Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Social construction of poverty

by In Wales Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 10:09:30 AM EST

I mentioned a couple of weeks back in a thread that I was working on an essay on social constructions of poverty.  It isn't very academic at all, just a very brief introduction to how social constructionism is used to identify social problems such as poverty.

I'm sure there will be criticisms aplenty for social constructionism, but I'm new to it and find it useful for giving me new language for talking about concepts that I currently inarticulately understand.  

From the diaries - whataboutbob

A social constructionist approach involves a process of identifying and defining how behaviours and characteristics of groups, and conditions of life, are made to mean something within society and how these understandings can then become embedded in social policies.

Common sense understandings take the form of things `that everybody knows'.

Different `truths' may exist around a social issue and these will often conflict and contest one another.  A social constructionist approach attempts to become a critical stranger to an issue, and to break down common sense knowledge and assumptions and societal norms, to explain why social problems such as poverty may exist.  Through doing this, certain resulting ideologies or discourses may dominate over others and these will take a larger influence in determining social policies and interventions that aim to tackle the social problem in question.

More than one construction may be in play around a particular topic such as poverty, arising from a range of different perspectives. For example, social constructs of poverty give rise to views on whether or not poverty is a problem, and it if is, how it is caused and as a result, whether something can be done about it.  

This brings about various claims that lead to the labelling of groups, bringing with it a set of societal expectations and values around that group. For example, labelling poor people as being problems, or having problems will determine whether they are worthy of support or not.  Deconstructing these different approaches towards identifying and labelling social problems gives an insight as to the causes and possible solutions.

Social Problems
Whether an issue is understood to be a social problem and how it is viewed to be is determined partly by whether or not the issue captures public attention, through the scale of the problem, but also by connecting to social values and concerns.  Such values around what makes a problem a social problem will be particular to different times and cultures and the different perspectives that consequently arise from that. For example, poverty may be viewed by some as a social problem because it concerns social justice or social order and must be tackled through public interventions.  Others may believe that poverty is inevitable or isn't really in existence and isn't a social problem at all.  Different common senses will construct poverty in different ways.

Problems such as poverty may have internal or external causes, may be constrained by natural or social factors and can be approached on many levels. Some may suggest that poverty is naturally inevitable as a result of `survival of the fittest' and different abilities and levels of performance in a competitive world, separating groups out to create poverty. Others view the way that society is constructed as creating poverty, such as people being trapped in low income jobs or on benefits, with this being out of individual control.

`Social constructions that focus on nature tend to be resistant to change, social constructions that centre on social conditions and causes of social issues tend to imply the possibility of change...'.

Poverty can also be viewed on an individual or familial level, which looks at personal characteristics (such as poor people not being willing to work hard) and the family environment that may have influenced whether they aim to get out of poverty or accept it.  Looking at the locality would take a view on local issues such as whether there are employment opportunities in an area, or whether housing is poor, possibly affecting local culture and making poverty more or less likely.  On a wider cultural level, it could be considered whether or not society places an emphasis on promoting personal responsibility or social responsibility for dealing with poverty and providing opportunities for escaping poverty. On a structural level, the way that society as a whole functions and the types of economic and employment trends and welfare support that exist will impact on how widespread poverty is and how easily people can fall into poverty, or lift themselves out of it.

Social constructs and the tendency to label and mark groups out will lead to a number of conflicting ideologies, which may wish to challenge or legitimate inequalities such as class divisions. Some groups may hold greater power and thus dominate in defining social problems and how to tackle them.  Different discourses around poverty look at how knowledge is organized in a meaningful way such that it becomes institutionalised in social arrangements.

A social constructionist approach leads us through the process of identifying issues such as poverty as social problems, and subjecting this to a range of contested and conflicting perspectives which seek to define the problem and it's causes and thus to develop social and political actions to tackle the issue.  

Display:
Social construction of poverty | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
Thanks, In Wales.  You got me noggin going, as usual.  I remember studying sociology way back when (cough!), and this text gives me that same sensation...I sort of agree, but there's a slant in there--or is it me who's slanted?

Maybe it's the either/or sense...a friend of mine once railed against either/or thinking--my either/or thinking.  It took me ages to really get the point...thesis-antithesis-a system of opposites, when there is synthesis...ach!

For example, labelling poor people as being problems, or having problems will determine whether they are worthy of support or not.

Could it also be both, and sometimes neither?

Also, there's the labelling aspect.  What does "poverty" mean--what are the contexts?  Who is using the word (and about whom?) and what do they mean by using it?

A social constructionist approach attempts to become a critical stranger to an issue, and to break down common sense knowledge and assumptions and societal norms

How to find this common sense knowledge?  How many people have to believe something for it to be common sense to an individual?  Also, societal norms...how big a society does it have to be to have societal norms?

I'm trying to think of the right questions to ask, coz I think it's a noble path...trying to unpack prejudice, help those...who need help...  My experience is that cultural poverty...and emotional poverty...and how to tie these in to status anxiety, which seems to drive so much...ach...each term seems to expand out, branches forming branches...

I suppose I don't think human beings can pretend to be critical strangers to human situations without making a statement in that act about how they view human situations.  (I think, deep down, that this approach is a way to get aid to the poor...but the way it's proposed the word "poor" explodes.  Who is poor?  Who are the "rich" who form the context?  Is someone who uses "social constructionism" rich?  Verbally rich, intellectually rich?  Culturally rich?  And if so, then is this a case of the rich talking about the poor?  Etc...)

So maybe my question is: what have you found particularly useful about this approach?  Which situations has it opened up, made clear, that weren't clear before?

Coz I think there's something here, but not quite...urgh...what it seems...solidarity means being "with" not "helping out of"?  Sommat like that.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 11:33:09 AM EST
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 4)
Ooh lots of comments to reply to!

I have a tendency towards trying to encompass as many viewpoints as possible before reaching my own conclusion. I seem to do that as a matter of course, but that does seem to be what social constructionism tries to to do in a more methodological way.

One of the things to bear in mind with this piece of writing is that I wrote it to get marks and I knew what I needed to say and how to pitch it to score well.  So in doing that, I have failed to let my viewpoint come to the surface because I deliberately biased my writing to suit the bias of the set textbooks. I disagree with it but it works.  Ironically, despite the whole social constructionist approach advocating thinking from different perspectives about issues, the course itself wants you to leave with a set viewpoint on how to approach social policy.

Common sense is that knowledge that is somewhere in the ether, things that people just happen to know.  For example some people happen to know that poor people deserve to be in poverty because they are lazy and won't work for a living.  Other people happen to know that shoddy government policy that promotes marketisation in what should be a public service will increase inequalities and trap poor people in poverty.

Each person will see their own 'truth' as it were.  This is where the point comes about how discourse on a particular topic is contested and in conflict, because there are different common senses in operation.  In different cultures and at different times the dominant knowledge on a topic will influence social policy ie what interventions are dreamed up in order to tackle the perceived problem.

I find the approach useful in terms of deliberately making yourself think of the whole range of potential causes and then weighing up the impact that different discourses would have on the solutions that could be offered.

It doesn't necessarily teach me anything new but it gives me access to new language to use when discussing these topics and a clearer way of trying to break down and analyse it.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 12:21:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 6)
It seems to me that historical and multinational perspectives indicate that the modern concept of poverty (at least, the common, simplistic concept) is misleading. For example, in the now-wealthy countries, poverty once correlated with starvation, but now correlates with obesity, yet we use the same term.

The middle class once had a material standard of living like that of today's wealthy-country poor, and average incomes in many poor countries today are far below those of the wealthy-country poor. The lowest income quintile we shall always have with us, but to raise the wealthy-country poor to a higher income quintile, one need only re-draw boundaries for statistical purposes to aggregate wealthy and poor countries.

"Poverty" across time and space correlates has noxious aspects that are insensitive to the absolute material wealth. These include correlation with crime and a spectrum of behaviors that fall short of crime. The wealthy-country poor often live in dangerous and unpleasant circumstances because of how their neighbors behave (I may be biased here by thoughts of the high murder rate in urban America).

To the extent that this syndrome is a tail-of-the-distribution problem, rather than a lack-of-material-wealth problem, the term "poverty" is profoundly misleading. Narrowing the income distribution may help somewhat, or be a necessary part of policies that help a lot, but it is important to recognise how much of the human misery "poverty" has little direct relationship to a lack of access to goods and services.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 01:22:54 PM EST
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 3)
I remember Manuel Castells creating a new definition of poverty (I forget the word he used and google isn't helping) that was along the lines of "lack of access to the culture you live in." I thought it was a good all-encompassing definition that dealt with the relativity of measuring with a "blunt instrument" like material wealth. Maybe I'll try to dig it up tonight.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 06:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
I'd be interested to see that definition. My initial reaction is that it makes limited sense in the context of what seems to be happening at the moment in the UK.  The dominant culture is television, and the poorest have high uptake rates of subscription channels-as dish-counting in any poor area of town (and my experience working with vulnerable families) will confirm.  It appears pretty much to be a social necessity.

But does that mean that..say...my children, cruelly denied access to soap operas and reality television, should be classified as destitute despite their perfectly adequate material situation? Or do they belong to a different culture and would poverty be defined differently for them?

by Sassafras on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 3)
For example, in the now-wealthy countries, poverty once correlated with starvation, but now correlates with obesity, yet we use the same term.

Well, it still correlates with starvation too, but the latter is just so much less frequent.

These include correlation with crime and a spectrum of behaviors that fall short of crime.

Actually, this is not so much of an absolute as it appears to you: crime can be considered a social construct, too. And one could say that feudal lords or capitalists or a state bureaucracy and generals are much bigger 'natural criminals' than the poor with their petty crimes, but have the law o their side.

I may be biased here by thoughts of the high murder rate in urban America

And, may I suggest, also the false sense of being sheltered from anarchy elsewhere given by suburban mentality.

it is important to recognise how much of the human misery "poverty" has little direct relationship to a lack of access to goods and services.

Depends on whether you consider lack of access on absolute or relative terms.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 03:55:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
starvation too
Indeed, and high-calorie malnutrition as well.

feudal lords...are much bigger 'natural criminals'
There is indeed a continuum between organised crime and governments (which doesn't deny the vast difference between the ends of the spectrum). What I have in mind is the universally recognised, more narrowly defined kind of unorganised crime that (for example) makes people fearful of others on the street, afraid to go out at night, etc.

Depends on whether you consider lack of access on absolute or relative terms
It is indeed important to recognise that relative want has consequences apart from those of absolute want, and the difference between these cases is what motivates my observation. Expressing this perhaps more clearly, I'd say that much of the human misery of relative "poverty" (far from all!) has little direct relationship to a lack of access to goods and services. If raping and stealing from others in the community were a direct consequence, I'd expect these to be widely practised, rather than being merely common enough to cause terror.

With respect to relative poverty within a society, one would expect social sorting processes to aggregate disfunctional people, and that for many disfunctional people, low earnings are just one aspect of a syndrome. Causality between poverty and disfunction obviously runs both ways. (I emphasise that this is a statement about statistical patterns, not a generalisation that applies to everyone in a group.)

Writing this suggests a hypothesis to me, which is that societies that are more meritocratic tend to have a greater incidence of social pathologies among members of their low-income quintiles. This seems testable.
-------

A related observation is that efficiently identifying, collecting, and educating young people with unusual potential (including the potential for unusually effective, intelligent leadership) is an efficient way to ensure that broad occupational, income, and social classes lack effective, intelligent leadership. This amounts to a decapitation attack on groups outside the elite, operating on a generational time scale. Perversely, it is precisely the pursuit of equal opportunity for members of disadvantaged groups that reduces the power and opportunities of the groups themselves -- yet any other policy seems unjust.

(It might, I suppose, be argued that providing university educations for children of working-class parents provides better-educated leaders for the working class. -- Sometimes? Of course. Net? I don't thing so.)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
You need to develop the last three paragraphs into a diary.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
What I have in mind is the universally recognised, more narrowly defined kind of unorganised crime that (for example) makes people fearful of others on the street, afraid to go out at night, etc.

Well, peasants were afraid when feudal lords cruised up with their troops, or just tax collectors. While 'all politicians steal'/'all bureaucrats are corrupt' are more real and pressing concepts of crime for many (especially poor) people than a general fear of being robbed. BTW what you describe is not 'universally recognised', I'd think it is not valid in at least some isolated cultures.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 05:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 0)
I'm not arguing that there are no other reasons for people to fear one another, nor that the other reasons aren't often stronger, nor that "officially approved" forms of repression and extortion should be seen as OK. I think we agree here.

I do, however, think that there are universally recognised crimes (or equivalent severe wrongs in societies where the concept of "crime" doesn't quite fit), at least in societies that aren't in the process of destruction. One might, however, have to specify that the victims have a status that we'd regard as irrelevant (e.g., preferred race, higher class, virginity), and that the perpetrator likewise lacks a status that we wouldn't regard justifying the action (e.g., father, noble).

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 11:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
I'd say that much of the human misery of relative "poverty" (far from all!) has little direct relationship to a lack of access to goods and services.

I'm saying that poverty is about relative> differences in access to goods and services.

If raping and stealing from others in the community were a direct consequence, I'd expect these to be widely practised, rather than being merely common enough to cause terror.

Why so? Why do you assume that a non-deterministic but statistical consequence has to have a high frequency? If there are multiple factors to a behavior, and say one results in only 2% of people being 'naturally' [whatever that means] supceptible to it, while poverty as a second factor results in 0.1% of middle-class but 1% of working-class people (that is 5% vs. 50% of supceptible people) exhibiting that behavior, then I'd say it is very much significant.

This amounts to a decapitation attack on groups outside the elite, operating on a generational time scale. Perversely, it is precisely the pursuit of equal opportunity for members of disadvantaged groups that reduces the power and opportunities of the groups themselves -- yet any other policy seems unjust.

That's a good point. Comes close to why I am against elite schools (now pursued in Germany).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 05:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
I agree that relative access is more important, and arguably the only important question in this regard.

You make a good point regarding non-deterministic but statistical consequences. My remark was made off-hand, and not as the result of any long (and wrong) consideration.

What I had in mind (but didn't express) was a contrast between this sort of criminal behavior and rational, adaptive behaviors of the sort that one would find in groups at a similar level of material wealth, regardless of whether this level was or wasn't low relative to the rest of local society. These behaviors (e.g., shifting consumption toward inexpensive foods and clothing) are direct consequences, and are, of course, widely practised. Crime, in contrast, seems more related to relative that absolute wealth, and thus can't be seen as a direct consequence of the level of wealth per se. This, of course, ties back to your point regarding the importance of relative vs. absolute levels.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 11:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
Writing this suggests a hypothesis to me, which is that societies that are more meritocratic tend to have a greater incidence of social pathologies among members of their low-income quintiles. This seems testable.

I'd be careful with this if I were you, lest the bona fides of (presumably anti-social) pathologies be determined by the dominant class(es) in said societies. Tyranny of the majority and all that...


The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 10:17:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
There's indeed a well-known work that can be seen in the light you suggest, The Bell Curve.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 04:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 0)
Indeed. An abusive power can use any kind of judgement as a basis for abusive action, and the judgement that "those people are bad" has been the basis for some of the most horrific.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 11:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are my man (4.00 / 5)
Yeah..!!!!!

I see that while I left someone took my mantle.

Ok... another social constructivists for narratives, deficitions and catheogrization is here!!!

OK OK.. great definitions.. great definitions.

Social constructionisms reaches all level.. from a classic ethnography to more general works on the field in sub groups inside western society to feelings, to totems to social cathegories, images, perceptions, discourse.. even fundatinal myths.

So, of course, poverty in Western cities is directly related with lack of status and with lack of power .. more than with survival issues.

Actually, a particular status can put null interest on the health-rich pewople .. (the helth rich narrative is that someone must have good health and good doctors to be rich or medium class... someone without a doctor is by definition poor in this narrative).

So poverty is mostly associated with status... actually the notion of poverty is of course a western concept... mostly irrelevant anywhere else.

Poverty is a narrative derivation of status where issues of power, external status (lack of object sin the totem sense of the word) and lack of survival needs are interwoven and cathegorize in such a way that a classs fight can be possible (and some would say, impossible at the same time... but this is too much for a comment).

As a starting point always recall the basic ethnography of "the innocent anthropologists".. nowhere was poverty .. and even when the antrhopologists realize that they are not really poor... only when the people "suffer" from a violent death he feels that they are soemwaht poor or miserable there.

This is why, poverty and misery are actually two useful concepts. Misery is lack of fundamental survival tools.. naming: food, place to keep you at a rather decent temperature by any means, and ways to improve your health quality of life. Actually this is quite objective and transcultural.

On the other hand.. poverty .. solving poverty is much more complex because one has to define it...

But always notice.. once a cathegory as poverty is set.. it becomes a living entity.. someone who "feels poor" will fell exactly and suffer at the same moment it recognizes as such and the narrative an the myth sets in (you can think myths as having a reality of their own.. as the social construction of feelings). So in western society once a fair definition of poverty is set (and I think is clearly fair nowadays), it is necessary to reduce it (obviously it is impossible to eliminate because it alwasy exists and always can evolve).

Regardign other places, cultures and traditions messing with poverty is bad bad bad idea...but messing with misery is a whole completely different issue.. and completely worthy.

Fortunately most isolated cultures have no misery except for the health issue.. and the interactions with the health division in western cities (even in Africa) is a topic for a whole diary. Is it necessary to introduce basic health? At what cost? And complex helath system as doctors, medicines?? Frankly I am not sure about it if everything else is OK.

Luckily though, most misery is very close to societies and world visions were the presence of misery is jsut because of a lack of will to eliminate it...even when poverty is defined using a completely different set of ideas or merely it does not exist.

SO this was my take..

Now.. you make a diary about social construction of feelings and you make nail it

I am waiting... je je jejeje:)

A pleasure


I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 01:46:21 PM EST
Re: You are my man (4.00 / 5)
Vital distinctions, kc old boy! (With a tip of the hat to technopolitical above).

Between "poverty" in wealthy countries and what you call "misery" (pause for PN lesson: misery in English means utter emotional unhappiness, while a better word for the concept you're getting at is "destitution"). "Poverty" in our countries is a complex and slippery thing to define and doesn't go with statistical absolutes (like an absolute income level or a threshold of home equipment etc). Yet one can objectively say that those who are seen as "poor" (seen by themselves and by others, and the view of others reinforces the self-view and vice-versa and on and on) share for the most part a common difficulty in changing those views and their material situation, that they have low expectancies, that they engage in parallel/illicit economic activity and for some in violent crime. In other words, it's relative but it's damn real. (And don't let's make out there's anything comfortable about it at all).

And there you hit the "null status" and the lack of objects (= totems). Not so long ago Colman and Migeru had a discussion about setting up from scratch a model of economic activity. If I remember rightly, in their exchange they chose food as a necessity and prestige as a commodity. I remember thinking hmmm. Of course food is a necessity. But, unless at death's door from starvation, (and even then), status is an absolute driving force in human behaviour. You can watch Robinson Crusoe alone on his island constructing a hierarchy in which one man has his place -- then being given another man to be superior to. And those we call "poor" in our societies are caught in a null status trap (within which some of them at least create their own parallel status systems, neighbourhoods, streets, gangs, toughness rankings, etc).

How to get them out of there while avoiding others taking their place (like a football league table, when one team goes up, another goes down, and this is perhaps part of why you suggest class conflict may not be possible, or perhaps not... ;)) is the problem. And I think it does depend a great deal on the social and cultural construction of "poverty". Meaning that social transfers of funds are not enough in themselves.

I know you advocate a potlatch economy. (By which I'm quite sure you don't just mean Bill and Melinda Gates giving away their pocket money). But you may be ambitious. Managing to bring about a closer-knit society with less distance between the top and the bottom and in which as few people as possible feel/are felt status-poor, would already be a great step and a difficult one.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 04:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PS. kc, I'm a woman ;) (4.00 / 4)
Ah, 'destitution' makes much more sense now.

Great comments back from people, thank you. I'm not quite sure how to respond to all the issues raised!

There are certainly different constructions of poverty being put forward, such as the discussion around money, belongings, food, health etc... Different people would draw different bottom lines in terms of saying what all individuals should be entitled to as a bare minimum.

I remember seeing a programme on poverty a long time ago, based around some findings from a Rowntree report.  One thing that struck me was a woman who on a stupidly tight benefits budget was trying to support herself and her little boy. She considered paying the tv license to be an essential from a social point of view because she didn't want her child to be bullied and socially excluded in school because he didn't have access to tv and couldn't talk about popular programmes that children were watching (they lived in a city).

I'm sure plenty of people would say that TV isn't an essential but for her it was.  

I do very much believe that where poverty is concerned there is much more that society can do to reduce the inequalities between 'poor' and 'rich' people; acknowledging how society is structured to keep poor people down would be a start to addressing some of those problems.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 06:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok you are my woman (none / 1)
...

I think you can fairly quickly reach an agreement about what you need not ot be destituted.

Food,  water, warmth (place to keep yourself)  and health (which includes probably not being considered a tabu-dead person.. or a dead man walking).

On poverty.. well, I think it is true that each person would put a different strength on waht poverty (in the western sense) is.. basically we all have slighlty different experiences, myths, narratives.. adn they are interwoven...

But this does not mean that a general narrative of poverty is not out there.... I would say that if you are destituted you are poor (it is a very good thing this one) and you need some totem -object .. aminimum to no be considered infra-status.. and probably lack of power or ability/knwoledge to change your status/activity...

But again.. different people can give you slighlty different narratives...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 07:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Amen Amen Amen (none / 1)
amen to destitution

Amen to the goals..

And amen to status as a  driving force... null status means death .... whne they take you away your even basic status of human... people die (it is the well-known case of pariah-tabu dead collecte din alot of cultures).

Amen Amen Amen

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 07:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On food and status (4.00 / 2)
If I recall the discussion you're referencing, the labelling of status as a commodity wasn't that distinct to food, but the idea was possibly that you need a minimum amount of food to survive. We were talking about a very simplified model at that time.

I'm the one that mutters "Veblen" every fifteen seconds or so ...

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: On food and status (4.00 / 2)
I was at an even lower level of sophistication, I just needed two commodities, and I thought food and manure would be good ones to start with.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: On food and status (4.00 / 2)
Manure, status. <shrug>
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: On food and status (4.00 / 2)
You cannot use status as fertilizer.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: On food and status (none / 0)
Depends what you're trying to fertilize.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: On food and status (none / 0)
There was no criticism implied in the reference. I realized you were thinking of a model within a particular system that had its limits.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 15th, 2006 at 04:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You are my man (none / 1)
actually the notion of poverty is of course a western concept... mostly irrelevant anywhere else.

Do you think that the rebellion of Untouchables in India was entirely inspired by adopting Western concepts?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 03:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uff (4.00 / 2)
the influence of western thinking or indian narratives is a whole complete and independent topic.

People dedicate time  and careers to study it on the Asin studies faculties around the world.

I would need a degree to know the history and in the interactions among the narratives...

neverthless, I heard that Indian structure was fairly stable before the British...but I can be completely wrong.

But I can indeed tell you something.. the relevence of western notions of poverty on INdian class sstructure and division has clearly had an enormous effect. The creation of a middle class that considers itself as such (as I have been able to personally check) makes the western concept of power relevant there... but precisely because they are becoming western.. even living in INdia... like most of the cities of CHina which are becoming basically western cities regarding their main myths.

I would not be surprised if within this century we will have to eliminate the western concept and talk about "city " culture" since a feedback/homogeneization can probalby be produced... this is ,cities could take notions and myths for western and eastern cities.

That said.. I think the concept of poverty is very linked with capitalism and western medicine  (health status) so I think ,e ventually, the western concept of poverty will be the dominant in all cities... maybe with some variants..and twith some luck a little bit more emphais on the lack of family/honous poverty (loss of status) of the eastern semi-rural tradition.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 07:14:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Uff (4.00 / 2)
I would not be surprised if within this century we will have to eliminate the western concept and talk about "city " culture" since a feedback/homogeneization can probalby be produced... this is ,cities could take notions and myths for western and eastern cities.

The West did not invent the city so you're going to need a different name, other that "city culture". But we have the emerging concept of the Global City:

A global city or world city are a concept which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted. The most complex of these entities is the "global city", whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through more than just socio-economic means, with influence in terms of culture, or politics. The terminology of "global city", as opposed to megacity, is thought to have been first coined by Saskia Sassen in reference to London, New York and Tokyo in her 1991 work The Global City.


Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 07:21:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Uff (none / 0)
Well.. yes.. another will be taken... but the key idea is the same .. the set of all the consitutional narratives will be the same...or some kind of very basic foundation whcih can entail different myths under one label.

Something like a similar (or the same fundational myths) about the self/others, progress, power, status (including totemism) and family.

Maybe I am forgetting one or two fundational myths... but if there is a common set of ideas or narratives that encompass the topics I mention we will be able to say that they have the same underpinnings, the same playing field.... and I think a culture is defined by the playing field (some paople say that it is the playing field.. an the people jus play/adapt in it.. and of course change it)...Maybe global village society is a good name? I dunno

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 12:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 6)
Great topic!  

Speaking purely "intuitively"/personally, one thing in the statistical approach disturbs me: we tend to get a statistical figure that lumps together ... dunno how to call it - maybe "absolute" and "relative" poverty in our societies? Back to basics: in the rich, status-conscious environment of Rome's boutiques, airlines n' embassies zone I have seen people kneeling in the dust to rummage for food in garbage-cans, I have seen people sleeping huddled in the streets, "protected" only by cardboard and pathetic greasy rags: call that "absolute" poverty? And then there is the far more familiar, painfully widespread situation of those pinched for cash and anxious about it, struggling to make ends meet until the end of the month and "only naturally" embarrassed - in neighbourhood/family status terms - on not being "quite up to standard" but nevertheless with a reasonably secure roof over their heads even if in somewhat substandard accomodation - and with the precious ability to place reasonably regular and nourishing meals on the table under that roof! Two very different situations.

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Mon Nov 13th, 2006 at 08:26:14 PM EST
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 4)
Things like social constructionism, deconstructionism or postmodernism always bring out opposed views from me.

On one hand, I feverishly welcome any realisation that people's concept of reality is based in large part on information from communication with other people, information that may have its own life; and welcome the desctruction of "common sense".

On the other hand, people in the humanities have a tendency to carry it too far, to view the world as if it consisted of humans only (who imagine different things), with outside input nonexistent or irrelevant. And at the same time, they can construct their own social constructs, not noticing that they fail the position of critical stranger.

Say, you wrote above about the tendency of constructions with focus on nature to assume determinism and those with focus on social conditions assuming change. But I noticed that many people in the humanities (and not just there) turn these tendencies into assumptions, treating 'nature' and 'society' as common-sense terms with attached meaning in relation to determinism. Whereas, if you ask some others on what s/he understands under the concepts, it would turn out that 'nature' (be it DNA, chemicals in food or whatever) doesn't necessarily preclude change, while social conditions may pose much stiffer limits on change (but the social construction of "free will" puts us in denial). From your reply to rg, I gather you have a sense of what I'm trying to get at here.

On the topic of poverty and your application of social constructionism to it, I don't have much to add, only applaud it. The only point I could add is to emphasize that it matters that we are speaking of social constructs held by whom. It may be that some concepts of poverty may be omnipresent over the media, and generally shared by the upper and middle classes, yet the poor (be that those whom others see as 'poor' or who see themselves as such) still haven't adopted it for their view of themselves, and have their own social construct of 'poor', only one unheard by other segments of society.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 04:42:58 AM EST
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
Also a brief comment on the converse. Real class differences between people can go unnoticed or unrealised in many ways, or enter people's minds only unconsciously. I am thinking for some time about a photo diary to demonstrate this. I am thinking of things like: a virtual segregation of people using the very same commuter train line just because the working-class tends to go to work earlier.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 04:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
Please do.  I wonder if one could get a rough feel for the income inequality in a city by looking at who takes public transportation (trains and buses) regularly.  Pure guess, but my impression is that more "upper-middle" class folks take the subway and buses in Paris and Tokyo than in New York.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 10:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 3)
Interesting point you make - key course themes in my first year were the 'natural' and the social', and the set textbooks were fairly divisive and distinct over these two themes in the main. It did go some way later in the course to look at how natural constraints and social constraints can rarely be separated completely.

There has been a lot of emphasis on how to become a 'critical stranger' which I think is foolish to assume that any individual can achieve.  Being aware of your biases and trying to put them to one side to look at an issue is feasible. I've come across many people who quite simply aren't aware of their biases though.  It's that common sense knowledge in action!

You are right, those that hold the dominant social constructs tend to have greater power with identifying issues and setting the policies and interventions.  More often than not, those 'problem' groups themselves don't have a loud enough voice in the whole process.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 6)
It might be more that 'natural' and 'social' are also socially constructed narratives. The histories of these ideas have sharp edges, and both have not a little ideological baggage - most obviously Marxist theory eventually evolved in the 'Everything is social' direction, based on the (false) assumption that culture is completely plastic and can be engineered to order.

Anthropologically, cultures reliably tend to converge on certain structures. These seem to be innate, but can be modified by tool-use and resource-use - less so by narratives, which are more likely to disguise them than truly change them.

Generally, the more abundant the environment, the less rigid and hierarchical the culture. (As a very over-simplified generalisation.)

I have a very simple definition of poverty, which is that it's the opposite of freedom. The US cant about individual freedom is exactly that, and confuses potential freedom of a rich minority with the much more limited freedom of the 99% of the population.

Freedom includes freedom from starvation, thirst, and so on. But it also includes freedom to educate yourself, and contribute socially.

Having to scramble for cash is not freedom. You could argue that from this point of view, poverty is much more widespread than is usually accepted.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:48:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 1)
I have a very simple definition of poverty, which is that it's the opposite of freedom. The US cant about individual freedom is exactly that, and confuses potential freedom of a rich minority with the much more limited freedom of the 99% of the population.

Freedom includes freedom from starvation, thirst, and so on. But it also includes freedom to educate yourself, and contribute socially.

Having to scramble for cash is not freedom. You could argue that from this point of view, poverty is much more widespread than is usually accepted.

This is essentially the point that Amartya Sen puts forward in Development as Freedom. I just got my copy back after leaving it in a friend's garage in California for 2 years, so maybe I should dust it off and write a review.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:56:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Relative Poverty (none / 0)
For me Poverty is like Value, Quality and every other aspect of our Reality.

ie it cannot be defined except in relative terms.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 11:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (none / 0)
A corollary to which, I might propose, is that a society can only be said to be "free" insofar as such freedoms are directly enjoyed by one and all of its citizens. No one is free of want for food is we accept that want for any one of our fellows. And so on.

For me, this is very simple, manichaean even.

And indeed, as you say, if poverty is the opposite of Freedom, then in many parts of the "West," we are as poverty-prone as you hint.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 06:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly! (none / 0)
I have a very simple definition of poverty, which is that it's the opposite of freedom.

That sounds very right to me:  I was going to say, Poverty is the inverse of choice.

Generally, the more abundant the environment, the less rigid and hierarchical the culture. (As a very over-simplified generalisation.)

Interesting.  Can you provide some examples or pointers?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 10:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 3)
More often than not, those 'problem' groups themselves don't have a loud enough voice in the whole process.

Loud enough for "us" to hear. In some countries, the 'poor' are the majority, and their own view of themselves might thus be the majority part of public opinion, but not the one visible to middle and upper classes, or outsiders.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 06:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 5)
It is interesting how the 20-30 percent of the population of Venezuela that is middle class and up are so shocked when the poor elect someone they does not like. Some seem to actually believe that there has to have been massive vote fraud, since noone they know voted for Chavez.
by Trond Ove on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 11:10:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Social construction of poverty (4.00 / 2)
I was having a chat with someone in my office today, specifically about race and language that people use in defining things like race and ethnicity, black and minority ethnic, coloured, etc etc (our consensus was that definitions are ambiguous and mean different things to different people ie as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, everything is relative).

She was talking about a pan equality working group she sits on and is finding it challenging because they are too academic.  They are taking the issues and applying their social constructionist or whatever else approach and it is stretching away from what is real to my colleague.

She sees the use and need for the academic angle but finds it too intimidating and unbalanced to be using only that and only research, without getting down there and talking to real people whose real lives are currently being affected by issues such as poverty, social exclusion, and other forms of disadvantage and vulnerability.  I thought that fitted nicely with the thread, the idea of constructing and deconstructing an issue or concept, different meanings for different people.  Without losing a grasp on reality maybe?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 14th, 2006 at 05:15:41 PM EST
Social construction of poverty | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]