Pathological Explanations of Poverty

Pathological Explanations of Poverty Discuss the pathological and structural explanations of poverty. Poverty was first identified by Sir William Beveridge in 1942, as a major social evil in society. It is a highly contested and multi-dimensional social problem that has no single agreed definition. Kilty et al defines poverty as ‘an overall condition of inadequacy, lacking and scarcity’. She further claims, ‘it is destitution and deficiency of economic, political and social resources’ (Kilty et al, 1997: 30 cited in Kane Kirby, 2003: 52). Social scientists have established two main representations of poverty. These are absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty denotes a lack of access to a minimum level of subsistence that is required to live a healthy lifestyle. This includes basic life necessities such as food, water, clothing and shelter. In contrast, sociologist Peter Townsend defines relative poverty in terms of relative deprivation which means that the living standards of the poor are considered far too removed from the rest of society (Holman, 1978; Pantazis et al, 2006). Sociologists have identified numerous explanations for the existence and persistence of poverty. 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 will discuss two major sociological/political theories of poverty, one known as the pathological explanation and the other as the structural explanation. As part of the pathological perspective I will explore individualistic, familial and subcultural understandings of poverty. In contrast within structural accounts, I will examine class, agency and inequality approaches to poverty. In doing so, I will discover their solutions to help tackle poverty and will also evaluate the relevance of both pathological and structural explanations in the contemporary world (ibid). Pathological explanations of poverty are favoured by those on the right of the political spectrum. Firstly, according to the individualistic viewpoint social problems like poverty, unemployment and crime stem from individual deficiencies and limitations. For instance, it is argued that the poor have a character defect. They are deliberately indolent individuals who have made bad choices in life. Therefore, they are held responsible for their own plight. Individualistic explanations also attribute poverty to the biology of the poor. In support of this, Charles Murray (2000) claims that ‘by choosing to be poor people pass on inferior genes to their offspring’ and ‘over time, there is a deterioration in the genome of the poor’ (Fitzpatrick, 2011: 101). Nevertheless, it must be noted that there is no scientific evidence to prove that poverty is an innate problem (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978). Successive governments have adopted different policy approaches to tackle poverty. A historic example is of the 19th century Poor Law Amendment Act which was introduced in 1834. The act took into consideration the widely accepted individualistic ideology of its time, which believed poverty to be a moral failure 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 state 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 individual’s family circumstances for shaping their disadvantaged lifestyle. For example, if a child lives in a family environment that is characterised 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 encounter multiple deprivations in life and are thus, unable to provide their children with a decent upbringing. This has a negative impact on the child’s life opportunities. According to the cycle of deprivation theory, family pathology is responsible for transmitting social deprivation intergenerationally. This is due to the belief that poverty runs in families. Furthermore, in an attempt to end the generational cycle of poverty, in 1998 the New Labour government introduced Sure Start programmes which are a form of educational intervention in the lives of children. They were set up with the aim of improving deprived children’s life chances, so that they do not face disadvantage in the school life (Kane Kirby, 2003; Shuffelton, 2013). 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 share these negative characteristics are destined to remain within a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty. They begin viewing poverty as an accepted lifestyle and make little effort to improve their circumstances. However, this is not necessarily true as an individual’s changing economic circumstances can lift 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 beneficial in explaining the persistence of poverty in the contempor ary world (Holman, 1978; Kane Kirby, 2003; Waxman, 1977). Pathological explanations of poverty have received considerable support from New Right 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 throughout their entire lives. Nevertheless, Murray has been criticised for underestimating the desire of the underclass to be free from state assistance. Likewise, his ideological position has meant that he has also lacked focus in explaining how wider structural factors may also cause poverty (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Holman, 1978; Niskanen, 1996). Murray’s underclass theory has influenced contemporary government approaches to tackle welfare dependency. For instance, the current UK coalition government has adopted 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 policies is to help welfare dependents regain the incentive to work. This is by teaching them the skills needed for a decent paid 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 wrong parents in the wrong section of the country 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 circle; 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 experiences ill health may push an individual into a poverty lifestyle. In addition, the theory does not explain why particular groups like ethnic minorities are more vulnerable to poverty. For example, the structural perspective of poverty would argue that ethnic minorities experience discrimination 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 cheap expendable labour, are provided with menial tasks and are paid well below 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. All capitalist societies are characterised by class conflict between the bourgeoisies, who are the owners of the means of production and the proletariat or working class who sell 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 reserve army of labour, are made to work for long hours and are paid low wages in return. Although this enables the capitalist system to thrive, it creates inequalities in wealth and income and keeps the proletariat located at the very bottom of the social hierarchy (Fitzpatrick, 201 1; Kane Kirby, 2003) Karl Marx anticipated a revolution to occur where the proletariat collectively unite for radical social change. He argued that this revolution will give rise to a communist society which is based on equal distribution of wealth 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 solution 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 contemporary world (ibid). Secondly according to the agency perspective, poverty is caused by the failure of public services and inadequate welfare benefits. Although, social services play 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 self-reliant 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 retrenchment of welfare provisions by the New Right, which they argue provided people with an additional 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 demonstrated 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 integrate 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 structure of society, and a redistributive taxation system and also greater economic growth 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 combination 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 individual’s 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 offer a more holistic approach in unde rstanding and tackling poverty in the contemporary world.

Foreign Intervention Essay

Developing nations are usually countries that lack stability, whether politically or financially. Intervention in such nations may prove to be helpful in such cases, as it may ensure an increased stability within the country. This is much needed in developing nations, as stability is key to economic prosperity. However, intervention in the internal affairs of another nation may undermine the country’s sovereignty, rendering foreign intervention undesirable, as it does more harm than good from the standpoint of the developing nation. Foreign intervention in the form of humanitarian aid does more good than harm, as it hastens the restoration of infrastructure and provides the citizens with the necessities to tide over difficult times. Natural disasters cause substantial damage to a country, with homes destroyed and lives lost. The people involved are often rendered helpless. Developing nations in particular, may not be able to help much due to the lack of financial reserves. Humanitarian aid given in such times is desired and will be of great help to the people, due to the relief provided in times of distress. An example would be Haiti, which was badly hit by an earthquake. International organizations such as the United Nations and Red Cross Foundation provided food and medical care, alleviating the situation in Haiti. Hence, humanitarian aid brings about many benefits, doing more good than harm. Developing nations embattled in internal turmoil may require foreign intervention to restore political stability in the nation. Repressive regimes such as that in Libya have resulted in brutality and oppression. The people are unable to stand up for themselves to lead a change. The people desire intervention, as they wish to be freed from tyrant rulers. Foreign intervention will aid the citizens in effecting a change that will improve their lives drastically. Furthermore, the political stability that results may restore economic prosperity in the nation, which was not achievable previously due to uncertainty and fear for the future by businesses. Political stability will reduce those fears and create a better environment for the economy to flourish. These benefits are far-reaching and long-term, and are essential to the development of the nation. Hence, foreign  intervention in a developing nation does more good than harm. The intervention in another nation’s internal affairs may undermine national sovereignty, which is an important attribute of modern states today. Sovereignty is of great significance, and no country will willingly allow foreign nations to infringe on their sovereignty. Foreign intervention may result in negative repercussions, such as the strain on international relations. This is seen by Greece’s anger over perceived intervention in their internal affairs by Germany during the Eurozone crisis. Strained relations between countries undesirable for both countries as it may lead to restricted trade, and in turn the loss of economic opportunities. Foreign intervention may lead to long lasting harmful impacts if relations do not improve, hence it does a significant amount of harm. Foreign intervention may serve as a tool in correcting the infringement of human rights, which will do good and justice to the people subjected to unfair treatment. The 1994 Rwanda genocide was an instance where human rights were compromised. The Hutus persecuted the Tutsis, and a coalition of states was prepared to put a stop to that. The intervention will help the Tutsi population escape such brutality and violence. The Tutsis will be able to live a life free of brutality, which will improve their physical well being and be able to lead a more peaceful life. Human rights should never be infringed as it is the basic rights that every human being should possess. Therefore, in cases where human rights are compromised, foreign intervention is warranted and it will bring about more good than harm. In principle, it may seem that the harm outweighs the good if sovereignty, a crucial aspect of every nation, is infringed. However, it depends on the circumstances. The dire need for humanitarian aid, fulfillment of basic human rights and freedom from repressive regimes may surpass the need for sovereignty. It will not be harmful to have foreign intervention. Rather, the people in developing nations will experience many positive impacts, and the country may be able to develop further and prosper, hence foreign intervention does not do more harm than good.

Exploring the Universality and Diversity of Human Language Essay

Language is an all-important tool of mankind for expression. We think, speak and write in languages. Indeed, our use of sophisticated mode of expression such as language is what distinguishes us from animals. Language is already very much a part of us, but we often take it for granted. We do not give it much thought and probably quite a few attempt to make sense out of its nature and its complexities. Distinguished authorities in psychology, philosophy and linguistics support the concept of language as a universal human faculty. If it is not, why is it that despite little knowledge of language and its correct usage, children as young as two years, of any race or ethnicity, quickly learn to speak and understand any language they are exposed to? It is astonishing how thousands of various languages and dialects have evolved since the confusion at Babel in Genesis. The Ethnologue has listed more than six thousand (6,000) languages from all over the world (Grimes, 2001). Note that we do not only refer to civilized languages, and there could probably be more that have not been documented yet, or, have not even been heard of by the civilized population (i. e. tribal languages). Now, with the innumerable modes of pronunciation and styles of language use, we can probably come up with a million varieties of languages. If language is a universal human faculty, why are human languages so different? Universality of Language Even the scriptures provided some evidence to substantiate the concept that language is universal. Before the Tower of Babel incident, as cited in the book of Genesis, remember that mankind had one language. Ever since God intervened to cause confusion at Babel and men dispersed to various parts of the earth, human language have evolved into various kinds. Still, however, human languages are astoundingly similar! In what way are human languages the same, and why? Kumar (1997) cited that children could learn almost any language with the right timing. Children learn at a remarkable rate if they are immersed in the language during their critical period for language development, which is usually between the age of two to five years. Such that at the age of six, they would have â€Å"learned to use and understand about thirteen thousand (13,000) words† (Dunbar, 1996). Further, children of average intellectual capacity learn about ten (10) new words a day by the time they reach their first birthday. If we have to do our math, this is the â€Å"equivalent of a new word every 90 minutes of (their) waking life† (Dunbar, 1996). It is amazing how children learn a language in such a short time and, only by hearing a few words and short sentences from their parents and others, they are able to come up with virtually many others, most of which even follow correct grammatical principles. There are no set rules or systems of teaching children their first language. Just by the mere exposure to the language in their natural environment, they begin to mimic what they hear, experiment on words and phrases, then adults correct them at one point, and quite easily, they learn to speak the language despite its complexities. This is referred to as the â€Å"environmental input† in the article of Nowak and his colleagues (2002), that appeared in the 6 June 2002 of the Nature. Because of this environmental input, â€Å"children construct an internal representation of the underlying grammar. Children are not told of the grammatical rules. Neither children nor adults are ever aware of the grammatical rules that specify their own language† (p. 614). Wilhelm von Humboldt (as cited in Chomsky, 1968) believes that: â€Å"underlying any human language we will find a system that is universal, that simply expresses man’s unique intellectual attributes. For this reason, it was possible for him to maintain the rationalist view that language is not really learned – certainly not taught – but rather develops from within, in an essentially predetermined way, when the appropriate environmental conditions exist. One cannot really teach a first language, he argued, but can only provide the thread along which it will develop of its own accord, by processes more like maturation than learning† (Chomsky, 1968). Moreover, it does seem that languages transcend cultural boundaries. A good evidence of this would be how children learn in the same way regardless of cultural background. We can only wonder why when a family moves to another community with a different dialect for instance, children are the quickest to adapt and learn the new language. Do humans have the innate ability and mechanism for acquiring language within the brain? Lee (1997 ) looked into this innateness of language from a neurobiological standpoint. He asserted that there is â€Å"certain preexisting universal biological order in the brain. If they did not preexist, how would the many brains build synaptic connections that were similar to one another, even the brains of people that speak different languages? † Certain parts (such as Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas) of the brain are responsible for specialized linguistic functions, which means, â€Å"there are innate physical structure of the brain which govern our learning of language. † Chomsky (1975), a noted linguist, believes that we are â€Å"specifically designed† to learn language. As Biehler (1976) puts it, there are â€Å"striking uniformities† in languages of other cultures that follow grammatical patterns (universal grammar). Even Farrel (1978) agrees that there is â€Å"an underlying design original to all languages. † For all of them, language is simply a part of our genetic endowment, or as the evolutionist Haugen (1973) would say it, we have the â€Å"gift of language,† or the â€Å"universal gift of tongues. † Chomsky and other linguists believe that there are system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements of all human languages. Human languages contain structure, which means they are composed of several words grouped basically by function (verbs, nouns, etc. ) and this is referred to in linguistic literatures as innate universal grammar. â€Å"The human brain is equipped with a learning algorithm, which enables us to learn certain languages. This algorithm can learn each of the existing 6,000 human languages and presumably many more, but it is impossible that algorithm could learn every computable language† (Nowak, Komarova and Niyogi, p. 615). What are the implications of all these? Regardless of cultural background, whatever language we know or use now, we are all innately predisposed to comprehend design in languages and we can easily grasp and work around grammatical rules, however complex or elaborate they are. Although of course, young children are at an advantage in using this gift, as timing in acquiring a language is important as well. Nonetheless, as a general statement, regardless of cultural or ethnic background, man’s remarkable ability to communicate through language, in itself, is already a good proof of the universality of language as a human faculty. As mentioned in the Atlas of Languages (1996), there is no known society or community in the world that is language-less. From the evolutionists’ point of view, language is essentially a human trait and this is a powerful evidence on the universality of language. While animals of the same kind have their own way of communicating, only humans had â€Å"the power of recursion to create an open-ended and limitless system of communication† Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch, 2002, p. 1578). Why and how humans acquired the faculty of language and managed to â€Å"spread from human to human and from culture to culture,† (Knezek, 1997) are often the usual subjects of discussion of scholars. Evolutionists would agree that â€Å"the faculty meditating human communication appears remarkably different from that of other living creatures†¦. that the human faculty of language appears to be organized like the genetic code with respect to its scope of expression. † Animals have been â€Å"designed on the basis of highly conserved developmental systems that read an almost universal language coded in DNA base pairs,† however, â€Å"they lack a common universal code of communication† (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch, 2002, p. 1569).

Comparing Digital And Textbooks And Their Effects On...

Comparison of Digital and Print textbooks and their effects on helping university students study efficiently Joyce J. Lam University of California, Irvine Author Note Joyce Josephine Lam University of California, Irvine jjlam@uci.edu SS3A HW ID: 104 Abstract This paper explores the pros and cons of using digital formats verses print formats of textbooks, particularly e-textbooks and traditional textbooks, and seeks to ask how effective these textbook formats are for university students and their studies. The purpose of this paper is to examine these different textbook formats is to see which has the potential and ability to help students in the best capacity possible. There are clear reasons on how digital textbooks and†¦show more content†¦Because we live in a modern age of much technological advancements, many students in universities are looking to see if it is still worth buying physical textbooks or to utilize digital formats like e-textbooks as a means of efficiency or even as a way to cut costs of paying for expensive textbooks. To understand which format is more effective, we need to study the different formats and see what are the strengths and weaknesses found in the two different formats. This paper will examine resea rch done by multiple researchers and use their research to help find the format that best helps students to study and retain material learned from their textbook Defining E-textbooks and Traditional Textbooks E-textbooks are often defined as texts that are able to be accessed on electronic devices. Most research has defined them as texts that are digital and accessed via electronic screens (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Courdoff, Carter, Bennett, 2012), in which there two formats that exist. The first format is the page fidelity e-textbook and second is the reflowable digital e-textbook. The page fidelity e-textbook is a simple scanned picture of the print version of a book, which can usually come in the form of a PDF (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Courdoff, Carter, Bennett, 2012). The page fidelity e-textbook has no