Social class and culture - Assignment Example

Social and Culture Various studies assert that a shared culture among the poor limit their capa to escape poverty. This relates to the aspect of social class and culture where social class is more than just the money we have. Ideally, people from a lower social class have a tendency of depending on people from a higher social class. Nevertheless, the wealthy do not have to depend on one another, and hence the social structure suggests that wealthy people assist the poor. Nevertheless, as people rise in their social class, they tend to become less empathetic. Notably, social class persists, and the culture of poverty is now a social theory that expands on the cycle of poverty. The shared culture among the poor is subject to racism and isolation, which propagates poverty and limits the poor from escaping poverty. Oscar Lewis is the first scholar who derived the term “culture of poverty” as defined in the introduction of his 1961 book entitled The Children of Sanchez (Lewis 7). In the book, Lewis established the fifty traits that make up the culture of poverty, where poverty is one of the fundamental traits. Other traits include lack of a sense of history, violence, etc. (Gorski 1). In coining his thesis, Lewis relied on his ethnographic studies of small Mexican communities, which share the fifty traits (Gajdosikienë 89). Nevertheless, although his study focused on small Mexican communities, he expanded his interpretation to include a universal culture of poverty (Gorski 1). However, his analogy faced criticism, as the poor Jews living in Eastern Europe did not develop a culture of poverty because their tradition of literacy and their religion gave them a sense of identification with Jews all over the world (Gajdosikienë 90). According to the culture of poverty, the poor are marginalized people who share the same culture, troubles, and neighborhood. Notably, Lewis established that middle class claims possession of the culture of poverty but behaves differently, and that social participation separates individuals from the culture of poverty (Gajdosikienë 93). He also established that not all poor people develop or accommodate the culture of poverty. In the recent times, there has been continued research across the globe that tests the culture of poverty concept empirically as other studies explore the evidence regarding the culture of poverty. These studies draw different conclusions in this respect but agree that the culture of poverty does not exist. Nevertheless, although the concept of culture of poverty related to smaller communities, it grew to become an accepted fact in the mainstream thinking. Indeed, this concept attracts various U.S. public policy makers and politicians. Notably, since its establishment, the premise of the culture of poverty never changed as the poor continue to share a consistent and observable culture (Gorski 1). The proponents of the culture of poverty disagree that this concept seeks to blame the poor for their poverty but celebrates the resilience and resourcefulness of the poor. As such, this concept is now an acceptable ideal in modern society. Lewis established 50 traits that define the culture of poverty, and categorized them into attitudes, values, character structure of the individual, nature of the family, nature of the slum community, and the relationship between culture and larger society. The culture of poverty accommodates people with a strong feeling of marginality, helplessness, and dependency; people with very little sense of history, not class conscious, and very sensitive, indeed, to status distinctions (Lewis 7). He further established that social participation is the dominant factor that defines the culture of poverty (Gajdosikienë 93). He then identified the variables that constitute social participation and include race, membership in voluntary associations, occupational prestige, age, marital status, religious affiliation, and urban or rural residency (Gajdosikienë 93). Positive adaptive mechanisms by the poor from the substance of their everyday lives form the processes of the culture of poverty (Harvey and Reed 466). Diverse examples can explain the concept of culture of poverty as well as its components and processes. For example, there is stereotyping in the idea that poor people are lazy. However, we can actually prove that poor people have stronger work ethics and substantial motivation than the middle class. Moreover, most poor families have at least one of the parents working, which attests that they are indeed not lazy. In fact, due to lack of formal and well-paying jobs, the poor adults have to do more than two jobs in a day for them to survive. Ultimately, the poor end up working more than the rich do. Notably, there are many critics of Lewis’ definition and interpretation of the culture of poverty. Specifically, various scholars criticize the culture of poverty explanation for the inter-generational transmission of poverty. Indeed, Lewis’ argument on the transmission of poverty was seemingly faulty in that the development of the concept of was poor (Gajdosikienë90). The concept faces much criticism, which leads to negative implications. As a result, many scholars are abandoning this concept especially with relation to the inter-generational transmission of poverty. This emanates from the fact that the concept seemingly blames the transmission of poverty to the poor (Gajdosikienë 91). Moreover, it presents a situation where the social class passes from one generation to another without any economic development, which is rarely true since individuals have the capacity to redeem themselves and improve their social class. Notably, many studies criticize the concept of culture of poverty and derive various assertions about poverty. More specifically, they agree that the culture of poverty does not exist and that there are differences in values and behaviors among poor people (Gorski 1). In the absence of a culture of poverty, we cannot certify the existence of inter-generational transmission of poverty. Furthermore, there is little support for the traditional culture of poverty arguments and for the explanation of inter-generational transmission of poverty. As such, I can assert that the explanation of inter-generational transmission of poverty does not define poverty in an effective manner. Works Cited Gajdosikienë, Indrë. Oscar Lewis’ Culture of Poverty: Critique and Further Development. Web. 17 December 2013. < http://www.ku.lt/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2004_nr_01_88-96.pdf>. Gorski, Paul. The Myth of the Culture of Poverty. 2008. Web. 17 December 2013. < http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx>. Harvey, David, and Michael H. Reed. "The culture of poverty: An ideological analysis." Sociological Perspectives 39.4 (Winter 1996): 465–495. Print. Lewis, Oscar. The Culture of Poverty. Web. 17 December 2013. http://academics.nawar.us/The_Culture_of_Poverty.pdf. Read More