Poverty Is Not Just Lack Of Money

Irina Shurygina

There is such a concept in sociology as "the culture of poverty". It was introduced by American scientists who conducted surveys in the slums of American cities. They came to the conclusion that poverty is something more than just lack of material resources. As it turned out, living in chronic need develops special sets, values and stable behaviour patterns which are passed on "as inheritance" and which in their turn promote the intergenerational poverty. As a result of "market" reforms in this country many people have suddenly fallen into acute poverty. Since formerly these people had a rather good social standing the sociological and economic publications began to refer to them as the "new poor" in contrast with the "old poor", i.e. those who were poor before economic transformations. At least at first there could be no question of the "new poor" belonging to the "culture of poverty". In their case poverty meant only lack of money, the necessity to reduce consumption and to limit oneself in every way. During the last seven years some of those "new poor" managed to improve their living standard. However, many were unable to break out of poverty. What does it mean for them now? Is it only extremely limited material resources or we can already start talking about the "culture of poverty" among the "new poor"? During the last stages of "stagnant" socialism the only real criterion of social standing was the educational status though the living standard of those who had a higher education and less educated people did not differ much. Sociological surveys conducted among school-children traditionally showed that the attitude of teenagers to various kinds of deviant behaviour, their ability to adapt to school and plans for the future depended to a great degree on the educational level of the mother ( the father’s education and occupation playing a less significant role). The family's material well-being had a significant influence on the above parameters only in those cases when poverty was a direct consequence of family problems ( low-skilled parents, alcohol abuse and parasitism). As recently as several years ago when the society had already undergone the process of considerable economic differentiation it was found that parents' income did not sharply impact the socialisation of children. As market relations develop and strengthen in the present-day Russian society the family's economic conditions begin to exert a considerable influence on children. To illustrate, a study conducted by sociologist Mogun has shown that in making their life plans teenagers tend to take into account the support which the family can render them. The higher the parents' income the more help is expected and accordingly the greater are the children's aspirations. At the same time the mother's educational status continues to play a very important role in the socialisation of children. We conducted a study among ninth form pupils in Moscow and Ivanovo. 500 school-children participated in the study (250 in each city) whom we divided into four groups. The first group included children from poor families whose mothers had no higher education. We called this group the "old poor". Certainly this term is arbitrary – in actual fact families of those children became poor only recently. The second group consisted of teenagers from low-income households whose mothers had higher education. This group was called the "new poor". The same criterion was used to divide children from families with above-the-average income. Those of them whose mothers had no higher education were called the "old rich" proceeding from the notion which was common at "Brezhnev" times that the richest people - waiters, dental technicians, taxi drivers, shop assistants, car mechanics and so on – were doing quite well despite the absence of a diploma of higher education. Hence, the wealth of people without a higher education is perceived by our society as something more traditional than the high economic status of educated people. And, finally, the fourth group of respondents – children from well-to-do families whose mothers are college graduates. We called this group the "new rich". Below we will explain why we have chosen such a name. In order to establish how poverty affects the socialisation of "old" and "new" poor teenagers we compared these four groups with respect to several parameters.

Aspirations And Life Plans

Analysis of aspirations of children from the four above groups yields a significant difference among them. The absolute majority of children of educated mothers would also like to get a higher education. Besides, among them there are more of those who expressed a wish to become senior executives in the future. For school-children from well-to-do families it is typical to aspire to have their "own business" and a high income. As a result it is the children from the "new rich" group whose aspirations are the greatest, with the "old poor" being the least ambitious. The "new rich" seek a higher education, wealth, "own business" and successful career – all the main constituents of success while the "old poor", on the contrary, are least of all oriented towards attaining all these goals. Thus, while the "new rich" would obviously aspire to become the elite of the society, the "old poor" are already reconciled to the future role of social outsiders. The "new poor" and the "old rich" occupy an intermediate position. Teenagers from the "new poor" group do not have any aspirations as to wealth and "own" business, but 76 per cent of them would like to get a higher education. One may conclude that school-children from this group are oriented towards the success model of the Soviet society where success was primarily linked with higher education and an "intellectual" occupation. The "old rich" are much less interested in getting a diploma though among them there are many more children who dream of their "own business" and wealth. As has already been mentioned the latter model also existed under socialism as a "parallel" and "shadow" success story. It is centred around high income which has nothing to do either with education or career. If the social structure of the present-day Russian society were the same as in developed countries the "new poor" and "old rich" would make up the backbone of middle class dividing into "intellectuals" and small and medium owners. The "new rich" accept both these concepts of success thus creating the model "education +wealth and power" which is new for our society. It is for that reason that we have called this group the "new rich". Comparison of aspirations and expectations of teenagers reveals the same trend . The "old poor" not only have the least aspirations – they are less confident than the rest of the respondents that their aspirations will come true. In this group there is an especially high proportion of those who would like to get a higher education but believe that they would be unable to, and of those who think that they are doomed to poverty. On the contrary, the "new rich" who have the greatest aspirations are much more confident that their plans will come true.

Confidence In Oneself

To determine the teenagers' readiness to handle the challenges of living they were asked the question: "Do you agree with the statement that every man is the master of his fate?" Most of the school-children participating in the survey gave an affirmative answer. However, if only three percent of the children from well-to-do households did not agree with this statement, the percentage of poor "fatalists" who believe that "there is no flying from fate" amounted to 13 percent. Fatalism is expressed in the conviction that it is impossible in principle to escape from poverty. At the same time, if one is sure that man himself controls his own life, this inevitably leads to the conclusion that a poor man has only himself to blame for his poverty. Hence, the material well-being nurtures in school-children the philosophy of winners who are confident that success is a legitimate reward for their efforts. Conversely, poverty breeds social outsiders who are either prepared to give up any hopes of success or meekly acknowledge that they have only themselves to blame for failure. The higher the proportion of teenagers expecting support from their parents the greater the number of those who share the opinion that man himself is the master of his fate. That is, the idea that man should "make himself" finds the greatest support among those who are initially placed in more favourable conditions and have all reasons to believe that they will not have "to make themselves" from scratch. It is not surprising that it is the "new rich" who are much more sure of themselves than others (84 per cent of this group gave a positive answer to the above question), with the "old poor" yielding the smallest figure (72 percent). The equal proportion of the "new poor" and "old rich" believe that "man is the master of his fate". At the same time among the "new poor" there are considerably more fatalists (14 percent against 4 ).

How Do Children Feel At School?

In mid-fifties the American sociologist Albert Kohen developed the theory of "status frustration" asserting that school is a place where children from poor families have to compete with middle-class children, with the former doomed to failure because school cultivates middle class values. School judges pupils by the middle-class measuring rod, and teachers are, too, representatives of middle class. During the period of "late socialism" in our country school was primarily oriented towards children of educated parents. Today children of mothers-college graduates continue to feel more comfortable at school ( they more often than others give a positive answer to the question "Do you like school?"); they are more sure of themselves (among them there are fewer children who think that they have academic problems) and their academic performance is better. However, the family's economic condition also impacts the success of school socialisation. Teenagers from well-to-do families feel more comfortable and do better at school than their poor peers whose mothers have the same educational level. And again it is the "new rich" who are more successful, with the "old poor" being the least adapted. Though the "old rich" more seldom assess their academic progress as "good" or "excellent", on the whole they do not feel less confident at school than the "new poor". The share of those who feel quite comfortable in the school environment and those who believe that they have no academic problems is almost equal in both these groups. Obviously, what concerns adaptation to school today the high level of the mother's education and money closely match each other.

What Is More Important – Money Or Education?

Summing up the above we can make the following conclusion: we are witnessing the process of rapid differentiation of the society into the haves and the have-nots. However, this process is far from being completed because both groups are not yet homogeneous consisting of those coming from the well-educated and poorly-educated milieu.

Both the family’s material well-being and the mother’s high educational status contribute to the shaping up of teenagers' life strategies raising their aspirations, facilitating adaptation to school conditions and enhancing their readiness to assume responsibility for their future.

Money and parents' education are the two kinds of family resources which enable school-children to make their future plans. Those teenagers who "by their birthright" can rely on both kinds of family resources find themselves in the most advantageous position. Judging by everything, they are unrivalled even at this early stage. In the absence of both kinds of such resources the "old poor" find themselves in the least advantageous position and in many cases have already put up with it.

There is a sort of competition developing between the family resources of the "new poor" and the "old rich". The "new poor" can boast of the high level of the mother's education while the "old rich" have their parents' money. We have already observed that in some cases the competition between money and education "ends in a draw". Moreover, what concerns chances of entering the institute teenagers believe that money "loses" to education. However, further comparison of these two groups reveals the following:

1) among the "new poor" there is a higher proportion of those who think that they are doomed to poverty and who have reconciled themselves to it;
2) slightly more "old rich" aspire to a successful career;
3) on the whole the "old rich" can rely more on the support of their families in the realisation of their life plans;
4) among the "old rich" there are significantly fewer fatalists;
On the whole, the "old rich" are somewhat better adapted to life. What this means is that money already starts "winning" the competition of family resources.

Adaptation To Poverty

Our studies of families impoverished as a result of reforms have revealed several typical defence mechanisms which enable people to adapt to poverty.

Humility

Many respondents say that both they and their children are prepared to do with little.
"I have already got used to difficulties, that is why I find the way out of any situation. And my children are like me, they do not demand anything. They are satisfied with what they have."
"My children are used to everything, to all these shortages. That is, to all these conditions."
The idea that their children have got used to difficulties gives my women respondents a great relief. "My children, thank God, do not ask me for anything", says one of them. The other echoes: " I am very grateful to my children that they do not pester me all the time with their requests. They never demand :"Give-give-give, buy-buy-buy". On the contrary, I myself sometimes urge my daughter: "Let's buy you something' and she would reply: "No, mummy, I don't need anything."
What helps people to put up with poverty is the belief that money (or lack of it) is not the most important thing in life which could have in store much greater hardships: "The most important thing is to avoid war, then with time things will begin to look up."
However, more often people express the conviction that family values are much more important than material well-being. In this case money and family are looked upon as antipodes and the choice is made in favour of family which is considered to be of the greatest value.
"Life is not easy, but I always say – we are a closely-knit family, we help each other and I have good children."
"My wealth is my children. I have never been after big money."

Poverty as a Norm

It is very difficult to think of oneself as a social outsider, as a failure. Yet, if one believes that other people do not live any better, then poverty begins to look not as a failure but as a norm of life.
"All the teachers, not only ourselves, are in the same position. We are not alone. Probably, every other person lives like that."
"Everybody lives like that."
"All the intelligentsia is having a hard time these days."
One more way how to avoid the constant feeling of ‘humiliation and injured pride’ is not to acknowledge one’s poverty. In the long run there are always those who are still poorer.
"We have average income. We had it before, we have it now. We eat normally and dress modestly."
"Old women go begging. So far I have not had to do it."
"We are not poor, we have average income."

Self-isolation

As it is impossible to close one's eyes to the process of rapid stratification of the society the respondents try to avoid situations which can destroy their belief that "everybody lives like that".
"I try, maybe subconsciously, to have fewer contacts with people who are richer than we are. Mostly because of my daughter. It seems to me that at her age children react very strongly to the fact that their parents cannot buy something or to go somewhere..."
To some extent all these attempts at psychological defence make people's lives easier. However, they are nothing but methods of adaptation to poverty which as a result starts to be perceived as a normal and inevitable way of life.
"This is what I think: how we live – not knowing how to steal, how to scheme, how to dodge – thus our children will live. They will be doomed to the same way of life if no changes to the better take place in our country, if there is no call for an honest worker and the society has no need for decent, hard-working people. At the moment there is a negative attitude to working people. The diligent man lives in need while dishonest people prosper. If nothing changes, not only we but our children will drag out a miserable existence".
The above is a good illustration of the fact that the use of psychological defence methods (the conviction that "the society has no need for honest workers", that only those who "steal, scheme and dodge" can avoid poverty) inevitably entails the conclusion that the respondent's children are doomed to "miserable existence". Which mother would wish her children to become dishonourable, dishonest idlers!

The conclusion we have arrived at is unfortunately far from being optimistic. Poverty of the "new poor" is not a temporary lack of money but a psychological condition which has a serious impact on the socialisation of children: it makes them lower the level of their aspirations, conditions them to accept their fate and be content with little, impedes adaptation to school. Already at this stage it is clear that in most cases children from poor families are doomed to defeat in their competition with their well-to-do peers.
The mother's high educational level slows down the process of the children falling into "the culture of poverty" rather than prevents it. A very thin line separates the present-day Russian society from the situation when many people would join the ranks of chronically , hopelessly poor with their own subculture. Actually it is just a question of time.