Culture is a multifaceted fabric of commonly held principles, convictions, standards, language, symbols, arts, artifacts, and collective identities. It assumes an essential function in molding societies. Sociologists delve into the complexities of culture by investigating the anticipations and patterns that arise from shared conduct within a given framework. This essay aims to articulate and validate two opposing theories regarding poverty—the “culture of poverty” theory and the “structural theory of poverty”—by scrutinizing a case study that exemplifies the postulates underlying each respective theory.
Defining and Supporting the “Culture of Poverty” Theory
According to the “culture of poverty theory,” poverty is not just about economics; it is a pervasive and enduring way of life that extends across generations. This theory proposes that impoverished individuals have distinct values, norms, and behaviors that contributing to their ongoing economic challenges. Advocates assert that these cultural aspects, like skepticism towards social institutions and prioritizing immediate satisfaction over long-term planning, establish an unbroken cycle of impoverishment (McDermott & Vossoughi, 2020). To exemplify the culture of poverty theory, let us examine a case study in which a community wrestles with generational poverty. Within this framework, one can discern a recurring pattern of restricted educational achievements, skepticism towards authority figures, and dependence on informal social connections for assistance. The cultural perspective emphasizes the significance of comprehending how these collective beliefs influence individuals’ decision-making processes and sustain the continuous cycle of impoverishment.
The culture of poverty theory is frequently supported based on observations of behaviors that appear to impede social and economic advancement. For instance, when a society places more importance on instant gratification than long-term strategies, it may encounter difficulties in escaping the limitations imposed by poverty. By analyzing the case study from this perspective, we can thoroughly examine how cultural elements impact people’s outlooks, choices, and prospects.
Defining and Supporting the “Structural Theory of Poverty”
The primary cause of poverty, according to the “structural theory of poverty,” lies in economic and social structures. This theory highlights systemic problems like the unequal dispersal of resources, restricted access to education and employment prospects, and institutionalized discrimination (Brady, 2019). To exemplify this theory’s premise, we examine a case study that illuminates the barriers rooted in these structural factors that fuel poverty.
This case study shows that poverty does not stem from a commonly held culture but rather arises due to systemic disparities. Certain communities bear the brunt of limited opportunities for quality education and employment, exacerbating their circumstances. Moreover, the absence of a comprehensive social safety net intensifies the adverse effects of economic downturns on vulnerable populations. The structural theory regarding poverty prompts us to investigate policies and establishments that perpetuate inequalities, emphasizing the need to tackle underlying causes instead of solely concentrating on individual behaviors. The structural constraints this community faces are evident in their language and symbols. Due to limited access to education and employment opportunities, their communication often reflects frustration and a sense of disillusionment. The unavailability of economic prosperity symbols further reinforces their collective identity, which is not based on shared values but on the common fight against systemic obstacles.
In conclusion, culture is a diverse window that allows us to explore poverty. The theory of the culture of poverty and the structural theory of poverty present differing viewpoints, emphasizing the significance of comprehending individual actions and systemic arrangements. By analyzing a real-life scenario using these perspectives, we acquire valuable insights into the intricate interaction between cultural elements and structural factors that foster ongoing poverty. As sociologists, we are responsible for untangling these intricacies and promoting comprehensive resolutions that tackle both cultural dynamics and systemic inequities.
References
Brady, D. (2019). Structural Theory and Poverty. Rich Democracies, Poor People, 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385878.003.0007
McDermott, R., & Vossoughi, S. (2020). The culture of poverty, again. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 14(2), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1733960
write