Perspectives on the Urban Crisis

Moderator: Hello, and thank you for coming to our roundtable discussion at Macalester College. Mr. Lewis will be presenting his theory on persistent poverty in central cities and then Mr. Sugrue and Mr. Wilson will have the opportunity to respond.

Oscar Lewis: Thank you, I believe that persistent poverty is often the result of a culture of poverty. The culture of poverty is just a subset of poverty-the lacking in financial resources, and the culture of poverty is much more difficult to eradicate.

A culture of poverty (actually s a subculture) "transcends regional, rural-urban and national differences and shows remarkable cross-national similarities in family structure, interpersonal relationships, time orientation, value systems, and spending patterns." (Lewis 1968, 187) I believe that this culture arises most often as an adaptation and reaction to the impoverished nature of the subaltern in capitalist and colonialist systems. (Lewis 1968, 188).

A culture of poverty is perhaps best defined by what it is not. It is not simply being poor. There are many poor communities that are internally cohesive, have strict organizational structures, have a sense of history, and are often well-educated. Eastern European shtetls are one example of this. In them, Jews were very poor but had strong communal ties through their temple, studied books, had a sense of their religion's history, and had a clearly defined set of rules and organizational structure.

The lack of organization best characterizes the culture of poverty. This lack of organization stems originally from low wages and the inability to get consistent employment but develops into a larger force. Unable to fit into the "larger economic system," (Lewis 1968, 190) members of the culture of poverty learn to operate outside of it, developing separate methods of credit devices and developing a disdain for and avoidance of mainstream societal institutions including "national welfare agencies," "labor unions," "political parties," "police," and "government." (Lewis 1968, 190). People in the culture of poverty often claim middle-class values but actions speak louder than words and they rarely live them; for example, many in the culture of poverty make pretenses at desiring marriage but avoid it because of the constriction of economic freedom that it has. Those in the culture of poverty have a present-focused timeframe.

I want to go on the record of saying that I don't think a culture of poverty is inherently bad. The habit of "living in the present may develop a capacity for spontaneity" and "the frequent use of violence certainly provides a ready outlet for hostility so that people in the culture of poverty suffer less from repression than does the middle class," but ultimately I think that part of the culture is tied with a constant (negative) comparison with the dominant class, which breeds "pathos, suffering, and emptiness." (Lewis 1968, 197)

Part of understanding something is recognizing how to change it. I think that reversing the effects of a culture of poverty is more difficult than simply changing the economic circumstances of those who live in poverty, although it cannot be done without economic assistance. To end a culture of poverty, some sort of social movement is necessary (along with an economic one) that "organizes and gives hope to the poor and effectively promotes solidarity and a sense of identification with larger groups. (Lewis 1968, 193) I think the civil rights movement was an excellent example of this attempt to change the culture from the inside, and while the movement "has done more to improve their self-image and self-respect than have their economic advantages[,] the two are mutually reinforcing." (Lewis 1968, 193)

Moderator: Mr. Wilson, would you like to respond?

William Julius Wilson: Yes, thank you. Well, Mr. Lewis, I think I understand your description of the culture of poverty. And it seems like you do a decent job of describing the realities of being poor, as far as it goes. However, I found your cause and effect rather weak. In your essay, "The Culture of Poverty," you mention that "there is nothing in the concept of a culture of poverty "that puts the onus of poverty on the character of the poor," but a major component of your argument is that the "subculture develops mechanisms that tend to perpetuate it, especially because of what happens to the world view, aspirations, and character of the children who grow up in it." (Lewis 1968, 199) I find these sentiments somewhat contradictory in that you imply that the character of the children who grow up in a culture of poverty is somehow damaged. If you take people in this culture of poverty who you say claim to want money and middle-class values and give them high-paying jobs that can support families, how does this not rise the people out of poverty?

Moderator: Mr. Lewis, your response.

Oscar Lewis: Yes, thank you Mr. Wilson. You raise a good point. I did not mean that there is any inherent character deficiency in children born into a culture of poverty. But when a child is raised by parents who live day-to-day, finding creative ways to buy their dinner every night and who operate outside the mainstream economy and society, these children do not have the mindset or values to raise themselves out of poverty even if they are given plenty of financial assistance. They are simply not initially culturally equipped with the talents to manage their money and live their lives in a way consistent with the values of the dominant culture. Now, do not get me wrong, I don't think social programs alone can reverse the culture of poverty. Better financial opportunities and easier access to jobs is integral to escaping the culture of poverty. I'm just saying that it cannot be done without additional cultural changes.

Moderator: Mr. Sugrue, your reaction.

Thomas J. Sugrue: Yes, thank you. While I was listening to your comments, Mr. Lewis, I found myself thinking how it has now been 40 years since you first formulated your views. You talked about the civil rights movement doing much to improve the self-image of African-Americans, which, you said, would work to reinforce economic gains for African-Americans as the culture of poverty was eroded. Today, African-Americans and other minorities have been ghettoized in major cities and the culture of poverty that you speak of so eloquently has become, if anything, a worse problem. It seems like your theory expects an exodus from the culture of poverty to arise from social programs that transforms the hopeless poor first to the enlightened poor before they can become the middle class. How do structural forces such as politics and racial discrimination fit into your theory?

Moderator: Mr. Lewis?

Oscar Lewis: Well, I understand your concerns, Mr. Sugrue. Today, more than 38 years after my death, I would hope that more significant progress would be made in erecting those twin pillars of fighting the culture of poverty: social and economic integration. Obviously, racism and political oppression play large rolls in enforcing the culture of poverty. It can be difficult to escape the cycle of the culture of poverty when the dominant classes-who hold the economic and political strings to power-make polices that create a separation between the urban poor and the rich. I still maintain that in order to leave poverty, it is necessary to leave the culture of poverty. It may not be easy, but I think that through social programs the members of the culture of poverty can create greater organizations that help reverse the fatalism and resignation that define their culture. I might not use the term "enlightened poor," but I definitely think that a non-marginalized community and a productive value-set are the first steps to leaving the culture of poverty.

Moderator: Thank you all for participating. I definitely was most skeptical of your views, Mr. Lewis. I felt like you were assigning a lot of agency and blame to those involved in the culture of poverty. However, listening to you clarify your ideas, it seems clear that your work is more descriptive than normative. I think that idea of poverty as cyclical and endemic to certain areas and cultures does a lot to explain its persistence. Overall, it seems to me that there are currently strong structural forces-economic, political, racial, and social-that have made poverty into what may be a culture but certainly is a cycle. I think combating poverty requires structural solutions on all levels, and, I also think that attempting the culturalist intra-community solutions that Mr. Lewis has advocated is helpful as well. Persistent poverty is multifaceted and I think there can be different seemingly competing paradigms to describe it and each may have a different application. A Sugrue-style structuralism may be more helpful when considering public policy approaches to poverty while a Lewis-style cultural approach may be more helpful for organizing and helping communities from the ground up.

Sources

Lewis, Oscar. "The Culture of Poverty" In The Study of Slum Culture-Backgrounds for La Vida, 187-200. New York: Random House, 1968.

Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Wilson, William Julius. "From Institutional to Jobless Ghettos." In The City Reader, edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 126-135. Routledge, 2003.

Wiese, Andrew. "'The House I Live In': Race, Class, and African American Suburban Dreams in the Postwar United States." In The New Suburban History, edited by Kevin M. Kruse and Thomas J. Sugrue, 99-119. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.