Culture of Poverty vs. Assimilation Theory Explained

Introduction to the Culture of Poverty Theory

The culture of poverty theory, as posited by Lewis (1969), asserts that this particular culture emerges when groups or populations that are economically and socially marginalized and disenfranchised from capitalist society generate behavior patterns to address their low social and economic status. According to Lewis's theory, the behaviors exhibited are characterized by helplessness, provincialism, low aspirations, disorganization, and criticism and belittlement of so-called middle-class White America. Moreover, Lewis asserts that even if structural remediation were put in place, the coping mechanisms already established would cause these behaviors and attitudes to persist.

According to classical assimilation theory, immigrant assimilation was seen as an integral component of successful entry into a middle-class American way of life, as cited in Greenman and Xie (2006) (Warner and Srole, 1945). The adaptation of immigrants to the host society was regarded as critical to immigrant success.

Comparing Culture of Poverty and Assimilation Theory

There are both similarities and differences between the culture of poverty theory and the traditional assimilation theory. Both attempt to explain the relationship between ethnic minorities and the host or dominant society. However, there are also significant differences. The assimilation theory suggests that assimilating to the host society is the only path to success — a premise that in many ways denies cultural differences and the unique value of a culture to the individual. Furthermore, aspiring to middle-class White success as the defining goal has been shown to not necessarily be the best outcome for voluntary and involuntary immigrants alike.

There are many empirical studies indicating that cultural assimilation and acculturation have resulted in premarital childbearing, smoking, risky sexual behaviors, and diminished well-being among immigrants who attempt to assimilate (Chen et al., 1999). Moreover, the traditional assimilation theory implies that the host society's culture is superior to that of the immigrant, and therefore any individual who genuinely wants to succeed should aspire to that standard.

Historical Disenfranchisement and the Culture of Poverty

The culture of poverty theory does ring true to some degree with regard to the historically disproportionate levels of poverty experienced by Black and Mexican American communities. Systematic disenfranchisement, institutional discrimination, and racism have a way of minimizing the individual talents, dreams, and abilities of a person, grouping them by race and culture into a subgroup that is generally denied access because of characteristics that cannot be physically changed.

What the culture of poverty theory does not directly address — and in some ways makes an exception for — is that those ingrained institutions are portrayed as "not quite as bad" as the affected individuals, groups, or cultures perceive them to be. The theory further implies that even if the system changes, these people will continue to maintain the same level of apathy and learned helplessness that segregation and discrimination have produced. This framing places the burden of stagnation on the affected group rather than on the structures that generated those conditions.

Conclusion

The culture of poverty theory and the traditional assimilation theory have historically been used as frameworks for explaining ethnic relations between immigrants and the host society. The traditional assimilation theory fails to address the needs of contemporary immigrants — both voluntary and involuntary — because the model is grounded in the experience of European immigrants entering a predominantly White society. The culture of poverty theory, while presenting some valid observations, fails to fully account for the real and genuine challenges that voluntary and involuntary ethnic groups face within the host society.