Term Paper on Poverty

Term Paper on Poverty Prejudice, mellowness, and pauperism in America be linked issues. Works by tetrad authors discussed in this essay, Takaki, F on the whole in allows, Olds, and Gioia, serve well us to understand how the immixer issues of class and hotfoot ar intertwined, making an analysis of both necessary for an adequate discernment of any one individually. While the authors discussed here get on the issues from different angles, their whole kit and boodle taken side by side clearly show us how detriment helps the slopped shrug off office toward the unequal, offering explanations as to why more or less groups (or persons) remain in pauperization and early(a)s do non.Additionally, it is argued that those funding in affluence and thus those with the means to signifi johntly address the scantness issue may, in fact, energise a reduced aw atomic number 18ness of the earth and humanity of poverty. As a result, not only is poverty per se not addressed (w e striket address what we dont see), but the existing myths and impairments that help to maintain class divisions, both in society at large and infix in our legal and companionable structures, remain unchallenged.However, it is only by examining both the objective nature of the reliable era together with prejudice and the self-justification of the affluent that one can understand how prejudice, affluence, and poverty are intertwined. The nature of money, according to Gioias rime titled simply Money, shapes the reality of life for both the naughty and the poor, according to how much they have or dont have. Gioias poem reminds us of the numerous meanings we accord to money, how we need it and spend it, and how it functions in our economy. One of the clear messages in Gioias poem is that money, itself, does not discriminate.It is what it is disregarding of who has it, but for those who have it, it grows and multiplies. For those who dont have it, or dont have abundant of it, it does not. If money itself does not discriminate, how do we business relationship for the gap amidst those who are affluent and those who are poor? What prevents some from getting it, while others have enough for it to grow? How we answer this question, and the logical system behind our answer, is very connected to policy decisions we make concerning poverty, and how effective we are in addressing it.One of our handed-down explanations for the why the poor are poor and the rich are rich, according to the American ideology, is that the poor are those who have not worked sufficiently to gain money. Likewise, those who have money, according to the same ideology, are those who have been frugal, worked secure, saved, wisely invested, and who have otherwise lived right. Takaki, in his clause Race at the End of History, provides a summary of how this is embedded in our ideology The American dream still holds promise to all us as Americans.Everyone, regardless of race, can make it i nto the mainstream through hard work and private effort. (p. 387). This kind of definition, and the ideology behind it, makes it possible to approach policy issues in such a way that places sweep over responsibility on those who are poor for their own plight. As Takaki points out, our emphasis is on the fact that success is to be achieved through private means, rather than administration assistance (p. 387). Addressing poverty then becomes a question of getting those who are not working hard enough, not living right, to do so.This definition of poverty allows us to say, those who have a lions share of wealth deserve that wealth, and those who are in poverty, deserve that poverty. Viewed this way, on that point is no reason, then, to seriously listen to claims of glass ceilings or discrimination, or to spirit in any other way at prejudices built into our social and legal structures that unfairly increase the odds for some, and reduce them for others. How is it that, in the show of evident go on poverty among certain ethnic or racial groups, we continue to believe in this ideology?Surely, by now enough evidence of systematic discrimination, glass ceilings, and other obstacles for specific racial and ethnic (and gender) groups has shown us that the American dream as summed up by Takaki is found at least partially on a myth. Yet many people still agree with, for example, what Takaki suggests (p. 385) Francis Fukuyamas explanation is that poverty is a matter of cultural difference. Parillo, in Causes of Prejudice, and Fallows in The Invisible pitiable each help us to understand forces at work that help to perpetuate the myth even in the face of a strange reality.Parillo points to prejudice and the continuation of prejudice through the socialization process. Defining prejudice as an attitudinal system of negative beliefs, feelings, and action-orientations regarding a certain group or groups of people (p. 548), Parillo argues that, through the socializatio n process, prejudicious views consciously or unconsciously adopted during childhood can then continue into adulthood, and translate into prejudicial choices and behavior in work, social life, and life choices.Additionally, widespread and generally divided prejudicial beliefs and attitudes toward specific groups can be implicitly (or explicitly) reinforced by society at large through, for example, the legal system and cultural norms (p. 557). in the buff generations may not be alert to these subtle reinforcers of prejudicial attitudes and practices, and consequently may not question them. The prevailing stereotypes and prejudices are thus maintained and continued as they are adopted by unseasoned generations, and as they continue to be sanctified by the surrounding legal and social framework.If children acquire their beliefs from their parents through socialization, what prevents them from questioning those values? Surely, we are not all sheep, that unthinkingly accept everyth ing we hear. One explanation that Parillo offers (pp. 550-551) is Self-Justification, that we need reassurance that the things we do and the lives we live are proper, that good reasons for our actions exist. One way in which this surfaces, he argues, is through a dominant group convincing itself that it is superior to other groups, causing them to associate less frequently or not at all with those groups it deems inferior.Fallows article The Invisible Poor clearly shows how this phenomenon is a reality of our current era of tech wealth, describing the invisible social bar between rich and poor people a barrier so coarse as to make the poor invisible to the rich. Within the tech wealth era, according to Fallows, the production of wealth involves fewer blue pass with flying colors workers, so that those directly benefiting from it are not confronted with the realities, struggles, and needs of those less alike them.In terms of economic background, in that location is more simil arity between the workers producing and benefiting from the new wealth. Second, the nature of work in spite of appearance the tech industry isolates those within it into an insulated world. Long working hours, a minimal amount of leisure time, and social lives primarily focused around those within the same world just contributes to the lack of awareness and connectedness to the rest of the world around them. Third, he points to the racial meritocracy of the tech industry, with workers and contributors coming from all corners of the globe.He argues that this racial mix among the tech wealthy leaves them out of touch with the more basic and traditional racial tensions among the less wealthy, and the ways in which those in minority groups not associated with the tech wealthy are still disadvantaged. While Fallows offers a great deal of support for these specific phenomena of the tech wealth era as objective phenomena, which may indeed be at work, combining an analysis of these phenom ena with Parrillos analysis of prejudice and self-justification offers a choke-full sagacity of our current era.Sharon Olds, in her poem From Seven Floors Up shows, for example, how even if there are objective forces at work such as those discussed by Fallows, there is still an attitudinal factor at work when those more affluent are confronted with the reality of poverty, they are looking from seven floors up, through prejudice and self-justification, will more likely (however unwittingly)do not believe it could be a reality of their lives.In sum, given that money itself does not discriminate, and given the overwhelming evidence that there are obstacles to wealth other than the personal blow to achieve the American Dream, we must look for a fuller explanation of the gap between the rich and the poor. The relationship between affluence and poverty consists not only of objective forces such as new forms of wealth production or characteristics of new economic eras, but more concrete ly of prejudice.The very real obstacles to wealth encountered by specific societal groups, and embedded in our social and legal structures ,are not only referable to the transference of values from one generation to the next, but due to the continued need for self-justification among the affluent. The product of self-justification, prejudice, is the link between affluence and poverty that needs to be analyzed and addressed if social policies concerning poverty are to be effective.