See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304190909

Culture of Poverty: Critique

Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64091-6

CITATIONS READS

4 9,163

2 authors, including:

Michael Scroggins
University of California, Los Angeles
14 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Scroggins on 17 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Culture of Poverty: Critique
Hervé Varenne, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Michael Scroggins, Teachers College, Columbia University, Oakland, CA, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

This article recounts the historical, theoretical, and empirical basis of the culture of poverty program as it was developed in the
writings of Oscar Lewis and examines the anthropological critique of his work that developed immediately upon the heels of
Lewis’ final publications. Further, this article examines the recent emergence of the culture and poverty program and notes its
confluences with and points of departure from the culture of poverty program.

In 1966, the anthropologist Oscar Lewis published an article Lewis’ conception of culture also built on a long tradition
titled ‘The Culture of Poverty.’ There, Lewis developed and and it made common sense in an American context heavily
systematized a way of analyzing what happens to people in influenced by culture and personality studies, as well as by the
poverty. He claimed that many poor people were poor because Parsonian attempt to bring together sociology, anthropology,
their parents had passed onto them various traits and habits that and psychology in a grand theory of action (Parsons and Shils,
keep people in poverty. Also, he suggested that governmental 1951). Talcott Parsons was at the time the most powerful
policies might break what was also known as the ‘cycle of sociologist in America who, as the founder of the interdisci-
poverty.’ This way of looking at people in poverty, in its moral, plinary Department of Social Relations at Harvard, trained
intellectual, and political implications, has a very long history, many influential social scientists of the following generation.
but Lewis’ formulation caught the attention of the public and The Parsonian sense of culture as what is learned, valued, and
remains as a kind of litmus test in all research on poverty. In transmitted from one generation to another may actually
1966, policy makers in Washington were putting the final marked a significant departure from the Boasian origins of the
touches on the set of programs known as the ‘Great Society.’ They use of the term in the anthropology he advocated. Boas foun-
were driven by a complex political imperative. As John F. Ken- ded at Columbia University the first modern academic
nedy put it in his inaugural address: “Man holds in his mortal Department of Anthropology in the United States, and he
hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty” (20 trained many of the most influential anthropologists of the
January 1961). This begged for an overarching narrative groun- 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. He had proposed ‘culture’ as a way to
ded in the behavioral sciences. Researchers from all disciplines force attention to the processes that distinguish populations
proposed lists of traits that appeared to make the poor different, from each other even when living in very similar ecological
and suggested that those traits might be alleviated through environments with similar technologies (Trouillot, 2003: 91).
various interventions. Lewis brought all this together under the But many of his students, and even more of his students’
heading of ‘culture’ taken in what was then the most common students, including Lewis, transformed ‘culture’ into the
sense version of the concept. He appeared to offer a compas- possession of a population. It was made to refer to whatever
sionate theory of poverty that confirmed the wisdom of the Great shapes personalities, that is then inscribed in the personality of
Society programs and suggested how they might be expanded most member of the population, psychologically, through
and refined as the United States kept fighting what was also internalization whether phrased as ‘enculturation’ or ‘sociali-
known as the ‘War on Poverty.’ The anthropological reaction zation.’ Many argued that this process could be so complete as
against this theory was swift and severe – but, to this day, new to render people unable to imagine other possibilities than
versions keep appearing under new guises. those proposed by ‘their’ culture. The process would lead them
While the phrase ‘culture of poverty’ is firmly associated to reproduce their conditions in future generations unless
with Oscar Lewis’ work, as well as with the policies of the external forces intervened. This emphasis on internalization of
Johnson era, it can easily be placed in a long tradition of social and cultural patterns was further systematized by
conceptualizing the poor and imagining policies to help and Parsons who argued powerfully that culture is mostly a ‘value’
control them. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, concept referring to internal states (Parsons and Shils, 1951:
Malthus and Mayhew had provided the intellectual justifica- 159–160).
tion for viewing poverty as a problem to be controlled Soon after Lewis’ synthesis was published, intellectual
(Himmelfarb, 1971, 1983). They developed many of the opposition to this systematization arose, particularly among
methods and starting points later embraced by Lewis. This cultural anthropologists (Valentine, 1968; Leacock, 1971). By
included descriptive statistics of the distribution of ‘traits’ (rate using the preposition ‘of’ to link culture and poverty, and by
of prostitution, alcoholism, unwed motherhood, etc.) across arguing that the poor are caught in a culture that they repro-
populations and correlations often interpreted as causations. duce in their children, Lewis encouraged those who imagined
This paralleled much nineteenth-century social theory pur- that alleviating poverty had to proceed through reforming the
porting to explain other differences in human populations on poor, and particularly their children. Soon, the opposition
biological or evolutionary bases. started to argue that accepting culture of poverty framework

590 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64091-6
 Culture of Poverty: Critique 591

amounted to ‘blaming the victim’ and, in a few years, the novelistic accounts of poverty by Dickens and others. All this
phrase became a mark of opprobrium. led to new laws and programs. To quote Himmelfarb: “It is one
The overall argumentation, however, did not disappear, of the many ironies of the period that just at the time the poor
though it is now sometimes couched in different terms. In were finally relieved of the stigma of pauperism, when they
recent years, William Julius Wilson (2009, 2012[1987]), seemed to be following the model laid down by Adam Smith
among others (Furstenberg et al., 1999), has argued for a return rather than that of Malthus, Mayhew came along and, with the
to at least some of the lines of investigation Lewis had put most laudable intentions and the most generous of sympa-
forth. The critique of these lines of investigation is also being thies, inflicted upon the poor a new stigma and saddled society
renewed particularly by anthropologists who have distanced with a new problem, the ‘culture of poverty’” (Himmelfarb,
themselves from the concept of culture, as well as by those who 1984: 370). Karl Marx himself, if one accepts Rancière’s inter-
are working at recapturing the original Boasian concerns with pretation (2004[1983]), may have contributed to this view of
establishing that, among human beings, like causes, such as the poor as caught in their position. On the one hand, Marx
‘poverty,’ do not necessarily lead to like effects. was suspicious of the labor unions emerging from the poor in
This article is organized into seven sections. Beginning with England. On the other hand, he reserved for intellectuals
a historical overview of precursors to the ‘culture of poverty’ a particular place in the enlightenment of the proletariat.
program, the sections move chronologically toward the
contemporary state of research and critical engagement relating
poverty to culture. The Culture Concept from Boas to Lewis

The nineteenth century also saw the first definitions of the

Poverty and Policy: Some Historical Background culture concept as it came to be used by anthropologists. As
Edward Tylor put it: “Culture . is that complex whole which
The Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601, later carried from England includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any
to America (Katz, 2011: 11–16), divided the poor into three other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
categories: those who could not work, those who could work society” (2004[1871]: 1). A century later, Lewis issued a defi-
but choose not to, and those who are willing to work. The nition of culture somewhat consistent with Tylor’s definition –
Poor Laws mark the point at which religious duty toward the though slanted in a more psychological direction. As Lewis put
poor gave way to legally sanctioned relations. Two centuries it: “The culture of poverty is not just a matter of deprivation or
later, in his An Essay on the Principle of Population (2003 disorganization, a term signifying the absence of something. It
[1798]), Thomas Robert Malthus theorized that there was is a culture in the traditional anthropological sense in that it
a relationship between population and economy, but social provides human beings with a design for living, with
position between the two was static and thus, whatever a readymade set of solutions for human problems, and so
happened in the broad economy, the poor would be left serves a significant adaptive function” (Lewis, 1966). At
mired in ‘misery and vice.’ Malthus opposed Adam Smith’s about the same time, the most powerful anthropologist of
argument that the spread of capitalism would lead to an his generation, Clifford Geertz, wrote that ‘culture’ is both
improvement in the well-being of all, as national wealth ‘model of’ and ‘model for’ behavior (Geertz, 1973[1966]: 93).
increased (Himmelfarb, 1983). Malthus countered that the This view of culture has now been thoroughly critiqued
population principle would prevent this from happening (Abu-Lughod, 1991; Ortner, 1999) but, even at the time, it
because population expands to fit available resources. This represented a significant departure from an earlier version
produces a stress on these resources so that poverty would developed by Franz Boas. Boas was trained in physics and
remain and a class of people would occupy the position. geography but moved away from these fields when he started
Malthus also inquired into the mechanism by which the working with the people of the Pacific Northwest and curated
population is sorted into successes and failures. His answer is ethnographic collections at the Smithsonian and the Museum
that those at the bottom of the economic ladder remained of Natural History. There, he began to debate with others over
there because they lacked the qualities of economic superiors; the display of ethnographic artifacts and, indirectly, about the
namely moral restraint in the form of vice, drunkenness, and human activities that produced these artifacts. J.W. Powell,
sexual promiscuity, as well as the inability to discipline McGee, and Mason were convinced that primitive people came
themselves to foresee and save for the future (Himmelfarb, to adopt more evolved ideas, materials, and processes through
1983: 119). a process of social evolution in which the environment strictly
Malthus’s work entered the world of nineteenth century determined social development. Following this principle led
public policy in various ways. Mayhew, a journalist, took to the Mason to argue for the display of ethnographic artifacts in term
streets of London to observe and describe the types of poor of evolutionary phases following the logic that, in human
people then living on the streets of London. He did this affairs, as in nature, like-causes lead to like-events. Boas
through a variety of methodological tools such as maps, opposed this. He argued that “due to the intricacy of the acting
biographies, and observation. More importantly, he applied causes” (Boas, 1887: 485) in human action, it was unlikely that
the tools of storytelling to exaggerate his observations toward like causes could be established and used for drawing broad
evoking pathos in his readers. Mayhew’s (1986[1850]) book is generalizations and “the disposition of men to act suitably can
filled with ethnographic vignettes and statistics linked to area be the only general cause.” This led him to argue, successfully,
maps aimed at showing the intensity of crime, ignorance for the display of artifacts in the context of their use among
(illiteracy), and illegitimacy. He provided a further warrant to a particular people, at a particular time in their history.
592 Culture of Poverty: Critique

After Boas moved to Columbia University, he developed Tepoztecan personality” (1951: 426). But his interest in the
this perspective in his research and argued forcefully and issue remained and led him to focus on families as the unit of
systematically against all those who interpreted culture as the analyses and entry point for gaining “greater insight into both
inevitable properties of people caught in various conditions. the culture and the people” (Lewis cited in Rigdon, 1988: 34).
For him, culture referred to processes of ongoing adaptation to This turn, as well as his admiration for such major figures in the
local conditions. Boas emphasized that people of all back- late versions of culture and personality theorizing as Erik
grounds can adapt to any setting if they must, or allowed to Erickson and Jules Henry, took him to the formulation of the
(1938[1911]). He demonstrated that people could adapt culture of poverty for which he remains best known.
differently to very similar conditions. This style of argumenta-
tion was echoed in a letter, Conrad Arensberg wrote to Oscar
Lewis. Lewis had written to Arensberg that “poverty, and all The Policy Context of the ‘Culture of Poverty’
that goes with it, is literally stable, persistent, and passed down
along family lines. Can all the many cross cultural similarities I When Lewis wrote his paper in the Scientific American, a still
have mentioned been the result of accident or coincidence?” somewhat obscure Assistant Secretary of Labor, Daniel P.
Arensberg answered: “The reactions to poverty are many: Moynihan, was asked to write a report making the case for
Middle Eastern, Arab austerity, Puritan frugality, Chassidism, federal policies to ‘resolve a problem’ he summarized as
the lazzaroni of Naples, etc. This shows that poverty, even with follows: “Three centuries of injustice have brought about deep-
urbanization, does not produce similarities of culture .” seated structural distortions in the life of the Negro American.
(Rigdon, 1988: 226) In other words, very similar causes At this point, the present tangle of pathology is capable of
(material deprivation, political discrimination, disease, etc.) perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world.
lead to very different kinds of adaptations. The cycle can be broken on if these distortions are set right
[through a national effort directed toward the question of
family structure]” (Moynihan, 1965: 47).
Lewis’ Intellectual Milieu This report quoted extensively from E. Franklin Frazier’s The
Negro Family in the United States (1966[1939]) and used the
Lewis was a product of Columbia’s anthropology department, book as justification. The foreword to the third edition, also
at a time when the department was in transition from the published in 1966, was written by the famous sociologist
Boasian paradigm as it had evolved to concerns with cultural Nathan Glazer who dismissed what he called the “cultural
ecology and multilineal evolution. At Columbia, Lewis studied relativism and anthropological romanticization” associated
with Ruth Benedict but also took courses on technology, with Allison Davis who had also written about black life in the
archaeology, etc. (Rigdon, 1988: 12). In 1939 Lewis, and his postreconstruction South (1941). Glazer writes: “Frazier I think
wife and frequent collaborator Ruth, were one of four field was more hardheaded, . as was W.E.B. Du Bois: It was all bad
teams organized by Benedict to carry out a comparative and – the abandoned mothers, the roving men, the sexually
historical study in the Blackfoot Reservation. This led to Lewis’ experienced youth” (1966: xi). Glazer emphasized that much
dissertation on “The Effects of White Contact upon Blackfoot of what Frazier had written was supported by contemporary
Culture, with Special Reference to the Effects of the Fur Trade” social science, including anthropology: “The family itself was
(1943). The dissertation was not based on field research but the support of the social structure. Children were socialized
rather on the analysis of historical documents. But it does echo into certain values . and they maintained a society” (Glazer,
the tension that characterized Lewis’ work throughout his 1966: ix). This statement may be closer to Parsons than to
career: the concern with economic interaction between unequal the anthropologists, Glazer mentions. And he does not
groups, and the consequences of this interaction. mention the Chicago sociologists who had trained Frazier
In 1944, and again in 1947, Lewis spent several months in and who would also have encouraged him toward social
Tepoztlán, a large village in Mexico, the beginning of a series of psychological explanations of individual behavior.
field investigations in the country. Lewis’ subsequent work The statement was also close to statements by others hailing
came to focus more on the psychological consequences of life from other disciplines. In 1962, Michael Harrington’s pub-
in difficult economic conditions, and less on the social and lished a book, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, an
political processes that produced difficult conditions. In his examination of poverty in the Appalachian region of the
first book (1960[1951]), Lewis distinguishes his work from United States. Stylistically, Harrington shared with Lewis and
earlier work by Robert Redfield on the same village (1930), Mayhew a depiction of the poor as being both structurally and
emphasizing that life in the village could not be understood culturally deprived. Like Lewis, Harrington was moved by
except in terms of the political history of the village through the a moral and political concern with changing the conditions of
Mexican revolution, the Spanish colonization, and back to pre- the poor that had to proceed through the political activities of
Columbian. He lists the governmental agencies that controlled the more privileged. Social psychologists (Deutsch, 1960) came
the village, expands on its political organization, and traces to the issue from slightly different perspectives. Linguists also
differences in wealth and land ownership. He also wrote about provided evidence (Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966; Bernstein,
the impact of all this on interpersonal relationships, particu- 1962, 1965). All talked about deprivation, developmental
larly in families. He concludes with comments on the rela- delays, etc., and wrote about the effect of all this on school
tionship of his work to the discussions of ‘culture and success, which could then be used as a proxy for the evaluation
personality’ that most concerned many influential anthropol- of the social costs of poverty and the effectiveness of various
ogists at the time and notes that “I have not written about the policies. The method was systematized in the Equality of
 Culture of Poverty: Critique 593

Educational Opportunity Study (2007[1966]), generally known as are aware of and engaged with concerns and politics beyond
the ‘Coleman Study,’ commissioned by the United States their immediate concerns with the problems of family and
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1966 and friends. The empirical Lewis, in contrast to the theoretical
parallels the Moynihan report by also emphasizing the role of Lewis, demonstrates political involvement and activism as
families over the role of schools in the measure of schooling well as a cosmopolitanism his theoretical stance denies.
success. To this day, this method remains the main entry point Valentine also criticized Frazier and, by implication, most
in the operationalization of poverty and its effects, as well as research in sociology, psychology, linguistics. First, Valentine
the means to measure the effectiveness of government policies. (1968: 122) argues that Frazier’s depictions of the poor are
The ensemble of political concerns crystalized through the Civil drawn from second-hand case studies and writings made by
Rights movement, given an opportunity by Lyndon Johnson policemen, social workers, and other observers with their own
and the Congressional majorities in the 1960s, and supported professional concerns, not from Frazier’s first-hand study.
by all the most respectable of behavioral scientific theorizing – Second, Frazier uses census data and other statistical abstracts
including by black intellectuals like Frazier – produced a perfect as evidence of social disorganization, ignoring the effects of the
storm. statistical technique in shaping the data.

The Critique Alternatives and Follow-Up

Within a few years, in the mid-1960s, those who hoped that the Lewis, like his teachers at Columbia University, was con-
federal government would get involved in the problems of cerned with the relationship of individuals to each other and
poverty were encouraged by the creation of programs like Head to the institutions they faced. But there were other ways of
Start, the expansion of older programs like Aid to Dependent conceptualizing this relationship that did not veer into
Children, the funding of such things as Sesame Street, etc. But studying psychological internalization of ‘cultural traits.’ The
soon, all this slowed down as the mood in Washington first came directly out of the initial version of the Boasian
changed and the intellectual grounding of these efforts, as well tradition. The second had its roots in British social
as a reinterpretation of the political motivations that may have anthropology.
made these programs popular, came under withering criticism. Solon Kimball and Alfred Kroeber, at the 1954 Stanford
In 1967, Lee Rainwater and William Yancey edited a volume conference on Anthropology and Education, spoke from the
summarizing the first wave of reactions to the Moynihan Boasian tradition. They called for a powerful turn in the work
Report. In 1968, Charles Valentine published a critique that of the first generation of anthropologists: that any form of
remains the best and most systematic presentation of the human behavior must be seen in its context of use, and
anthropological response to Lewis. approached in a comparative manner.
Lewis’ biographer Rigdon (1988: 109–110), in taking The second direction was taken by a group of anthropolo-
a historical look at Lewis’ work and the ensuing critiques has gists working in England. Most notable were Barnes, who
summarized the six flaws most often mentioned: studied social like in a Norwegian fishing village (1954), and
Bott who wrote about working-class families in London
1. Sampling was not from low-income people, but rather from
(1958). Both used social network analysis as the means to
those Lewis believed would exhibit the traits constituting
study the relation of individual to society. Barnes found that
the culture of poverty.
individuals were enmeshed in multiple, overlapping networks
2. Lewis relied on the concept of ‘culture trait,’ but his depar-
of social relations stretching into and out of their respective
ture deviated from common academic usage of the term and
families. The poor in Barnes’ study were neither isolated, nor
he failed to elucidate a definition to illuminate his idio-
disorganized, nor uninterested in large issues. Similarly, Bott
syncratic use.
found that the composition of married couples’ external social
3. Lewis put forward no standard to measure the traits typical
networks in London influenced their roles within the family,
of the culture of poverty.
and that these networks offered emotional support not offered
4. Lewis assumed that the culture of poverty was a ‘way of life’
within the family roles. Hence, Bott found that poor families
handed down from generation to generation, but conduct-
were not at all isolated. Neither Barnes nor Bott found the lives
ed no longitudinal studies to demonstrate this point.
of the poor or working class to be any less complex or well
Instead, he relied upon interviews with consecutive gener-
organized than those of their wealthier contemporaries.
ations of the same family.
The 1970s and 1980s saw a surge of such studies, mostly by
5. Lewis’ claims about the transmission of the culture of
anthropologists, in various settings, through various method-
poverty rely upon a causal connection that his data cannot
ologies, and from the point of view of different theoretical
supply.
frameworks. Some of the most notable are Carol Stack (1975),
6. Lewis, much like Mayhew before him, skewed his sample
Holloman and Lewis (1978), Shimkin et al. (1978) on black
with exceptional cases and eschewed less dramatic cases that
families, Ray McDermott’s work on the organization of class-
might have challenged his assumptions.
room interaction (1977), Paul Willis on working-class youth
Valentine addressed all these matters, and he also empha- (1977), Luis Moll on ‘funds of knowledge’ (1994). Together,
sized that Lewis’ own data, as presented in La Vida, for example, they demonstrated more systematically that there are many
did not support his generalizations (1968: 50–66). This ways to being poor, that these ways are tied to matters not
interview data actually provides rich portraits of people who under the control of the poor, that the poor can strategize in
594 Culture of Poverty: Critique

order to survive, and that they always ‘make sense’ if one their children to read (Ranciere, 1991), and the near ubiquitous
understood the full context of their actions. experience of teaching oneself how to use a computer.
In the long run, it might make the most sense to consider
these controversies as a long conversation among mostly well-
A Continuing Debate meaning people seeking to help people in difficulty. The
imperative to help will remain, as will the uncertainties of how
It is not the case, however, that all concerned with the poor to do it in such a way that it does not make matters worse.
were convinced by these demonstrations. Glazer’s critique of Debates will be continually waged on how to provide the
some initial work on blacks in the South by Davis and analytic frameworks and empirical studies that might explain
Havighurst was taken up by sociologists and social pyscholo- the conditions of poverty, and contribute to an assessment of
gists, who charged anthropologists with romanticization and the efficacy of various policies.
broad generalization on the basis of very small and
nonrandom samples analyzed in unreliable ways that could See also: Anthropological Approaches to the Study of
not be replicated. While many anthropologists criticize the use Education: The United States and Beyond; Boas, Franz
of statistics, many in the other disciplines criticized their (1858–1942); Early Emotional Development and Cultural
unwillingness to deal with well-established correlations in Variability; First Language Acquisition, Developmental
large data sets. The clarion call may have been sounded by the Psychology of; Poverty Law: United States; Poverty Policy;
sociologist William Julius Wilson who, in 1987, affirmed that Poverty in History; Poverty: Measurement and Analysis; Special
“liberals will have to propose thoughtful explanations of the Education in the United States: Legal History; Urban Poverty in
rise in inner-city dislocations. Such explanations should Neighborhoods; Values Across Cultures, Development of;
emphasize the dynamic interplay between ghetto-specific Welfare and Education.
cultural characteristics and social and economic opportunities”
(1987: 18). By casting the debate as one of liberals versus
conservatives, Wilson also reaffirmed the moral imperative
behind work on the poor that emphasize dislocation.
Bibliography
From a different, though related point of view, the powerful
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1977[1972]) wrote many Abu-Lughod, Lila, 1991. Writing against culture. Santa Fe, NM. In: Fox, R. (Ed.),
very influential books about what he called the habitus that Recapturing Anthropology.
characterize individuals as they are shaped by their conditions Barnes, John A., 1954. Class and committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human
(‘structured structures’) they keep reproducing in themselves Relations 7 (1), 39.
Bereiter, Carl, Engelmann, Siegfried, 1966. Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the
and their children (‘structuring structures’), as they misunder- Pre-school. Prentice Hall.
stand the mechanisms involved in the reproduction of their Bernstein, Basil, 1962/1971. “Social Class, Linguistic Codes and Grammatical
social positions, particularly those proceeding through schooling Elements”. In His Class, Codes and Control. I: Theoretical Studies toward
and the media. Bourdieu’s work has had a major impact on the a Sociology of Language, pp. 73–92. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Bernstein, Basil, 1965/1971. “A Socio-linguistic Approach to Social Learning: With
American social sciences and remains an inescapable reference
Some Reference to Educability”. In His Class, Codes and Control. I: Theoretical
point when looking at class inequalities and poverty. Studies toward a Sociology of Language, pp. 25–61. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
In short order, behavioral scientists from a variety of disci- London.
plines presented evidence of the dangers a child face when Boas, Franz, 1887. The occurrence of similar inventions in areas widely apart. Science
raised in a household led by a single woman with or without 9 (224), 485–486.
Boas, Franz, 1938[1911]. The Mind of Primitive Man. The Free Press, New York.
step-parents, people like Garfinkel and McLanahan (1986) and Bott, Elizabeth, 1958. Urban Families: Conjugal Roles and Social Networks. Aldine-
Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) presented the kind of Atherton.
evidence that led to a reprise of Frazier and Moynihan’s take. Bourdieu, Pierre, 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. In: Goody, Jack (Ed.),
Linguists presented again the same kind of evidence used in the Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology, vol.16. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
1960s to build a case for child deprivation: some children hear
Coleman, James S., 2007[1966]. Equality of Educational Opportunity Study 1966.
more words, in more complex settings, and are thus better Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
prepared for school (Hart and Risley, 2004). This research is Davis, Allison, 2009[1941]. Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and
once again the foundation of new policies from the ‘No Child Class (Southern Classics). University of South Carolina Press.
Left Behind’ act to the call for universal preschools, compre- Deutsch, Martin, 1960. Minority Group and Class Status as Related to Social and
Personality Factors in Scholastic Achievement. Society for Applied Anthropology,
hensive education programs, and other broad interventions. Ithaca, NY.
Recent research from alternative perspectives points out defi- Frazier, Edward Franklin, 1966[1939]. The Negro Family in the United States.
ciencies in the use of concepts like ‘cultural characteristics,’ University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
‘dislocation,’ ‘deprivation,’ by bringing out the evidence that Furstenberg, Frank F., Cook, Thomas D., Eccles, Jacquelynne, et al., 1999. Managing
to Make It: Urban Families and Adolescent Success (The John D. And Catherine T.
the poor, in the worst of economic circumstances, can still
MacArthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and De), first ed. University of
organize themselves to face what is their actual conditions. Chicago Press.
Evidence has been brought out about the enslaved Africans in Garfinkel, Michael, McLanahan, Sara, 1986. Single Mothers and Their Children: A New
the American South who taught themselves how to read American Dilemma. Urban Institute Press.
(Gundaker, 2007), the Mexican migrant workers who taught Geertz, Clifford, 1973[1966]. “Religion as a Cultural System.” in His the Interpretation
of Culture. Basic Books, New York, pp. 87–125.
themselves English (Kalmar, 2000), fishermen who learn to Glazer, Nathan, 1966. The Negro Family in the United States. Foreword to the
fish through the experience of catching, or not catching, fish Revised and Abridged Edition of E. Franklin Frazier’s. University of Chicago Press,
(Pálsson and Helgason, 1998), illiterate parents who teach Chicago.
 Culture of Poverty: Critique 595

Gundaker, Grey, 2007. Hidden education among African Americans during slavery. The Pálsson, Gísli, Helgason, Agnar, 1998. Schooling and Skipperhood: the development of
Teachers College Record 109 (7), 1591–1612. dexterity. American Anthropologist 100 (4), 908–923.
Harrington, Michael, 1997[1962]. The Other America: Poverty in the United States, Parsons, Talcott, Shils, Edward (Eds.), 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action, first
reprint ed. Scribner. ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hart, Betty, Risley, Todd R., 2004. The early catastrophe. Education Review 77 (1), 100–118. Rainwater, Lee, Yancey, William, 1967. The Moynihan Report and the Politics of
Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 1971. Mayhew’s poor: a problem of identity. Victorian Studies Controversy: A Trans-action Social Science and Public Policy Report. M.I.T. Press.
14 (3), 307–320. Rancière, Jacques, 1991[1987]. The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in
Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 1983. The Idea of Poverty, first ed. Knopf, New York. Intellectual Emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 1984. The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age. Rancière, Jacques, 2004[1983]. In: Parker (Ed.), The Philosopher and His Poor. Duke
Knopf. University Press Books (John Drury, Corinne Oster, Trans.).
Holloman, Regina, Lewis, Fannie, 1978. The ‘Clan’: case study of a black extended Redfield, Robert, 1930. Tepoztlan: A Mexican Village a Study of Folk Life, first ed. The
family in chicago. In: Shimkin, D., Shimkin, E., Frate, D. (Eds.), The Extended University of Chicago Press.
Family in Black Societies. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 201–238. Rigdon, Susan, 1988. The Culture Facade: Art, Science, and Politics in the Work of
Kalmar, Tomás Mario, 2000. Illegal Alphabets and Adult Biliteracy: Latino Migrants Oscar Lewis, first ed. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Crossing the Linguistic Border, first ed. Routledge. Shimkin, Demitri, Louie, G., Frate, D., 1978. The black extended family: a basic rural
Katz, Michael, 2011. The Undeserving Poor. Pantheon. institution and a mechanism of urban adaptation. In: Shimkin, D., Shimkin, E., Frate, D.
Leacock, Eleanor Burke, 1971. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. Touchstone. (Eds.), The Extended Family in Black Societies. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 25–147.
Lewis, Oscar, 1943. The Effects of White Contact upon Blackfoot Culture, with Special Stack, Carol, 1975. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. Harper
Reference to the Effects of the Fur Trade (Ph.D. dissertation). Columbia University. and Row, New York.
Lewis, Oscar, 1960. Tepoztlán: Village in Mexico (Case Studies in Cultural Anthro- Trouillot, Michel-Rolph, 2003. Global Transformations: Anthropology and the Modern
pology). Harcourt College Publishers. World, first ed. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Lewis, Oscar, 1966. The culture of poverty. Scientific American 215, 19–25. Tylor, Edward Burnett, 2010[1871]. Primitive Culture: Researches into the
Malthus, Thomas Robert, Appleman, Philip, 2003[1798]. An Essay on the Principle of Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom (Cambridge
Population, second ed. W.W. Norton & Company (Norton Critical Editions). Second ed. Library Collection – Anthropology), first ed. Cambridge University Press,
McDermott, Ray, 1977. Social relations as contexts for learning in school. Harvard Cambridge.
Educational Review 47 (2), 198–213. Valentine, Charles A., 1968. Culture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-Proposals. Univ
McLanahan, Sara, 1994[1986]. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Helps. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wallerstein, Judith, Blakeslee, Judith S., 1989. Second Chances: Men, Women, and
Moll, Luis C., Amanti, Cathy, Neff, Deborah, Gonzalez, Norma, 1992. Funds of Children a Decade after Divorce. Ticknor & Fields, New York.
knowledge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes and Willis, Paul, 1981. Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class
classrooms. Theory into Practice 31 (2), 132–141. Jobs, morningside ed. Columbia University Press, New York.
Moynihan, Patrick, 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Office of Wilson, William Julius, 2009. More than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner
Policy Planning and Research United States Department of Labor. City. W.W. Norton, New York.
Ortner, Sherry B., 1999. The Fate of ‘culture’: Geertz and beyond. University of Wilson, William Julius, 2012[1987]. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the
California Press, Berkeley. Underclass, and Public Policy, second ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

View publication stats