Pathological Explanations of Poverty

pathologic Explanations of PovertyDiscuss the morbid and geomorphological bills of distress.Poverty was first commit by Sir William Beveridge in 1942, as a major amicable evil in conjunction. It is a passing contest and multi-dimensional social problem that has no single agreed definition. Kilty et al defines penury as an overall condition of inadequacy, leave outing and scarcity. She further claims, it is indigence and deficiency of economic, political and social resources (Kilty et al, 1997 30 cited in Kane Kirby, 2003 52). Social scientists lose established ii main representations of exiguity. These atomic bod 18 absolute and relative impoverishment. absolute exiguity denotes a lack of feeler to a minimum direct of subsistence that is required to live a healthy lifestyle. This includes basic life necessities much(prenominal) as food, water, clothing and shelter. In contrast, sociologist Peter T takesend defines relative exiguity in terms of relative depriva tion which means that the living standards of the curt are considered far too removed from the rest of social club (Holman, 1978 Pantazis et al, 2006).Sociologists have identified legion(predicate) explanations for the existence and persistence of distress. 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 result discuss two major sociological/political theories of poverty, mavin known as the morbid explanation and the other as the geomorphological explanation. As part of the pathological lieu I will explore individualististic, familial and subcultural causes of poverty. In contrast within geomorphologic accounts, I will examine consort, mental representation and inequality approaches to poverty. In doing so, I will expose their roots to help tackle poverty and will as well evaluate the relevancy of both pathological and structural explanations in the modern world (ibid). morbid explanations of poverty are favoured by those on the serious of the political spectrum. Firstly, check to the individualistic viewpoint social problems like poverty, unemployment and crime stem from individual deficiencies and limitations. For instance, it is argued that the lamentable have a char trifleer defect. They are deliberately idle individuals who have made bad choices in life. thitherfore, they are held responsible for their own plight. Individualistic explanations also attribute poverty to the biology of the poor. In software documentation of this, Charles Murray (2000) claims that by choosing to be poor people pass on lacking(p) genes to their offspring and over time, in that location is a deterioration in the genome of the poor (Fitzpatrick, 2011 101). Nevertheless, it must be noted that there is no scientific licence to prove that poverty is an innate problem (Fitzpatrick, 2011 Holman, 1978).Successive political sympathiess ha ve take different policy approaches to tackle poverty. A historic example is of the nineteenth century Poor Law Amendment Act which was introduced in 1834. The act took into context the widely accepted individualistic ideology of its time, which believed poverty to be a moral reverse 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 assure 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 individuals family peck for shaping their discriminate lifestyle. For example, if a pincer lives in a family environment that is characte salary increased 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 gather multiple deprivations in life and are thus, unable to provide their children with a decent upbringing. This has a negative impact on the childs life opportunities. According to the cps of deprivation system, family pathology is responsible for transmitting social deprivation intergenerationally. This is due to the belief that poverty runs in families. Furthermore, in an adjudicate to end the generational cycle of poverty, in 1998 the New Labour government introduced Sure Start programmes which are a form of educational disturbance in the lives of children. They were set up with the aim of improving deprived childrens life chances, so that they do not face disadvantage in the school life (Kane Kirby, 2003 Shuffelton, 2 013).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 trade these negative characteristics are destined to remain within a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. They begin vie locomote poverty as an accepted lifestyle and work little effort to purify their circumstances. However, this is not necessarily true as an individuals changing economic circumstances can ascend 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 good in apologiseing the persistence of poverty in the co ntemporaneous world (Holman, 1978 Kane Kirby, 2003 Waxman, 1977).Pathological explanations of poverty have received considerable support from New expert 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 end-to-end their entire lives. Nevertheless, Murray has been criticised for underestimating the desire of the underclass to be free from state assistance. Likewise, his ideologic position has meant that he has also lacked focus in explaining how wider structural factors whitethorn also cause poverty (Fitzpatrick, 2011 Holman, 1978 Niskanen, 1996).Murrays underclass theory has influenced contemporary government approaches to tack le welfare dependency. For instance, the current UK coalition government has pick out 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(prenominal) policies is to help welfare dependents regain the incentive to work. This is by teaching them the skills infallible for a decent paying 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 malign parents in the wrong section of the republic 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 circl e 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 acquires ill health may force an individual into a poverty lifestyle. In addition, the theory does not explain why particular groups like ethnic minorities are more penetrable to poverty. For example, the structural perspective of poverty would argue that ethnic minorities experience favoritism 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 brazen-faced expendable l abour, are provided with menial tasks and are paid well infra 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. totally capitalist societies are characterised by class contrast between the bourgeoisies, who are the owners of the means of production and the proletariat or working class who snitch 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 contain army of labour, are made to work for long hours and are paid low wages in return. Although this enab les the capitalist system to thrive, it creates inequalities in riches and income and keeps the proletariat located at the very bottom of the social pecking order (Fitzpatrick, 2011 Kane Kirby, 2003)Karl Marx anticipated a revolution to occur where the proletariat collectively tie in for radical social change. He argued that this revolution will give rise to a communist society which is based on equal scattering of wealthiness 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 dissolving agent 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 conte mporary world (ibid).Secondly according to the agency perspective, poverty is caused by the failure of public services and inadequate welfare benefits. Although, social services animate 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 autonomous 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 curtailment of welfare provisions by the New Right, which they argue provided people with an redundant 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 show 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 desegregate 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 bodily structure of society, and a redistributive taxation system and also greater economic yield 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 conspiracy 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 individuals 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 pr opose a more holistic approach in understanding and tackling poverty in the contemporary world.