Culture of Poverty: a Rich Man’s Idea
Reading time: 6 minutes
Oscar Lewis and the “Culture of Poverty”
Some twenty years ago I did some research into poverty in the Netherlands around 1900. Somehow the question arose whether there was a marked difference between the way of life of the poor as compared to society as a whole. This question was dealt with by the American anthropologist Oscar Lewis (1914-1970). He had formulated a theory about the way of life of the poor, and had labeled it ‘culture of poverty’, so he would probably know the answer.
In the 1950s, Lewis and his tape-recorder visited the slums of Puerto Rico in order to describe the local slum culture. According to Lewis, this ‘culture of poverty’ he found there was characterized as follows:
• Legal marriage is a rare phenomenon: the mother is usually the head of a one-parent family.
• There are no savings: money earned is money spent.
• Poor people don’t show any interest in the world around them. In fact, there is a lack of integration between the poor and the important institutions of society: the poor don’t trust hospitals, schools, churches, political parties and unions.
• Furthermore, crime and prostitution are part and parcel of this lifestyle.
• According to Lewis, people who live in a culture of poverty are often characterized by feelings of helplessness, dependence, fatalism and inferiority. Lewis concludes that most people who are described in his books are “badly damaged human beings”.
Lewis therefore uses the term ”poverty of culture” to stress this negative life-style of the poor. He argues that this deviant lifestyle is caused by external factors (such as a long-term lack of employment) and not by the poor themselves. But the essence and the venom is found in the conclusion of his argumentation. According to Lewis, it is virtually impossible for these poor people who grow up in such a culture, to profit from the possibilities of social mobility. This culture will therefore persist and the poor’s way of life will be perpetuated from generation to generation.
Actually, Lewis’s negative image of the poor, Lewis is in sync with a 19th century tradition. In the 19th century, many well-to-do felt that there was a deviating way of life among the members of the working class. In this view, poor people spent money like water and they were an unruly lot. This way of life had to be corrected, especially by poor relief and education. In 1844 W.C. Mees, the president of De Nederlandsche Bank (the Dutch Central Bank) wrote: “The ailment of poverty must not be considered as hopeless. The poor themselves are responsible for their poverty, and therefore the solution lies with them. Poverty will only decrease, if the knowledge and the morality of the lower classes increase.” In this respect, Lewis’s theory is just old wine in new bottles.
Criticizing the “Culture of Poverty”
Is Lewis’s theory a sound theory? I do not think so. My first objection is the use of terms. What is meant by this ‘deviant way of life’? Lewis gives an impressive series of characteristics determining this culture of poverty, but how do they interrelate, if at all? It is therefore unclear when, or if, it is possible to speak of a ‘culture of poverty’. Do alcohol and drug abuse constitute the major characteristics? Or do the occurrence of crime, or ‘living from one day to the next’ or an indifferent attitude towards children’s school attendance serve better as indicators? Do all these characteristics together create this ‘culture’, or only one, or two or three of them? Are there any characteristics (truancy would be a good candidate) that are simply indispensable for this deviating lifestyle? Lewis does not go into these questions, in other words: there is no clear interpretation of the term ‘culture of poverty’ and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to apply this theory.
Secondly, Lewis’s theoretical description of the ‘culture of poverty’ does not match the stories he records in his books. For example, in the preface to one of his books, La Vida, Lewis writes: “They know only their own troubles, their own local conditions, their own neighborhood, their own way of life.” But in the book itself, he describes people who try to save money and who do show some interest in the world around them. For example, they discuss the policies of President Kennedy and compare them to those of his predecessors and his successor. The book shows people who are doing their utmost to survive, who are in no way fatalistic or criminal. In short, there is little correspondence between Lewis’s theory and the research material he presents.
A third objection is the use of the concept of ‘culture’. Describing a way of life as a ‘culture’ implies demonstrating the existence of a combination of the above mentioned characteristics. But ‘way of life’ can only be presented as a culture when it is also evident that it is retained from one generation to the next. That is the reason why it will be difficult to change this way of life. Since methodology is not his strongest point, Lewis – in response to criticism from some of his colleagues – suddenly changed his mind radically and stated that such a ‘culture of poverty’ would disappear like snow in the sun once economic conditions were to improve.
There is another and final objection. The concept of ‘culture of poverty’ suggests a direct connection between poverty and a strongly deviating lifestyle. Lewis himself admitted that this connection was not so clear: according to him, only 20% of the poor live in a poverty culture. Incidentally, it is a mystery how he construed this percentage. The term ‘culture of poverty’ is therefore incorrect. It is also insulting for people who manage to pay their bills on a very meager income.
Conclusion
The idea that the poor live in a totally different culture that is responsible for their poverty, still holds great appeal. In 1968, the American anthropologist Valentine devoted an entire book to Lewis’s theory, in which he neatly demonstrates its flaws. Yet Lewis’s theory is dug up again and again. On the internet there are many assenting references to his concept of ‘culture of poverty’.
It would seem that scholars tend to apply this notion of ‘culture of poverty’ rather thoughtlessly. The term ‘culture of poverty’ is incorrect for at least two reasons: the term ‘culture’ does not apply, nor does the term ‘poverty’. So what are we left with? The term is based on quicksand, it is suggestive and is certainly not scientific. The elitist idea of a ‘culture of poverty’ must at long last be put where it belongs: in the wastepaper basket.
[an abbreviated version of this article was published in Trouw (a Dutch newspaper) on April 12, 2006.]
Sources: C.A. Valentine, Culture and Poverty (New York 1968); Paul Th. Kok, Burgers in de Bijstand (Franeker 2000) in particular p. 35-41, also for further references.
Translated by Ite Wierenga
(c) by Paul Th. Kok, Groningen The Netherlands