“Poverty is a manner of life for the hapless that is passed down from coevals to coevals through the household. ” Explain and measure this position.
In this essay I will measure and explicate the position that poorness is a manner of life for the hapless that is passed down from coevals to coevals through the household. Therefore. foremost I will measure this position from the civilization of poorness.
First. the thought of a civilization of poorness was foremost introduced by Oscar Lewis. He developed the construct from his fieldwork among the urban hapless in Mexico and Puerto Rico. Lewis argues the civilization of poorness is a design for life transmitted from one coevals to the following. The civilization of poorness has the undermentioned elements. on the single degree. a strong feeling of marginality. weakness. dependance and lower status. a sense of surrender and fatalism while on the household degree ; life is characterized by consensual matrimonies. a extremely comparative high incidence of the forsaking of female parents and kids. a tendency towards mother-centred households and a much greater cognition of maternal relations. There are high rates of divorce and abandonment by the male household caput. ensuing in matrifocal households headed by adult females. Other than that. on the community level the hapless society are missing in engagement and integrating in the major establishments. The urban hapless in Lewis in Lewis’s research do non normally belong to merchandise brotherhoods or any associations ; they are besides non members of political parties and do non take part in the national public assistance bureaus and do really small usage of public utilities. Thus the household is the lone establishment in which they straight participate.
The civilization of poorness takes the force of civilization because its features are ushers to action that are internalized by the hapless and passed on from one coevals to the following coevals. Lewis argues that the civilization of poorness tends to perpetuate itself from coevals to coevals because of its consequence on kids. By the clip slum kids are aged 6 or 7. they have normally absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their subculture and are non psychologically geared to take full advantage of altering conditions or increased chances which may happen. Therefore the civilization of poorness shows that the attitude of people environing the hapless people and their mentality that had been maintaining them to remain at the province of being hapless longer. Thus this proves that the poorness had been passed down by the household from coevals to coevals since household is the lone establishments that the immature coevals had been take parting.
However. alternatively of sing the behavior of the hapless as an internalized cultural form. many research workers see it as a reaction to situational restraints. The situational restraints suggest that the hapless would readily alter their behavior in response to a new set of fortunes one time the restraints were removed. In his authoritative survey. Tally’s Corner. Elliot Liebow ( 1967 ) strongly supported the situational restraints thesis. The survey is based on the participant observation of ‘black streetcorner men’ in a low income country of Washington DC. The work forces are either unemployed. underemployed ( working part-time ) or employed in low-paid. When streetcorner work forces blow a week’s rewards. the middle-class tend to construe this behavior as grounds of present-time orientation and inability to postpone satisfaction. Liebow argue it is non the clip orientation that differentiates the streetcorner with the in-between category but the hereafter of the streetcorner work forces.
They are cognizant of their hereafter therefore their behavior is directed by the fact of hopelessness of their hereafter. Liebow applies the similar logical thinking to the streetcorner work forces relationship with his married woman and household. They regard a conventional household life as the ideal and strive to play the mainstream functions of a male parent. However. their income is deficient to back up a married woman and a household. Confronting day-to-day state of affairs of a failure. work forces frequently desert their household. On closer scrutiny Liebow found small support for the streetcorner man’s principle for matrimonial failure. Marriages failed mostly because the work forces had deficient income to keep them. The matrifocal households that were resulted were non due to a civilization of poorness but merely to low-income. Liebow hence rejects the thought of a civilization of poorness or low-class subculture and sees the behavior of the hapless as a merchandise of situational restraint non of typical cultural forms. Therefore. this shows that the household does non play any function in the prolong poorness but alternatively it had been the situational restraint that had forced them to remain as being hapless. Thus. the statement that poorness is a manner of life and had been passed down from coevals to coevals had non been wholly right since it is proven that situational restraints are the existent job.
Last. harmonizing to Shane J. Blackman found that the immature homeless had really similar aspirations as the other members of society. but situational restraints such as homelessness had been maintaining them at one specific topographic point which is at the province of poorness. Because of their homelessness. their situational restraints had been much more serious. They tended to endure favoritism because they were homeless. It became more hard to happen work or lodging if they had no reference. They besides faced job if they took work in the formal economic system. most of the occupations they had a opportunity of acquiring were insecure or impermanent. These stateless people were besides missing in assurance and a hapless self-image. Blackman claims many of them felt they were stupid because instructors. societal workers and others told them as much. Consequently. ‘low esteem meets low outlook which brings about self-labelling of personal underachievement’ .
This made it hard for them to hold the self-belief to acquire out of their state of affairs. The stateless Brighton did prosecute in some types of behavior which have been seen as typical behavior in the civilization of poorness. However. Blackman argues that such behavior was a effect of their homelessness. non a cause of it. It was a manner of get bying with their state of affairs. Blackman sees members of the hapless society as victims of society whose behavior alterations when they are given echt chances to better themselves. This shows that household is non the thing that had been go throughing down the poorness but it is the situational restraints. Therefore. proves that the statement that poorness had been passed down from coevals to coevals by household is non wholly right.
In decision. I have explained and assessed the position that poorness is a manner of life that had been passed down from coevals to coevals. From the essay above. this decision can be drawn. poorness had non been passed down from coevals to coevals but it was the situational restraints that had been maintaining the household hapless therefore doing the younger coevals of hapless society.