Adopting an integrated perspective, some researchers say these values and practices are ultimately the result of poverty itself (Small et al. 2010). These particular scholars concede that a culture of poverty does exist, but they also say it exists because it helps the poor cope daily with the structural effects of being poor. If these effects lead to a culture of poverty, they add, poverty then becomes self-perpetuating. If poverty is both cultural and structural in origin, these scholars say, efforts to improve the lives of people in the “other America” must involve increased structural opportunities for the poor and changes in some of their cultural values and practices.

On the other hand, some ethnographic research supports the individualistic explanation by showing that the poor do have certain values and follow certain practices that augment their plight

As Rank (2011) summarizes this view, “American poverty is largely the result of failings at the economic and political levels, rather than at the individual level…In contrast to [the individualistic] perspective, the basic problem lies in a shortage of viable opportunities for all Americans.” Rank points out that the US economy during the past few decades has created more low-paying and part-time jobs and jobs without benefits, meaning that Americans increasingly find themselves in jobs that barely lift them out of poverty, if at all

According to the second, structural explanation, which is a blaming-the-system approach, US poverty stems from problems in American society that lead to a lack of equal opportunity and a lack of jobs. These problems include (a) racial/ethnic, gender, age, and other forms of discrimination; (b) lack of good schooling and adequate health care; and (c) structural changes in the American economic system, such as the departure of manufacturing companies from American cities in the 1980s and 1990s that led to the loss of thousands of jobs

Regarding the latter point, they note that poor employed adults work more hours per week than wealthier adults and that poor parents interviewed in surveys value education for their children at least as much as wealthier parents. These and other similarities in values and beliefs lead critics of the individualistic explanation to conclude that poor people’s poverty cannot reasonably be said to result from a culture of poverty.

Regardless of which version one might hold, the individualistic explanation is a blaming-the-victim approach. Critics say this explanation ignores discrimination and other problems in American society and exaggerates the degree to which the poor and nonpoor do in fact hold different values

According to this theory, the poor generally have beliefs and values that differ from those of the nonpoor and that doom them to continued poverty. For example, they are said to be impulsive and to live for the present rather than the future.

According to the individualistic explanation, the poor have personal problems and deficiencies that are responsible for their poverty. In the past, the poor were thought to be biologically inferior, a view that has not entirely faded, but today the much more common belief is that they lack the ambition and motivation to work hard and to achieve success. According to survey evidence, the majority of Americans share this belief (Davidson 2009). A more sophisticated version of this type of explanation is called the culture of poverty theory

The explanation for poverty we favor presumably affects the amount of sympathy we have for the poor, and our sympathy, or lack of sympathy, in turn affects our views about the government’s role in helping the poor.

To be more precise, the particular explanation that people favor affects their view of government efforts to help the poor. Those who attribute poverty to problems in the larger society are much more likely than those who attribute it to deficiencies among the poor to believe that the government should do more to help the poor

It is critical to determine which explanation makes more sense because, as sociologist Theresa C. Davidson (2009) observes, “beliefs about the causes of poverty shape attitudes toward the poor.”

The first type of explanation follows logically from the functional theory of stratification and may be considered an individualistic explanation. The second type of explanation follows from conflict theory and is a structural explanation that focuses on problems in American society that produce poverty. The Explanations of Poverty table below summarizes these explanations.

The functionalist and conflict views focus broadly on social stratification but only indirectly on poverty. When poverty finally attracted national attention during the 1960s, scholars began to try specifically to understand why poor people become poor and remain poor. Two competing explanations developed, with the basic debate turning on whether poverty arises from problems either within the poor themselves or in the society in which they live

On a more lighthearted note, examples of the symbolic interactionist framework are also seen in the many literary works and films that portray the difficulties that the rich and poor have in interacting on the relatively few occasions when they do interact. For example, in the classic film Pretty Woman, Richard Gere plays a rich businessman who hires a sex worker, played by Julia Roberts, to accompany him to fancy parties and other affairs. Roberts' character has to buy a new wardrobe and learn how to dine and behave in these social settings, and much of the film’s humor and poignancy come from her awkwardness in learning the lifestyle of the rich. Thus, we are socialized into social class just as we are into gender and other social identities.

they all make very clear that the poor often lead lives of quiet desperation and must find ways of coping with being poor.

it does not necessarily try to explain why we have class inequality in the first place. Rather, it examines the differences that stratification makes for people’s lives and their interactions with other people.

Consistent with its micro-orientation, symbolic interactionism tries to understand poverty and economic inequality by looking at people’s interaction, experience, and understandings in their daily lives

Conflict theory emphasizes that individuals and groups at the top of social hierarchies have the power to make decisions about the nation that benefit them, which then reproduce existing social hierarchies. One concept that aligns with this perspective is the power elite, proposed by C. Wright Mills (of the sociological imagination), which describes the close ties between individuals at the top of the government, military, and corporate sectors. These highly-networked and wealthy individuals have strong influence over national policy decisions, such as the lowering of tax rates for the wealthy or the weakening of regulations for corporations, policies which benefit them. They may also pass legislation that cuts into social welfare programs, worsening conditions for people at the bottom of the social class hierarchy and widening economic inequality.

Conflict theory’s explanation of economic inequality draws on Karl Marx’s view of class societies and incorporates the critique of the functionalist view just discussed. Many different explanations grounded in conflict theory exist, but they all assume that stratification stems from a fundamental conflict between the needs and interests of the powerful or 'haves' in society and those of the weak or 'have-nots' (Kerbo 2012). The former take advantage of their position at the top of society to stay at the top, even if it means oppressing those at the bottom

conflict theory attributes stratification and thus poverty to lack of opportunity from discrimination and prejudice against the poor, women, people of color, and other marginalized groups. In this regard, it reflects one of the early critiques of the functionalist view that the previous section outlined. As we will see in this textbook, there are various obstacles that make it difficult for the poor, women, and people of color in the US to move up the socioeconomic ladder and to otherwise enjoy healthy and productive lives.

Non-dominant, or marginalized groups, are located on the left side of the chart, such as working-class, LGBTQ+, or elderly people. Marginalization is a process of social exclusion in which individuals or groups are pushed to the outside of society by denying them economic and political power

A social model of disability views diagnoses from a social and environmental perspective. In the social model, the social problem of disability is that society doesn’t meet the needs of individuals with different abilities, not that the people themselves are limited. A social model looks at all the social factors that might impact a person’s ability to fully participate in everyday life, not just at a particular impairment.

meaning that medical professionals and researchers see the person with the disability as 'broken.' In this approach, individuals diagnosed with a disability are often discussed as objects of study instead of complex individuals with agency.

Apart from being a self-identity, 'queer' refers broadly to non-normativity, meaning any sexual identity or practice that is outside of what has been construed as 'normal' and privileged in society. Monogamous vanilla (non-kink) heterosexuality came to be designated as 'normal' while all other sexualities were deemed 'abnormal,' and thus sexuality influences the distribution of power and resources, as with gender, race, and class.

many Americans think the poor are lazy and lack the motivation to work and, as is often said, “really could work if they wanted to.”