A Framework for Understanding Poverty

tarav

I have just finished reading A Framework for Understanding Poverty, by Ruby Payne. I volunteered to read it, attend a workshop by Payne, and lead a discussion group on it at my work. If you have read it, I'd be interested in your comments on the book.

tarav

For me there was a flaw right from the first chapter in A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Payne begins by listing the resources that contribute to the success of an individual. In chapter one, on page 16, she lists, emotional, mental, spiritual, physical, support system, role model, and knowledge of hidden rules as resources that are necessary. Can you guess which one I had a problem with?!? She describes spiritual resources as, "the belief that help can be obtained from a higher power, that there is a purpose for living, and that worth and love are gifts from God". I attended the Payne seminars on Thursday and Friday. She commented on the fact that she has had negative feedback from readers for including spirituality as a resource. Payne explained it away by saying something about the idea that spirituality does not have to be linked with a religion. However, in her book she is clearly linking it with a God who helps you and gives you purpose. To me, she is wrong on two counts. One can be successful without buying into any of that crap. Also, such beliefs may be harmful. In Why Smart People Believe Weird Things, Shermer discusses how people with an external locus of control, "believe that circumstances are beyond their control and that things just happen to them". It is hard to imagine how this attitude would be helpful for a person trying to climb out of poverty. I also seem to remember there being a positive correlation with low income earners and spirituality. If anyone can find those statistics or a quote from Shermer or anyone else discussing that, let me know. If my memory is correct on that correlation, then Payne would also be wrong by implying that spirituality is a resource lacked by people in poverty. I'd like to add that generally, I found the book and seminars very interesting and full of good insights. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the subject, anyone from poverty, or to anyone working with people in poverty.

Chris OConnor

Tara

I too would have taken a stance against the claim that spirituality is an essential ingredient for success. So she commented at the seminar that many people have had a problem with her including spirituality in the recipe. Did you raise your hand and speak your mind? Of course you did.

Quote:
I also seem to remember there being a positive correlation with low income earners and spirituality.

Hmm...

I don't recall ever hearing such a claim made by Shermer or anyone else. But I've been wrong once before. Actually, twice now that I think of it.

I'd actually find that correlation difficult to believe. Would you agree that the Republican party is the party of the haves, while the Democratic party is the default party of the have nots? Heck, this is part of the lefts political platform. They claim to be the party of the lower and middle classes - the working classes. Well, I think it is well established that the Republican party is the party for religious nuts. This fact tends to fly in the face of the notion that spirituality is more prevalent with low income earners.

On the other hand, I do think there is a positive correlation between the overall spirituality of a nation and the overall economic prosperity of that nation. Third world nations with extreme poverty and low standards of living have a very small secular component. The belief in a God or the presence of a strong spirituality helps people through adversity.

Chris

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandella

Mr. Pessimistic

In 'How We Believe", I believe (lol) that Shermer linked spirituality to lost causes. Like the Ghost Dancers in the 1800's and Farrakhan's Mother Ship...

He mentiones that those who are oppressed tend to have these end of days/salvation myths. Low income earners can be viewed as oppressed. But you make good points to the contrary with the Repub's Chris.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

scrumfish

In the last Sociology class I took we touched on the subject of socioeconomic status and religion, but only briefly. In the U.S., people of a lower economic status tend to belong to more conservative branches of religion. The book didn't have the exact numbers in it, but here is the summary paragraph of the two columns under the heading "Religious Affiliation and Socioeconomic Status."

Quote:
In sum, Jews and liberal Protestants are the most heavily middle and upper class; moderate Protestants and Catholics are somewhat in the middle (although the growing number of poor Catholic Latino immigrants may be changing this position); conservative and black Protestants are overwhelmingly lower class. These groupings correspond roughly to social and political liberalism and conservatism as well.

The book is "Introduction to Sociology" by Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, and Richard P. Appelbaum published in 2003. Not exactly what you're looking for, but maybe it'll help.

tarav

Thank you, all, for your comments. I am still working on what I plan to say about the book to the staff. Therefore, I continue to welcome any comments.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT