On Lewis' Culture of Poverty Concept

Oscar Lewis’ Culture of Poverty: Critique and Further Development

“…In a similar fashion, Leacock writes: "The fact is that, through the 'culture of poverty' and similar notions, the nineteenth-century argu-ment that the poor are poor through their own lack of ability and initiative, has reentered the scene in a new form, well decked out with scientific jargon" (1971; 10-11). Others also noticed that the description of a culture of poverty is not only consistently negative, and reflects middle-class values, but that "the actual terms used to describe the attributes are value-laden" (Eames and Goode 1970;481).…”

“…In other words, what should a researcher study if he wants to study the culture of poverty? He cannot just study slums, because people there belong to higher as well as to lower classes (Eames and Goode 1970;480). In a similar way, Kochar talks about the other multiple ways of conceptualizing subculture, like castes, regions, religions, rural-urban differences, tribes, and classes in India, and wonders: if there are poor in all of these levels, what is it that they are a subculture of?…”

“…For instance, Valentine was criticized later that he understands culture just as "a system of strongly held values passed on by formal instruction," which is much more narrow then the system of traits and way of life, as understood by Lewis (Hannerz in Berndt 1969;186). Likewise, some authors applauded the use of concept of culture as a mechanism for adaptation, because it is the approach of cultural ecology (Eames and Goode 1970;479). Others were skeptical about the appropriateness of the concept of culture in the circumstances of poverty because of the same reason: that the "way of life" starts as an adaptation to very oppressive circumstances (Valentine 1968;114).…”