{"id":10849,"date":"2011-01-15T10:05:16","date_gmt":"2011-01-15T09:05:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mono-1en-1580"},"modified":"2024-11-15T18:16:08","modified_gmt":"2024-11-15T17:16:08","slug":"poor-reason-culture-still-doesnt-explain-poverty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/2011\/01\/15\/poor-reason-culture-still-doesnt-explain-poverty\/","title":{"rendered":"Poor Reason: Culture still doesn’t explain poverty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n“‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a
\nComeback.” So read the headline of Patricia Cohen\u2019s
\nfront-page article<\/a> in the October 17, 2010 edition of The<\/em>
\nNew York Times<\/em>.
\nThe article was prompted by a recent
\nissue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
\nScience<\/em> under the title, “Reconsidering Culture and
\nPoverty<\/a>.” In their introductory essay, the editors, Mario Luis
\nSmall, David J. Harding, and Mich\u00e8le Lamont, strike a triumphant
\nnote:<\/p>\n

Culture is back on the poverty research agenda,
\noffering fresh insights into the complex web of factors shaping
\nsocioeconomic realities. Over the past decade, sociologists, demographers,
\nand even economists have explored how cultural norms and values influence
\nbehaviors, decisions, and opportunities within low-income populations.
\nFor example, cultural attitudes toward risk-taking and reward often play a
\ncritical role in economic behavior, much like the choices individuals make
\non gambling sites not on Gamstop<\/a>, which cater to specific preferences
\nand provide options outside mainstream platforms. Such sites thrive by
\nappealing to diverse cultural and psychological factors, reflecting the
\nbroader significance of understanding cultural dynamics. Similarly, by
\nincorporating these cultural lenses, researchers can better explain behaviors,
\naspirations, and coping mechanisms within impoverished communities, opening
\npathways for more tailored and effective interventions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Cohen begins with a similar refrain:<\/p>\n

For more than 40 years,
\nsocial scientists investigating the causes of poverty have tended to
\ntreat cultural explanations like Lord Voldemort: That Which Must Not Be
\nNamed. The reticence was a legacy of the ugly battles that erupted after
\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan, then an assistant labor secretary in the
\nJohnson administration, introduced the idea of a \u2018culture of
\npoverty\u2019 to the public in his 1965 report on ‘The Negro
\nFamily.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Cohen uncritically accepts two myths
\nwoven by William Julius Wilson, the prominent Harvard sociologist, and
\nrepeated by his acolytes: first, Moynihan was clobbered for bringing to
\nlight compromising facts about black families, and second, that this
\ntorrent of criticism constrained a generation of social scientists from
\ninvestigating the relation between culture and poverty, for fear that it
\nwould be pilloried for “blaming the victim.” Thus, a third,
\npatently self-serving myth: thanks to some intrepid scholars who reject
\npolitical correctness, it is now permissible to consider the role that
\nculture plays in the production and reproduction of racial inequalities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Link<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback.” So read the headline of Patricia Cohen\u2019s front-page article in the October 17, 2010 edition of The New York Times. The article was prompted by a recent issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science under the title, “Reconsidering Culture and Poverty.” In their … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"koromo_page_header":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-blog","koromo-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post\/10849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10849"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post\/10849\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13242,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post\/10849\/revisions\/13242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monochrom.at\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}