Analysis Of Oscar Lewis Poverty Theory

Since the abolition of slavery in America in 1865, significant improvements have been made in regard to racial and social inequality. Though the situation today is nowhere near as dreadful as the terrible conditions racial minorities had to endure more than a hundred years ago, racism and ethnic marginalization are still relevant global concerns.

While in many countries, poverty is the indirect result of national or international conflicts; poverty is a global issue that even wealthy and peaceful countries battle with. Consequently, many people have tried to identify what constitutes poverty, besides the self-evident financial status of an individual. Oscar Lewis is one of many who tried to find explanations for the unceasing poverty among

His findings led him to conclude that these people had a certain way of living, complete with their own norms, values and behaviour, which, according to him, was a reaction to their position in a capitalistic society and their overall poverty (Cordasco, 1967). Though Lewis’ theory appears to be a global phenomenon, several improvements and specifications should be made to apply his theory to modern day issues concerning poverty. In this paper, I will evaluate Lewis’ theory by not simply focusing on its meaning and original intention but also by drawing on some of the critique it received. Finally, I will introduce some ideas, which could improve the applicability of the theory in modern society.

Oscar Lewis first introduced the culture of poverty theory in 1959 in his book Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty but truly elaborates on his theory in La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty – San Juan and New York (1965). He believed people living in poverty did not feel like they belonged to the society they lived in as a result of marginalization and lack of acceptance by the general population (Lewis, 1998). Consequently, this segregation

One person worth mentioning is Charles A. Valentine who wrote Culture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-proposals, in which he criticizes Lewis’ theory. Valentine argues that Lewis has not created a model to eliminate poverty but rather to blame the victims for creating their own poverty. He proposes that Lewis condemns their way of living saying; “If we believe there is a “culture of poverty” which is not good for those who live by it, then why not first tackle the more tractable problem of relieving their material deprivation and then go on to build upon their more comfortable circumstances in order to save them from those more difficult and deep-seated culture patterns? No, it is the “culture” that must go first before the poor can be given what everybody else already possesses and many of us take for granted”(Valentine, 1969). Valentine suggests that Lewis tries to blame the culture of poverty for the people’s situation, thereby implying that the elimination of the culture would be of main concern, after which the poverty issue could resolve itself. Lewis suggests people must conform to the behaviors and values of the other social classes in society after which they will be able to change their economic and political issues and become part of normal society. Moreover, Valentine argues that Lewis