Pathological Explanations of Poverty

Pathological Explanations of Poverty Discuss the pathological and structural explanations of poverty. Poverty was first identified by Sir William Beveridge in 1942, as a major social evil in society. It is a highly contested and multi-dimensional social problem that has no single agreed definition. Kilty et al defines poverty as ‘an overall condition of inadequacy, lacking and scarcity’. She further claims, ‘it is destitution and deficiency of economic, political and social resources’ (Kilty et al, 1997: 30 cited in Kane Kirby, 2003: 52). Social scientists have established two main representations of poverty. These are absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty denotes a lack of access to a minimum level of subsistence that is required to live a healthy lifestyle. This includes basic life necessities such as food, water, clothing and shelter. In contrast, sociologist Peter Townsend defines relative poverty in terms of relative deprivation which means that the living standards of the poor are considered far too removed from the rest of society (Holman, 1978; Pantazis et al, 2006). Sociologists have identified numerous explanations for the existence and persistence of poverty. These include unemployment, homelessness, ill health, old age, lack of access to education and an underprivileged socio-economic position in society. In this essay, I will discuss two major sociological/political theories of poverty, one known as the pathological explanation and the other as the structural explanation. As part of the pathological perspective I will explore individualistic, familial and subcultural understandings of poverty. In contrast within structural accounts, I will examine class, agency and inequality approaches to poverty. In doing so, I will discover their solutions to help tackle poverty and will also evaluate the relevance of both pathological and structural explanations in the contemporary world (ibid). Pathological explanations of poverty are favoured by those on the right of the political spectrum. Firstly, according to the individualistic viewpoint social problems like poverty, unemployment and crime stem from individual deficiencies and limitations. For instance, it is argued that the poor have a character defect. They are deliberately indolent individuals who have made bad choices in life. Therefore, they are held responsible for their own plight. Individualistic explanations also attribute poverty to the biology of the poor. In support of this, Charles Murray (2000) claims that ‘by choosing to be poor people pass on inferior genes to their offspring’ and ‘over time, there is a deterioration in the genome of the poor’ (Fitzpatrick, 2011: 101). Nevertheless, it must be noted that there is no scientific evidence to prove that poverty is an innate problem (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978). Successive governments have adopted different policy approaches to tackle poverty. A historic example is of the 19th century Poor Law Amendment Act which was introduced in 1834. The act took into consideration the widely accepted individualistic ideology of its time, which believed poverty to be a moral failure of the individual. As a result, workhouses were introduced to instil discipline in poor citizens. The conditions of a workhouse were deliberately terrible in order to discourage people from applying for state assistance and instead, provide them with the incentive to find work. Later, the act was heavily criticised for purely treating the symptoms of poverty rather than the actual disease itself. Alternatively, familial explanations of poverty blame the individual’s family circumstances for shaping their disadvantaged lifestyle. For example, if a child lives in a family environment that is characterised by laziness, poor educational attainment, unemployment, delinquency and dependence on the welfare state, then the child is more likely to grow up dysfunctional (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Kane Kirby, 2003; Townsend, 1979). Familial explanations also attribute poverty to the child rearing practices of lower class families. It is argued that these families encounter multiple deprivations in life and are thus, unable to provide their children with a decent upbringing. This has a negative impact on the child’s life opportunities. According to the cycle of deprivation theory, family pathology is responsible for transmitting social deprivation intergenerationally. This is due to the belief that poverty runs in families. Furthermore, in an attempt to end the generational cycle of poverty, in 1998 the New Labour government introduced Sure Start programmes which are a form of educational intervention in the lives of children. They were set up with the aim of improving deprived children’s life chances, so that they do not face disadvantage in the school life (Kane Kirby, 2003; Shuffelton, 2013). The third well-known pathological explanation is the subculture of poverty theory which was coined by the American anthropologist Oscar Lewis. Lewis claimed that poor families exist within a subculture which is made up of unique behaviour patterns and characteristics. These are distinct from mainstream society and include: long-term unemployment, substance abuse and welfare dependency. Subcultural explanations claim that groups who share these negative characteristics are destined to remain within a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. They begin viewing poverty as an accepted lifestyle and make little effort to improve their circumstances. However, this is not necessarily true as an individual’s changing economic circumstances can lift them out of poverty. Additionally, many people do make an effort to improve their situation through work and the education system. Overall, subcultural explanations have proven beneficial in explaining the persistence of poverty in the contempor ary world (Holman, 1978; Kane Kirby, 2003; Waxman, 1977). Pathological explanations of poverty have received considerable support from New Right theorists, the Conservative Party and other Right Wing academics like Charles Murray (1984), who is highly critical of the welfare state. Murray asserts that welfare benefits have gave birth to an underclass in society and a generation of the unemployed. He argues the welfare system is a poverty-perpetuating system, as over-generous welfare benefits have encouraged recipients’ to become dependent upon them throughout their entire lives. Nevertheless, Murray has been criticised for underestimating the desire of the underclass to be free from state assistance. Likewise, his ideological position has meant that he has also lacked focus in explaining how wider structural factors may also cause poverty (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978; Niskanen, 1996). Murray’s underclass theory has influenced contemporary government approaches to tackle welfare dependency. For instance, the current UK coalition government has adopted radical policies that involve cutbacks in benefits and the introduction of disciplinary workfare programmes, where welfare claimants are obliged to undertake voluntary work or training in return for their benefits. The coalition government has also expanded apprenticeships. The aim of such policies is to help welfare dependents regain the incentive to work. This is by teaching them the skills needed for a decent paid job. Overall, pathological explanations of poverty have numerous strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the political scientist Michael Harrington asserts that, ‘the real explanation of why the poor are where they are is that they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents in the wrong section of the country in the wrong industry or in the wrong racial or ethnic group. There are two important ways of saying this: the poor are caught up in a vicious circle; or the poor live in a culture of poverty’ (Harrington, 1962: 12 cited in Kane Kirby, 2003: 98). Here, Harrington illustrates his support for the pathological explanation by highlighting the importance of familial and subcultural explanations in understanding poverty (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978; Niskanen, 1996). Pathological explanations have also been criticised for ignoring how wider societal and situational factors cause poverty. For example, circumstances where an individual loses their job, partner or experiences ill health may push an individual into a poverty lifestyle. In addition, the theory does not explain why particular groups like ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to poverty. For example, the structural perspective of poverty would argue that ethnic minorities experience discrimination and social exclusion in all areas of life. This is often attributed to their race, religion or culture. Within the workplace, they are treated as a source of cheap expendable labour, are provided with menial tasks and are paid well below the minimum wage. This example illustrates how social injustices can create poverty in society (ibid). In opposition to the pathological perspective, structural accounts of poverty are favoured by those on the left of the political spectrum. Firstly, according to the Marxist explanation by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), poverty is a key ingredient of capitalist societies. All capitalist societies are characterised by class conflict between the bourgeoisies, who are the owners of the means of production and the proletariat or working class who sell their labour power in return for wages. Marxists argue that the proletariat experience marginalisation, exploitation and alienation at the hands of the bourgeoisie. This is clearly evident in the labour market where they are treated as a reserve army of labour, are made to work for long hours and are paid low wages in return. Although this enables the capitalist system to thrive, it creates inequalities in wealth and income and keeps the proletariat located at the very bottom of the social hierarchy (Fitzpatrick, 201 1; Kane Kirby, 2003) Karl Marx anticipated a revolution to occur where the proletariat collectively unite for radical social change. He argued that this revolution will give rise to a communist society which is based on equal distribution of wealth and thereby, will ensure the entire elimination of social problems. Nevertheless, Marx has been criticised for overestimating a revolution which has failed to occur. Therefore, the Marxist theory failed to come up with an adequate solution to the problem of poverty and instead, it continues to blames poverty on the evils of capitalism. Overall, Marxists argue that class conflict is an inevitable feature of every capitalist society and therefore, social class is the main socio-economic determinant of whether people experience poverty in the contemporary world (ibid). Secondly according to the agency perspective, poverty is caused by the failure of public services and inadequate welfare benefits. Although, social services play a vital role in alleviating social and material deprivation, this theory argues that they have proven inefficient in tackling poverty. Also, government policies and institutions that have been set up to eradicate poverty have not performed their duties and have failed to serve the needs of the poor. Consequently, it is argued that there is a need to improve both the access and administration of welfare services. Alternatively, advocates of the pathological explanation criticise structural explanations for advocating a hand-out approach to welfare, which they believe fosters a dependency culture and serves to perpetuate poverty in society. They argue that policy solutions should focus on making individuals self-reliant and not providing them with a cradle to grave welfare state (Holman, 1978; Pantazis et al, 2006). In response, advocates of the structural interpretation criticise pathological accounts for ignoring the rise in the number of the working poor who are also reliant on state assistance. This rise in the number of the working poor provides evidence against the pathological view that work is the best route out of poverty. Structural accounts of poverty have blamed the rise of the working poor on the retrenchment of welfare provisions by the New Right, which they argue provided people with an additional support mechanism. On the other hand, the third well-known structural perspective is based on an inequality approach and argues that poverty is attributed to inequalities in society in terms of race, gender, age, ethnicity and social class. Generally, it is argued that there is more poverty where there is economic inequality. For instance, Britain is an unequal society in terms of wealth and income. There is a huge gap between the rich and poor which demonstrated by the clear north/south divide in the country (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978) In order to tackle income inequality, structural viewpoints argue for a redistribution of wealth in society and the need for governments to implement inclusive policies that help integrate the poor back into society. This includes people with disabilities who face social exclusion in the labour market. Structural explanations also advocate for a change to the structure of society, and a redistributive taxation system and also greater economic growth which will create more jobs and help alleviate economic inequality. On the other hand, Unwin 2007 argues that because ‘people are both: individuals and social creatures. it is impossible to tackle poverty from just one or the other perspective’ (cited in Bourassa, 2009: online edition). Unwin argues a more effective solution would involve a combination of both structural and pathological understanding of poverty in explaining poverty in the contemporary world (Harrop, 2015: Online; Gooby, 2015: Online; Luebker, 2014). In conclusion, poverty has proven to be a highly complex and difficult challenge for all contemporary governments. Social scientists have established two compelling accounts of poverty. These are pathological and structural explanations of poverty. Pathological explanations of poverty are favoured by those on the right of the political perspective. According to the political right, poverty is blamed on individual, familial and subcultural factors. In contrast, structural explanations are favoured by those on the left wing of the political spectrum. According to the political left, poverty is a consequence of structural and societal factors. These include an individual’s social class, an inadequate agency and societal inequality which all help explain the cause of poverty in society. Research has shown that both perspectives have numerous strengths and weaknesses. One solution would involve a combination of the two perspectives, as it will offer a more holistic approach in unde rstanding and tackling poverty in the contemporary world.