costs as a cut-off point. The study showed that all ethnic minority groups had a higher propensity to poverty than whites. These statistics were compounded for individuals from Bangladesh and Pakistan of which 65 and 55 percent are below the UK poverty line respectively opposed to 20 percent of white citizens. There has been abundant research into why this may be the case. Sociologists argue that most ethnic minorities seek jobs in specific markets which subsequently creates marker segregation. These jobs are believed to be in declining fields such as industrial factories. Roger Lawson (1995) hypothesized that many ethnic minorities face social exclusion engendered through xenophobia and racial prejudice, precipitating a feeling of isolation and lack of citizenship in society which perpetuates a reluctance to enter the job market with individuals from divergent backgrounds (Byrne, 1999). However, the reverse has also been reported to be true with many claiming that ethnic minorities tend to exclude themselves from the rest of society for cultural and religious reasons which has also engendered animosity and friction between many social groups. Lack of health and well-being has also been a major contributor to poverty among ethnic minorities with many living in poor housing and confined spaces with up to 10 individuals.

What are the reasons for this? In the 18th century when studies of poverty were either non-existent or at a rudimentary stage, most sociologists took a very individualistic perspective on poverty and blamed the poor for their dire conditions and emphasized the idea that the reason many face such averse circumstances a not caring for their well-being. In 1971 Sociologist Hebert Spencer accused the poor of being ‘lazy’ and believed that the poor should not be helped subsequently, coining the famous phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’. Spencer thought that poverty was an essential component of society and without it, the desire to work would be eradicated. After Spencer’s theory, many began to advocate the idea that cultural poverty was the root cause. In 1959 John Lewis introduced the term ‘the culture of poverty’. He believed that individual behavior characterized by marginality, dependence, fatalism, and a reluctance to participate and integrate into society was transmitted from one generation to the next in a cycle of deprivation which he names a ‘design for living’. Murray (1989) theorized that there is also an Underclass that exists in society who are not considered to be in poverty, but have acquired ‘deplorable behavior; through inherited values’ However, many have refuted the culture of poverty argument as being deterministic and have instead theorized that poverty emanates from situational constraints on individuals which as consequence preclude any participation in society. If these constraints were removed, they would seize the opportunities given to them. This has been supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which states that there is little evidence for cultural poverty but there is for situational poverty. Firstly, humans are industrious and it is hard to believe that if the constraints of poverty were removed individuals would not seek meaning in their lives, and one of the ways of finding this meaning is via one’s work, which makes it difficult to support Spencer’s claim. However, despite this, it is possible that without the constraints of poverty, one may seek a more desirable profession that would instigate further competition for higher-paid jobs, which the Marxists would say is why poverty exists. Society tends to favor those with economic strength and for this reason, it is not in the interest of those in power to remove the constraints of poverty. It is also abundantly clear that culture is transmitted from generation to generation and a feeling of apathy and fatalism may also be transmitted, however, it is also true that the environment an individual resides in determines who they may become in the future and if the situational constraints are not removed an individual will not see the light which guides them to a change of mentality.

As alluded to above there are many reasons as to why poverty has not been eradicated. The heterogenous concepts of poverty determine how much exists in society, however it is believed the problems are more profound. With the rise of Globalisation, many have lost their jobs as the industrial sector has declined. It has also been hypothesized that in conjunction with this post-Fordist era, an increase in the number of women working has made the job market even more competitive. As stated above Marxists believe that any changes in the provision of welfare are futile as long as the capitalist system is in place. Others have attempted to resolve this issue by offering support to individuals. This was witnessed under the New Labour government which proposed a ‘Hand up and not a handout’. Notwithstanding, many modern-day Scholars such as Jordan Peterson believe that as humans have always lived in hierarchies of competitivity, it is inevitable that there will be those at the bottom who are invariably affected by poverty. This idea is akin to that of Herbert Spencer and later realized by the New Right government of Margaret Thatcher. To conclude, I believe that it would be fair to intimate that the reason why some groups are more vulnerable to poverty is a question with an answer that is complex and has to take numerous factors into account. Thankfully, it is an issue that has been addressed more often than antecedent eras, despite this it still exists and more needs to be done to eradicate a problem that has afflicted civilization since time began.

Bibliography:

1. ('Women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age, study finds', 2019)
2. Your Bibliography: Women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age, study finds. (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds
3. HARALAMBOS, M. (2018). AQA A-LEVEL SOCIOLOGY THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES: HARPERCOLLINS Publishers.
4. HARALAMBOS, M. (2018). AQA A-LEVEL SOCIOLOGY THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES (pp. 256, 257). [Place of publication not identified]: HARPERCOLLINS Publishers
5. Who is at risk of poverty? (2019). Retrieved 3 November 2019, from https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/who-risk-poverty
6. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/10/10/faces-poverty-social-racial-factors/37977173/
7. Who is at risk of poverty? (2019). Retrieved 22 November 2019, from https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/who-risk-poverty
8. Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research. (2019). Retrieved 22 November 2019, from https://www.bristol.ac.uk/poverty/definingandmeasuringpoverty.html
9. Samples, C. (2019). Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx on Poverty and Inequality. Retrieved 22 November 2019, from http://assignmentpeg.blogspot.com/2015/08/herbert-spencer-and-karl-marx-on.html