Poverty's Multiple Dimensions

Poverty is examined historically and multi­dimensionally focusing on the gendered nature of racism and capitalism. Multiple intersections are discussed that undergird poverty's structuralization and institutionalization to maintain capitalism's efficacy. The discussion supports Kunjufu's (2006) assertion that Payne's (2001) poverty model represents deficit thinking. Education and its relationship to poverty to attain social transformation and social justice are addressed. Analysis is done through critical race theory and critical race feminism. Poverty's Multiple Dimensions Poverty in the United States (U.S.) is a structural, embedded, institutionalized, and systemic requirement to maintain capitalism's efficacy; it is an ongoing outcome of hegemony, patriarchy, and a capitalistic economic structure. Property in its numerous forms is the foundation upon which poverty rests. Accumulation and disaccumulation (Brown, Carnoy, Currie, Duster, Oppenheimer, Shultz, & Wellman, 2003) of wealth and property, in concert with the politics of distribution (Books, 2004; Rank, 2005), maintain the status quo. At the same time, the poverty­ridden are cast as lazy, dysfunctional, ignorant, undeserving, less­than, deficit, and shiftless. Deficit (Gorski, 2008) essentialist ideology is as engrained in the U.S. as are racism (Degaldo & Stefancic, 2001, 2000) and sexism. The face of poverty has become code for and synonymous with African Americans, urban, people of color in general, poor Whites, and women of all hues. The feminization of poverty continues to be devastating and pronounced. As such, poverty is neither simple nor one­dimensional. Poverty is steeped in the historical, political, social, legal, and very personal intersections of multiple dimensions mired in racism and capitalism. The focus in this article centers on racism, sexism, and capitalism and is prompted by Kunjufu's (2006) numerous references to them in his response to Payne's (2001) poverty model. However, as noted above, poverty is multidimensional and as such, requires an examination grounded in multiple realms. Distinctive elements of how capitalism undergirds racism and sexism are examined through a critical race theory (CRT) lens, specifically, racism as embedded in U.S. society, racialization and differential racialization, interest convergence and the myth of legal neutrality (Bell, 2004, 1980; Crenshaw et al., 1996; Delgado, 1999; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, 2000). Critical race theory emerged in the 1970s from critical legal studies as the study and transformation of the relationship among race, racism, and power. Here I add that race and racism may be interchanged with gender and sexism. CRT is historical and contextual, bringing a broader perspective to economics, history, context, group­ and self­interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. It questions the foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. CRT contains an activist dimension—it not only tries to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies, but to transform it for the better. Critical race theory emerged in educational studies in 1994 (Ladson­Billings & Tate, 1995). Six common themes are found in CRT: 1. CRT recognizes that racism is a pervasive and permanent part of American society; 1 Taylor: Poverty's Multiple Dimensions Published by Western CEDAR, 2009 2. CRT challenges dominant claims of objectivity, neutrality, colorblindness, and merit; 3. CRT challenges ahistoricism and insists on a contextual/historical analysis of the law; 4. CRT insists on recognition of the experiential knowledge of people of color in analyzing law and society; 5. CRT is interdisciplinary; and 6. CRT works toward eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression (Matstuda, Lawrence, Delgado, and Crenshaw, 1993). (from Dixson & Rousseau, 2006, p. 4) Concepts essential to this discussion and to CRT analysis are property, accumulation and disaccumulation of property and wealth, Otherness, sexism—as ingrained in the U.S. as racism and in conjunction with women in general and double jeopardy for women of color, (King, 1988; Lerner, 1973; Terrell, 1904), scientific racism, and (White) male privilege. Kunjufu's (2006) assertion that Payne's (2001) poverty model represents deficit thinking (Gorski, 2007, 2008) is valid. Payne's model is both classist (Gorski, 2007, 2008) and paternalistic in that its goal is to make them like us, i.e., there is something wrong with people in poverty and they need to be fixed accordingly to become acceptable and functional by middle­class values and standards. Further, Payne's thesis offers no solid research basis. Her premise reads like a recipe and there is no singular dimension or solution to poverty. An in­depth and multifaceted understanding of poverty is necessary in order to stimulate understanding, empathy, and action. When especially White middle class people who have never experienced poverty are presented with a recipe, there is a potent danger that the recipe is perceived as a panacea, which is accepted thoughtlessly and without critical analysis, much less understanding and empathy. An example is found in a conversation I had several years ago in a higher education setting with a White female faculty member and administrator who is qualified to train others about Payne's model. During a conversation with this person, she revealed she volunteered with an African American boy. She stated she grew up poor in a military family. She continued to describe the little boy's mother and relayed an account of her shopping and spending habits. The faculty member expressed disdain that the boy's mother made no attempt to save her money, but rather chose to spend her money on, by her definition, more frivolous and extravagant purchases. Although I do not recall the mother's exact purchases, they would not be questioned if she was not a welfare recipient. The faculty person clearly demonstrated no understanding or empathy of the grinding brutality of experiencing chronic poverty on a daily basis. Her mindset revealed she did not understand nor empathize with what living in poverty could be like through her stereotypical and judgmental statements. She believes the poor are not entitled to enjoy equity in a media­saturated culture advertising a plethora of "stuff" to capture the dollars of the consumer. However, the mother's choices represent an act of resistance to poverty and the rigidly strangling welfare system through exercising her right to purchase the same commodities as someone not on welfare (Kelley, 1996). Surely, the mother would have been criticized if she purchased steak instead of hamburger because she does not deserve to spend her food stamps in such an extravagant manner. It is this aura of arrogance and condescending attitude that exposes the lack of depth and understanding of poverty by some of those trained in Payne's model. The faculty person in this example is limited in her ability to be an effective educator. Rather than creating understanding and empathy in her classroom for her students, she further perpetuates stereotypes, a judgmental attitude, deficit thinking, and 2 Journal of Educational Controversy, Vol. 4, No. 1 [2009], Art. 4 http://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol4/iss1/4