the elements of culture represent the behavior of people in specific courtry,so the behavior spread risktaken,hard working and creation,which can get much more wealth in a short time, otherwise,the conterpart behavior can fall down the bottle of society,this culture can produce wealth all over the world,just like USA,eslier,japan and kroea,you can read the entreprtairan learn more to explain the phononene,good luck for you !

Adrian, I like your example, this is just -in part- what Culture of Poverty tries to explain. Nevertheless, social exclusion seems to me to "one-sided" in the sense that you are excluded - which makes you a victim of structures that are bigger than you. I am more interested in the other side: why have people that are excluded some cultural values that are different from not-excluded people?

i don't have any experience with culture of povrety but it's a very interesting topic, and being exclude is just a part of the game. i've never heard about the Oscar Lewis' theory but i know Bourdieu and his theory about the cultural capital and i think that maybe there you will find some things in common that may help you in your research.

Phil, You may want to look up March (or was it Sept issue ?)2010 issue of

Psychology and Developing Societies

Phil, You may want to look up March (or was it Sept issue ?)2010 issue of

Psychology and Developing Societies

Philipp,

Can we be sure that the culture of poverty theory is free of any underlying homage to the old misguided Spencerian social Darwinism? I appreciate your mention, therefore, of an attempt at decolonizing Lewis' (1966) idea.

Gottschalk et al. (1994) found that only about 12% of poverty lasts longer than one year, and William O'Hare (1996) cites longitudinal studies which found that causality can be linked to what he calls poverty triggers - life changes such as divorce, loss of employment, disability of illness or accident, or pregnancy and childbirth.

It is not that there are no individuals who make life choices that exacerbate their impoverished condition and support the stereotype; probably we all know someone who fits it. However, most people do not find poverty and its social restrictions pleasant and they seek to avoid it. Some, excluded from the structural mobility of the variably privileged, nonetheless still agree with the social goals and try to obtain them via illegitimate opportunity structures (social deviance). When these attempts result in incarceration, then that too contributes to poverty because of social disenfranchisement and the unwillingness of employers to hire ex-convicts, causing a recalcitrant recidivism. In our country (US), perhaps others, there is a growing prison-industrial complex that capitalizes on this very reality.

As some people exit poverty, others enter into it so that the numbers of poor seem to remain the same, even though people are escaping it. Additionally, many of those who statistically get out of poverty never gain a firm foothold and slide back into its temporary condition. So Cellini et al. (2008) have found that poverty is connected to a) the sociological causes of the features of society, a structural explanation; b) the characteristics of individuals, i.e., the values-based choices that some people make; and c) the aforementioned poverty triggers, whereby people who have been barely staying out of the poverty statistic are pushed into it by some intervening life change.

What an interesting topic that you have chosen! May I recommend a couple of books that I have found of interest, and which speak to both sides of the question?

Lemann, N. (1992). The promised land: The great Black migration and how it changed America (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage.

Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980 (1994 Anniversary ed.). New York: Basic.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1996). Bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

The culture of poverty is still apparent in many marginalised and socially excluded groups in many developing and underdeveloped countries. It is still a subject of interest to sociologists because without exposure and accessibility to education, the second, third and future generations will not be able to see a different future beyond the future that they can see immediately in front of them.

Thank you all for your interesting suggestions. Smadar, I read your text with interest. Rama and Rashied, thanks for the literature advices.

Nevertheless, even if there is still a lot of research on poverty and the cultural aspects of it, it seems that there is usually a break between nowadays science and the Lewisian intents - and I think that this is a pity. Up-to-now, I found some critiques of Lewis, but no serious attempt to actualize (and decolonize) him. Well, maybe I should accept that as a project for myself...

Poverty occurs for different reasons in different parts of the world. The culture of impoverished makeshift villages lining the roads for 300 kilometers in the sweatshop zone of southern Cambodia is drastically different from poverty in the slums of Harlem, N.Y.

Might I suggest that you narrow your scope to maybe a comparison on two or three cultures of poverty, or even an ethnography on one?

This is a very good question. I have two points to talk about. First, as a former public High School teacher in the U.S., I observed that some teachers yell at inner city school students. These population makes up most of the working class student population. Second, I also worked in private schools in the U.S. and I observed that private school students are not yelled at as much as students in struggling high schools. Obviously they are the children of well-to-do families.

In conclusion, I think that the theory of poverty is put into into practice in public schools and in public institutions in working class neighborhoods. I finalize by saying that this theory and the behaviorist approach might go very well hand in hand. A police officer, a teacher, a doctor, a pastor, a priest speak differently to people who are poor as opposed to the way they speak to the children of politicians, wealthy business people, etc. Thus the culture of poverty is perpetuated through our words, the quality of our teaching, and the quality of our service.

One good article that deals with this topic is:

2004 George and Louise Spindler Award Lecture' It's Not the Culture of Poverty, It's the Poverty of Culture: The Problem with Teacher Education.

I've found Bourdieu's notion of habitus and field very useful as a way to understand culture's impact on poverty. He seems to offer a conceptual operationalization of the idea of social capital as the currency of culture and the content of the habitus and the notion of field as the place where that social capital is valorized. Given the processes of intergenerational learning where children are imbued with the social understandings, read that as social capital, available to their parent's; the child matures with these learnings providing the basis for the unconscious and automatic behaviors that they exhibit in the society in which they find themselves. They express, unconsciously, the learned foundations of being that mark their social background. If their parents were marginalized and poor then the content of their children's being, given the same society of their parent's, marks the children as poor. The children's automatic, unconscious behaviors, e.g., language, demeanor, values, are those that mark the character of the poor. The culture, those automatic, unconscious, behaviors are triggered by the learned responses of the children. Only through a relearning process, i.e., Education, can a child learn other sets of automatic behaviors, habits, orientations that might align them with what their society considers more wealth related behaviors.

The question and these answers are interesting, indeed. I really agree with Josephine Buck, defining poverty can be context situated. In some parts of the world - just for example in Scandinavina arctic reindeer herders can be living in poverty compared with southern parts of Scandinavia. The income is not that high (monetary system), but at the same time they gain part of their livelihood from nature (meat/fish/berries etc,) They might have less income than those ones suffering from poverty in the cities.

I could argue that the definition of "a culture of poverty" should be carefully examined in these special cases. However, I have to underline that after all, the social security system (e.g. health care, free education) is rather good in Scandinavian countries, so people have a free will to get high education or "better work" with good salary. Poverty in this case is not culturally determined, or a trap for future generation, I would say that it is a lifestyle of small income, a lot of physical work but at the same time there is a certain kind of freedom compared with the life of urban dwellers.

Have you read Friere; particularly the Pedagogy of Oppression, where he makes the case that oppressed peoples are complicit in their oppression? Poverty is a "culture of oppression" at the end of the evaluation, and the means by which it maintains salience to those oppressed has much to do with their acceptance of their status. A "culture of poverty" encompasses and embraces the individuals lack of social agency over and against the milieu...

Yes Freire said that. The worst element of all is seeing administrators and teachers who give up giving their best to chilcren only because they have accepted their mediocre status.

Can poverty be a habit? Can it be a nature? If not, how can it be a culture?

If one wants to see what poverty actually is, one can come to some developing countries and see what poverty means. Poverty is not a culture, it can not be.

Interesting question Phillip... Well, I do not know about the Oscar Lewis theory...

But, I think we should define "poverty" and "culture" before try to answer this question. If we include in our analysis the poverty as a choice, as a "poverty vote" and consider culture as all human knowledges, arts, behaviors, practices, habits, etc. shared by individuals belonging to a same social group in a way that such individuals are easily identified by their lifestyle, we would say that yes, poverty is a culture in such case... E.g. The lifestyle adopted by the ascetics.

Poverty is a curse; please do not call it a culture. Otherwise, one day it might be called a philosophy too.

Coming from a different academic background - my response is similar to Hemanta Baruah - whose comments are not being commented upon-a high probablity that my time might be wasted here-but it will also help clear my thoughts here.

I am sure you might have read "Development as Freedom" by noble laureate Amartya Sen. His thesis-Country's development frees masses from poverty. Development bring work opportunities, higher wages, ..... - so basically, once the poor have an opportunity for education, for higher income for improvement in living standards, they will be free of the curse of poverty.

Terhi makes a good point and the quote also substantiates the above thesis "the social security system (e.g. health care, free education) is rather good in Scandinavian countries, so people have a free will to get high education or "better work" with good salary."

Once an opportunity was provided the so called "culture" did not hinder or dictate the poverty status.

Emery - I wonder why should one use the term culture here: "the learned foundations of being that mark their social background." - the assumption here is that the learned foundation creates a trap - a trap that holds only in the absence of an escape (in terms of education/job opportunities) - in that case can one define it as a trap or a so called "culture" of poverty. Culture that can not hold

I agree with Hemanta and Nisha.

see "The myth of the Culture of Poverty" by P. Gorski

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

Also "Reconsidering Culture and Poverty" by M.L. Small, D.J. Harding and M. Lamont

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (2010).

Nisha and Lehtihet,

Actually, in the underdeveloped countries and in most of the developing countries, most of the people are poor. They are poor not by choice, but by birth. Those who can, get educated, and cross over to the middle class level if they manage to get a salaried job. Those who can not even get educated, may actually remain poor entire life. From the Western standpoint, perhaps that is why poverty has been dubbed as a culture. I would like to repeat, poverty is not a culture, it is a curse. Those who are born poor, are born with this curse.

Dear Hemanta and Nisha, I agree with both of you. Here in Brazil we can easily see a considerable part of population "trapped" in such condition despite the government inclusion actions.

But, what about the ascetics? Should they also be considered as poor? Are the ascetics "traped" in their conditions?

I really don't want to defend Lewis, but it seems, I have to:

Hemanta, I don't think, Lewis topic of Culture of Poverty refers to the idea that poverty is (a) culture (by the way, I don't know any theory that claims that). Rather, he claims that poverty has cultural aspects. If that was not the case, you will have a hard time explaining persisting poverty in "first-world"-countries where -on a formal level- there is equal access p.e. to education for all - but the success in education depends heavily on the social class one comes from. If culture is not an issue, you can only say (as a neoliberal): "Their fault." Or (as a racist -see for instance the guy from the "bell Curve" or Sarrazin in Germany-) "They don't succed because they are for biological reasons less intelligent." That worries me. Maybe you could explain your point further?

Lehtihet, thank you for sharing this text. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Gorski makes a -almost vile- misinterpretation of Lewis. I actually think, he did not read anything of Lewis. Lewis does not stick to stereotypic claims, Gorski criticizes. He rather tries to understand the non-material background of a persisting poverty. For me, Lewis' problem is that he sees culture mostly as a problem in a objectively defined way of development and modernization (and Lewis was a cultural anthropologist!). He does not try to see the other side of culture - that is what nowadays goes under the title of community or local development (with quite some success).

Dear Walter,

Ascetics choose to live in that way by themselves. They do not fall in the category of the poor anyway. Obviously, they can not be said to be 'trapped' in their conditions.

Philipp,

You are right, the keyword here is misinterpretation.

First, I do agree that "Lewis does not stick to stereotypical claims, Gorski criticizes".

On the other hand, Gorski's misinterpretation is only a response to other popular misinterpretations of Lewis's concept. Indeed, as there is just a "small" step between the culture of poverty and the poverty of culture, misinterpretations become unfortunately very easy both ways.

PS: The following links are related to your original question.

http://robertphilen.blogspot.com/2007/03/habitus-of-poverty.html

http://www.english.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/publikacje/academia/2011/2_2011_30/38-39%20tarkowska%20.pdf

Philipp, I wonder whether the poverty observed in first world countries even comes close to that in the third world. Can meaningful parallels be drawn between the two?

I am a quebecois, a french nation which is now part of Canada. Back in the sixties and before we were dominated economically by the english speaking merchant class and were ideologically ruled by the quebec catholic church. During the sixties we rejected religion and developed a new nationalism blaming the british conquest of 1760, english canadian economic and political domination and the catholic church for all our problems including our poverty. The early nationalistic discourse was one of victims and the solutions where rejection of religion, economic development and education and political separation from Canada. After 50 years of economical development within canada, the development of our own business elite, it cannot see the solution to our current problems as solely caused by others and rely on a victimisation ideology.

Philipp Altmann - one needs to re-examine theories especially if there is a doubt about the underlying assumptions. At times, I think, we in academics circles are close minded -1. there is a lack of interdisciplinary discussion; 2. we tend to accept all thesis proposed by well respected academics. I greatly appreciate your indulgence and discussion of my views.

___Here, I would like to dispute your support of Lewis's "culture" of poverty on the basis of 'US as an example': " you will have a hard time explaining persisting poverty in "first-world"-countries where -on a formal level- there is equal access p.e. to education for all - but the success in education depends heavily on the social class one comes from."

___Jose Lobo's - anecdotal evidence completely goes against Smith's thesis and provides a strong counter argument. Jose makes an excellent point. There is NO EQUAL access to education (primary or otherwise). If we were to place students from poor localities into schools from rich localities and the rich students into poor schools - We might find "anti-culture" results - high dropout rates among rich students in poor schools. Just because there are schools for households in poor neighbourhoods does not imply equal opportunities. In order for you to compare the dropout rates across schools you need to have 'everything else' equal other than wealth status. I think Scandinavian schools might be closer to that.

___Adrian Otoiu's - example and your acceptance of this in Lewis's support is counterintuitive - Adrian makes a strong assumption of student's motives - clearly, the student didn't know how to ski - why would he even consider the deal unless he had the interest and time to pursue the game? Let's take this further - his comment of rich person's game might actually be forward thinking on his part - he can probably afford the ski but might not afford the ski lessons or access to the game. Let's offer him free ski lessons and lifetime membership of a ski resort and if then he chooses not to purchase, only then, can you make the claim about his statement reflecting "culture of poverty".

There is also a vast literature providing evidence of unequal opportunities for education in the United States. Primary and more so in case of secondary. Here are some of them.

1.The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity, Harvard Educational Review, http://her.hepg.org/content/m3770776577415m2/

2. Race still matters: Critical race theory in education. In this study Gloria argues with some anecdotal evidence and governing policies that parent's race translates into unequal opportunities for education

3.Can education be equalized? : the Swedish case in comparative ...

trove.nla.gov.au/work/21910272‎

___Panayiotis - above also makes a good point and dilutes the argument further.

Hello Adrian Otoiu - do you think we might be making a strong assumption of student's motives - Clearly, the student did not know how to ski (correct me if I am wrong here since this is the basis of my comment)

Why would he consider the deal and purchase Ski unless he had the interest and time to pursue the game?

Let's take this further - his comment of rich person's game might actually be forward thinking on his part - he can probably afford the ski but might not afford the ski lessons or access to the game. If we were to offer him free ski lessons and lifetime membership of a ski resort and then if he chooses not to purchase, then, and only then, should we make the claim about his statement reflecting "culture of poverty".

Hello Walter,

Ascetics - I am glad you brought up that point.

In the case of India we find the other extreme - the veblin effect.

from Collins

"a person who practises great self-denial and austerities and abstains from worldly comforts and pleasures"

Can one renounce or refuse what she/he does not have.

Also, this gives a complete picutre

Aspirations, poverty, and economic change

D Ray - Understanding poverty, 2006 - books.google.com

I would love to get stats segregated by wealth, religion and country of residence - on how many bought "Monk who sold his ferrari". Just to get some evidence on who are -at least- motivated towards a "ascetic lifestyle". I doubt a higher proportion would fall below the poverty line (accounting for the fact that they can read and can afford the book). I found this book sold all across Indian railway stations, street vendors and shops in rather poor neighbourhoods - but whenever I looked up at the person purchasing this - they wore brand name clothes.

Dear Philipp,

If 'culture of poverty' is supposed to mean 'cultural aspects of poverty', then I should have no objection! However, I would like to insist that in that case to avoid confusion, the words 'the culture of poverty' should perhaps be replaced by the words 'the cultural aspects of poverty'.

Incidentally, in the actual use of the words 'the culture of poverty', it was perhaps meant to define poverty as a culture, and not as 'cultural aspects of poverty.' This I found very objectionable.

Dear Philipp Altmann,

I recommend you look at the BOP - Bottom-of-the-Pyramid theory. The base-of-the-pyramid is a term that represents the population of the world that primarily lives and transacts in an informal market economy . The idea behind creating markets at the BOP is born after the confusion between the immensity of needs with the poor populations and the reality of their demands (El Fasiki, 2011).

The stimulation of investment within the bottom of the pyramid can help create a more positive business scenario where the poor can play an enhancing role in the emerging markets. By entering BOP markets, entrepreneurs can gain another source of benefits where they can both maximize profits and change societies. Taking the plentiful status of the world's poor populations into consideration necessities the creation of a market that serves the most marginalized communities.

The BOP theory can be found it "Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably" by C.K. Prahalad and Allen Hammond. Harvard business review September. 2002

This is a new theory that opposes Oscar Lewis' theory of a culture that assumes poor people stay poor. You can also have a look at strategies for poverty alleviation that followed the BOP theory: (1) Micro-credit ( Mohamed Yunus), (2) Micro-Franchising (Fab Milk Ltd) and (3) Micro-Consignment Model (Greg Van Kirk)

Good Luck

I believe that poverty is when peoples' needs are more than their income. In many cases I met people who their salary are 4 times like me but they feel poor, because they buy a lot of credited stuff than they can afford. On the other hand, many others feels rich just because they have satisfaction and self confidence.

When we earn ten time what is required for our basic needs then poverty become relative to our way of seeing but when we earn less than our basic needs then poverty is not relative anymore, it ceases to be a concept and become a hard concrete reality.

Hemanta rightly questions the notion of a culture of poverty labeled as such, versus describing aspects of a culture of poverty. Perhaps in the 60s, when Lewis came to the fore, the term he chose was controversial enough to get a readership, but since then, I believe, we have progressed in the social sciences to a point where we understand the insidious affects of poverty on behavior, health, background and domain assumptions, values, et al. Critical theory and other similar theorists have often questioned wealth disparity as a structural element of capitalist society. Those who are in the business of working with the poor recognize this fact, and realize that alleviating poverty is a goal with no easy solution... it cannot be done by capitalist intervention, for example, because the value proposition doesn't work. I have always been struck by Freiere's sense that the poor, as oppressed peoples, become complicit in their opression and his thinking may be valuable to Phillip's work. It is hard to speak of poverty and not reimagine the revolutionary tone with which Freiere wrote, as does McLaren and Giroux, for example. The label we use to describe poverty does not change the evidence that people adapt to their circumstances in a way which maitains their status quo.

Dear Joe,

Poverty can have various aspects such as cultural, economic, sociological etc.. However, after going through the literature, I have observed that initially the words 'culture of poverty' were indeed used in the sense that poverty itself was a culture. This is no more true.

Dear all,

I push this conversation forward by using an emic perspective of anthropology. I guess Oscar Lewis' theory of a culture of poverty originates from an era of cultural determinism, as an analogy of adaptinost premises, where enculturation is seen as a cultural transmission from one generation to another, to “the passive minds of people”.

I treat this concept “culture of poverty” from the western perspective. (I)Traditionally, the Arctic reindeer herders have been called "the people of the culture of poverty". I am a member of those people of hunters and gathers (like the desert people of Australia, Africa) because our basic life focuses on herding/gathering/hunting food. The most of our energy goes for basic survival. (ii) From modern western perspective our salary is about 2e/hour while the cost of living in Finland is one of the highest. The classic definition of poverty according to amount of income and a cost of life fulfils the definition of poverty.

From the emic perspective, the art of survival is not only focusing on food, but it is also based on skilled exchange work, without circling cash. The concept of enskilment (Palsson 1991) comprises flexible and practical ways of gaining livelihood and situated informal learning (Lave & Wegner 2001, Ingold 2000). In a modern world of information society (Scandinavia) people can also value their immaterial aspects, such as childrearing, respect for their elders, the closeness of community life and wildlife.

Not ruling out those basic needs of education, and health care and food, we can turn the concept of poverty upside, too. As Nisha tells us about from her experiences of well of people buying the book of D. Ray;” Understanding poverty, 2006”. Adding Mohammad´s: “poverty is when peoples' needs are more than their income” lightens up the perspective of criticizing the western concept of poverty – where the richness and economic wellbeing is mostly based on Hamza´s definition “The idea behind creating markets at the BOP is born after the confusion between the immensity of needs with the poor populations and the reality of their demands (El Fasiki, 2011).” Shortly, us who share the culture of poverty should work on those concepts of immaterial richness, self-respect and sustainability –for the survuval of future generations.

Hip hop is a subculture/cry of the Ghetto and poverty.

Hip hop as music and subculture formed during the 1970s when block parties became increasingly popular among African American youth residing in the Bronx. Gangsta rap is a subgenre of hip hop that was created in mid 80`s that reflects the violent lifestyles of inner-city American black youths.[58] Gangsta is a non-rhotic pronunciation of the word gangster. lyrics were more violent, openly confrontational, and shocking than those of established rap acts, featuring incessant profanity and, controversially, use of the word "nigger".

’’Rap is the rock 'n' roll of the day. Rock 'n' roll was about attitude, rebellion, a big beat, sex and, sometimes, social comment. If that's what you're looking for now, you're going to find it here.’’

— Bill Adler, Time, 1990[62]

Some blame Hip hop for the prominence of violence in American society but other think that hip-hop music is a symptom of cultural violence, not the cause.

Terhi's response is worth noting. The culture of poverty forwarded for our consideration is not within the scope of Lewis's writings. Since the tradition to which he refers is one which self describes as a culture of poverty and then sets about to establish a life experience that is wealthy in important socio-relational areas, that culture should be seen as anything but impoverished. Ultimately defining poverty in economic terms leads to a subjugation to capitalist domination. Money is not the only exchange. The culture to which Terhi refers is not subjected to the extraction of value endemic to capitalist exchange systems. As we continue our travels, in the Western world, through late capitalism, as Adorno suggested is our current trajectory -- now even perhaps greatly beyond late capitalism into an era of it's terminus -- it is worth appreciating how cultures outside that exchange system have thrived.

Seeing the culture of poverty in terms of money is limiting. There are people in Colombia who have a lot of money. Their children go to Disney World in Orlando Florida and study at Harvard University because they can afford to pay their studies there. Yet, when those individuals become our rulers, they do not know how to get the country to improve its low educational levels.They do not know how to communicate with farmers. They do not know anything about indigenous peoples in the Amazon jungle. In one sentence, seeing poverty only in terms of money and capital accumulation is definetely not enough.

Let me give you another example: how about families in the Unites States, Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa who can eat three to six times a day, go on vacations, rule the world, but have some of their children hooked on drugs, alcohol,, and what have you? Are they not poor people in another sense?

Wealth thank God goes beyond material things.

An answer to Jon. As I said, I am not familiar with Lewis´s writings. However, from the mid 1900´s the concept of culture was understood as a manifestation of human existence, and as such it was the main nominator for explaining human behaviour. I suppose Lewis was looking for universal experiences according to similar cultural cores of different communities sharing the culture of poverty. Maybe in his case those common experiences caused some action, too.

Jon, Luis and Jose, it is exiting to sit here in the Arctic wilderness and have this access to read opinions from all around. This is one way to enlarge my picture on todays world beside fish, reindeer and anthropolgy. . .

This is my experience with children who live in poverty: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232970568_Breaking_away_to_find_a_way_poverty_and_school_failure_in_a_Spanish_adolescent_life-history

Article Breaking away to find a way: Poverty and school failure in a...

Some individuals have resigned themselves to the reality of always having to live in poverty and that there's nothing they can do about it-- and so, you can look at cultural factors and how they influence an individual's perception of his 'fate'.

What an interesting perspective: resigned to always living in poverty! I agree with Mary Rose that cultural factors make the life of poverty, measured against something associated with wealth in a particular cultural context, becomes a marginalized experience. In the western world, we live with the false consciousness that wealth, measured in capital -- in terms of a commodity fetish, in Marxist terms-- defines poverty by describing class and power relationships. The inherent poverty of a commodity fetishism overrides any notion of retained power in such a system.

Do you take into account priestly groups which sacralize the notion of (material) poverty? "Getting ahead" for mendicant orders would not be the equivalent of renouncing poverty-- quite the contrary. I have recently completed writing a book on the composer Manuel de Falla, who was a lay brother of the Carmen Order, that is, a mendicant order. He never wished to own real property and habitually away his earnings to others he deemed needier.

Yes, I have been looking into something a bit like this for food insecurity in rural Africa (with Debbie Jean Brown. Our article on this concerns Zambia but it is more generally relevant. A version of this is on my website: www.gifteconomy.org.au - It is under the Africa and Food Security Projects tab and is the article on Zambia. We are looking at the way the myth of development and real jobs interferes with more practical strategies to achieve food security. We talk about it in terms of Baudrillard's concept of a "fatal strategy". In a more recent version of this article we talk about the way the agricultural strategies imposed by colonial governments have become tradition in this region and discuss Foucault's concept of disciplined bodies.

One way to think about all of these responses is to differentiate between the culture of poverty as myth, and the actual scholarship. This happens to be my main area of inquiry, and I've read many critiques of CoP, as well as very recent work that points out that culture is still a feature of the lives of people in poverty, just not in many of the ways that are described in classic CoP. Overall, the classic CoP thesis is discredited because it implies a homogeneity that does not exist, it misuses the concept "culture", and its evidence involves some serious methodological failures, such as adequate comparison. (See more at my web site cultureandpovertyproject.com). These continue to be serious issues in the literature. However, as many have pointed out, there is something to some parts of the CoP thesis, and when we consider the work of Bourdieu and poverty researchers like Annette Lareau, Mario Small, and others, it become clear that there are ways of understanding the reproduction of inequality that point to what might properly be termed culture.

The second thing is to distinguish between the causes and consequences of poverty. To go further, however, one must better conceptualize structure and culture. Beyond a reasonable doubt, structural causes of poverty must be addressed as a priority over any sort of so-called "cultural" aspects. The behavior of people in poverty is more rightfully viewed as the result and not the cause of their poverty. This is my current project in a nutshell. I just launched a web site to provide updates about my progress on these issues: cultureandpovertyproject.com. I am hungry for feedback at this point so I am glad to see this thread and have a chance to comment.

Elizabeth Seale. I like the way you describe the issue and particularly like your statement ' To go further, however, one must better conceptualize structure and culture. Beyond a reasonable doubt, structural causes of poverty must be addressed as a priority over any sort of so-called "cultural" aspects. The behavior of people in poverty is more rightfully viewed as the result and not the cause of their poverty. ' I completely agree.

at the following event plenty of space will be provided to discuss issues around Culture of Poverty

https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=22667

what are the assumptions and implications of this theory