Culture of Poverty Revisited Robert Wade to explain the failure of their programmes to re- duce poverty, to explain their concentration on In an earlier paper' I showed that the thesis of a low-cost education and counselling rather than 'culture of poverty' (COP) lends itself to perni- on more expensive and more directly redistribu- cious political uses, by (a) seeming to attribute tive measures, or to justify the failure to have responsibility for poverty to poor people them- any redistributive programmes atall. Hence it selves, because of their 'culture', (b) focusing on is often said that one should pay attention to the local and family level, ignoring the unseen COP only insofar as it is something which politi- forces of the wider society which determine the cians and planners commonly believe;inthis meagre distribution of resources to the poor, and sense only does COP matter. (e)seemingtogiveprioritytoattemptsto change culture, through counselling services (in Truth and political implication rich countries) and through education. I took it This conclusion, it seems to me, rests on a serious for granted, however, that the question of how confusion between empirical truth-content, on the the culture of poor people influences their be- one hand, and ideological origins and political haviour, and their poverty, is an empirical one, uses on the other (a confusion not unrelated to and thatitis therefore worth looking at the the wholesale retreat of traditional empiricism in available literature to see what kinds of answers British and American universities). it has to suggest. Here I can do little more than restate the dis- Since then I have become increasingly alarmed tinction as I see it. While an understanding of the by the ease with which otherwise subtle, dis- ideological bases and political roles of 'scientific' criminating persons rejectthe very idea of a hypotheses can help explain and predict both culture of povertynot only in saloon bars and their empirical weaknesses and the conditions in over dinner tables, but in serious academic dis- which they become popular among certain groups cussion. The Roaches' book ofreadings on or classes,this understanding does not speak poverty provides an example. The book confines directly to the truth of those hypotheses. In the COP to a footnote in the introduction, on the case of the COP thesis, there are at least three grounds that, 'The thesis of a culture of poverty major hypotheses,allconceivably capable of is such a hazy notion that we have doubts about being questioned by empiricaldata.But the its descriptive value, not to mention its explana- sweeping rejection of COP ideas is in my experi- tory sgnificance'.2 Significantly enough the book ence generally done prior to a careful considera- contains several case studies of the life of specific tion of the evidence. It is true that most of the groups of poor people, and other essays which evidence used to support a COP interpretation- deal ina generalizing way with problems of for example, correlations between income, on the measurement, causes and remedies; but not a one hand, and on the other, questionnaire res- single attempt to deal in a generalizing way with ponses which suggest the degree to which the the lifeways and culture of poor peopleto see respondent sees the world as an unpredictable whether there are not some similarities in the placeis not very reliable. But the fact that the waythaturban slumdwellersofPalermo, Calcutta, Sao Paulo, perceive their situation, in evidenceisnotvery good should encourage the values they (consciously and unconsciously) attempts to improve it, not to ignore it. hold, and in the effects of these common percep- Part of the trouble with COP, for many social tions and values on response to changes in their scientists, is its identification of 'the poor' as a situation. The Roaches dismiss COP on grounds relevant analytical category. To focus on poverty of haziness; a more constructive reaction would and the poor, they argue, is to think about the be to make it less hazy. The usual reason for re- problem of inequality in terms of statistical in- jecting it, however, is because of its pernicious come distributions: the poor are those below a political role, its use by politicians and planners certain (more or less arbitrary) line, the bottom decile or quintile or 40 per cent. This is accept- 1 "A culture of poverty?" IDS Bulletin, 5 (2/3), 4-30, 1973. ablefor purelydescriptive purposes. But an IDS Bulletin, (1),1975 titled "Cultural Dependence," con- tains a number of articles which pay some attention to the explanation for poverty, they argue, must be set role of cultural factors in development. in the context of the systematic nature of class 2 J.Roach and J.Roach, eds., Poverty: Selected Readings, Harmondsworth, Penguin Press, 1972, p.12, n.4. inequality. For explanatory purposes the funda- 4 mental characteristicisnot poverty but sub- independent variables in social explanation. Cul- ordination:itis because of their subordination turalfactors may ofcourse be admitted as that members of the subordinate class are (or causes in an ad hoc kind of way. But this is done remain) poor; subordination generates poverty, in the absence of any general and systematic not vice versa. Those who talk of poverty rather justification for how and when such ad hoc in- than subordination, of poor people rather than corporations are to be made. Concepts such as proletariat,lumpen-proletariat(orotherclass 'utility' and 'leisure preference' in neo-classical categories) are guilty of mystifying this point, and economics, 'falseconsciousness' and even 'ex- of supposing (like the Poverty Warriors of the ploitation' in Marxian analysis are used as ques- American War On Poverty, if anyone still re- tion-stopping devices, to insulate the paradigm, members) that something can be done about to justify ending the enquiry before entering the poverty withoutfirst alteringthe structure of realm of culture. domination and subordination which produces it. The 'situational' orthodoxy, in all its various ex- Surely the connection between poverty and sub- pressions, is thus the direct descendant of the ordination is two-way:subordination generates 18th century Enlightenment view of Man. Man poverty, yes; and poverty generates (or at least in his essence was seen to be as regular, as in- helps to ptpetuate) subordination. Increases in variantwithrespecttotimeandplace,as the income level of members of the subordinate wondrously simple as natural science showed the class maye a necessary condition for collective physical universe to be. action to change the structure of domination and Today, situationalists adopt this view not out of subordination. But the immediate point to make a concern to define what the essence is, but as a here is that whetheritis called a culture of way of allowing concentration on the real, under- poverty or a culture of subordination, one is lying facts of resources and power. But just as interested in discovering the range of responses the Enlightenment thinkers took the vast variety to the facts of poverty, inequality and low status, of human belief, customs and institutions as with- how people in that situation manage to cope, the out significance for defining his nature, so modern designs for living, the codes of understanding, the situationalists assume that culture is gloss, garb, aspirations, the values they adopt. appearance, a mere epiphenomenon of material and physical constraints. The current orthodoxy These days,however, the majorityofsocial scientists would not in fact be interested in such Culture does matter matters, because they believe implicitly or ex- Recentevidencefrom humanbiologyand plicitly that things like perceptions, aspirations, hominid paleontology suppotts a quite different values (meaning-systems, or culture for short) are intrepretation.Inthisview,theoutstanding of little significance for understanding behaviour. characteristic of homo sapiens, in comparison The current orthodoxy, ascribed to by social with other animals, is not so much what he is scientists right across the academic and political capable of learning as what he must learn in order spectrum, fromMarxianandneo-classical to function at all. In place of regular and detailed economists,Marxianpoliticalscientistsand genetic control mechanisms on behaviour, man sociologists, to social anthropologists in the tradi- has generalized genetic response capabilities, plus tion of Radcliffe-Brown, states that the critical culturea learned set of rules and designs (what factors in social causation are the distribution of computer engineers call programmes). The innate resourcesand power, and thematerialand response capabilities, plus cultural programmes, physical constraints. To these critical factors the plus situational constraints, govern behaviour. orthodoxy (called by J. D. Y. Peel the 'situational' Perhaps the best way to convince British and or 'structural' approach)3 applies a rough and American situationalists that culture does matter ready, common-sense view of perceptions and is to ask them why they do not eat dog or cat values: men everywhere seek much the same and indeed feel revulsion at the very thought, things (power, wealth) and perceive their environ- though dog and cat are not lesssituationally ment much as it objectively is. The implication feasible than beef and are probably equally good is that there are few if any circumstances when in nutritional value. Or why do we feed horse cultural factors have to be admitted as significant to dog, but not to ourselves? Why does pig, cut-for-cut, cost less than beef? Why are innards 3 See the excellent paper by J. D. Y. Peel for a fuller treat- less expensive and less prestigious than muscle ment of some of thpoints made here: "Cultural factors in cuts? To understand these things we must ask the contemporary theory of development", Archives Euro- péennes de Sociologie, XIV, 1973, 283-303. about the symbolic relations between men and 5 animals.4 The series:cattle, pig, horse, dog is The similarities were partïcularly marked in the ordered according to our view of edibleness- emphasis on personal achievement of long-range cattle most edible, dog least.