Is there a ‘Culture of Poverty?’
Once a thought process is born, it is nearly impossible to go any other way. Is this true for the culture of poverty too? Lets find out!
Lewis states that “although the burdens of poverty were systemic and therefore imposed upon these members of society, they led to the formation of an autonomous subculture as children were socialised into behaviours and attitudes that perpetuated their inability to escape the underclass.” (Oscar Lewis, 1959)
In my opinion, culture is a way of life and defines a person’s being. It provides a person with an identity. It is dynamic and elastic. Many internal and external factors have an influence on it. When it comes to the poor, I feel that there are two additional characteristics to take into consideration. Firstly, a prevalent culture of say a village for e.g. the caste system is used by the oppressors as a ‘means’ of oppressing i.e. culture is taken advantage of negatively. Secondly, culture of the poor is a ‘means’ of assertion by them that they ‘exist’ and possess a unique identity.
When Lewis talks about the culture of poverty, firstly, I see it as a set of beliefs and ideas that the poor hold which is like any other set of beliefs held by people of different classes, ethnicity etc. Secondly, I consider it as a boon for the poor as their culture helps them to adapt to the situational and structural facilities available. Therefore, in my opinion, culture of poverty has an adaptive function rather than a maladaptive function wherein it leads to perpetuation of poverty.
In my opinion, it is not the culture of the poor that decides whether the poor will remain poor throughout their lives; it is based on the circumstances and available amenities for the poor that decides whether they will be able to come out of the clutches of poverty or not. For example, if the poor are provided with basic amenities such as constitutional rights, food, shelter, education, I do not see any reason why a person would not want to grab the opportunities and get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. Together with this thought, individual factors such as motivation, resilience, spirit, enthusiasm and courage also play an important role in deciding whether the culture would act as a restraining or encouraging force.
For example, in the case of the Dalit population, caste system and stratification of jobs may have constricted a person within the limited choice of work and may not have permitted him to move out of the chains of poverty. But, if the state provides them with education, awareness and job opportunities, plus they exhibit the spirit of freedom, motivation and enthusiasm, then I do not think that the ‘culture of poverty’, as stated by Oskar Lewis would play any role here.
Closing Word:
Even though a child has stayed in a subculture and has an understanding of the attitudes and values of that culture, I believe all he/she needs is the basic structural and situational requirements and arrangements, together with the inner motivation to change and move in order to deal with this.
Culture tells the child that they are a part of a group of people who may hold similar views and beliefs and this culture is as a result of the situations that a person has been exposed to, and in this sense culture acts as strength, not limitation. I believe it is a way of adaptation and not a way of perpetuation.
