6 ANNALS,AAPSS,629,May2010

Culture is back on the poverty researchagenda.Overthepastdecade,sociologists,

demographers,andeveneconomistshavebegunasking questions about the role of culture inmany aspects of poverty and even explicitlyexplaining the behavior of the low-incomepopulation inreferencetocultural factors.AnexampleisPrudenceCarter(2005),who,basedon interviews with poor minority students,argues that whether poor children will workhardatschooldependsinpartontheirculturalbeliefs about the differences between minori-ties and the majority. Annette Lareau (2003),afterstudyingpoor,working-class,andmiddle-classfamilies,arguesthatpoorchildrenmaydoworseovertheirlifetimesinpartbecausetheirparentsaremorecommittedto“naturalgrowth”than “concerted cultivation” as their culturalmodel for child rearing. Mario Small (2004),based on fieldwork in a Boston housing com-plex,arguesthatpoorpeoplemaybereluctanttoparticipateinbeneficialcommunityactivitiesinpartbecauseofhowtheyculturallyperceivetheir neighborhoods. David Harding (2007,2010), using survey and qualitative interviewdata on adolescents, argues that the sexualbehaviorofpoorteenagersdependsinpartonthe extent of cultural heterogeneity in theirneighborhoods. Economists George AkerlofandRachelKranton(2002),relyingontheworkofotherscholars,arguethatwhetherstudentsinvest in schooling depends in part on theircultural identity, wherein payoffs will differamong “jocks,” “nerds,” and “burnouts.” AndWilliamJuliusWilson,inhislatestbook(2009a),argues that culture helps explain how poorAfrican Americans respond to the structuralconditionstheyexperience.

These and other scholars have begun toexplorea long-abandonedtopic.The lastgen-eration of scholarship on the poverty-culturerelationshipwasprimarilyidentified,forbetterorworse,withthe“cultureofpoverty”modelof

ReconsideringCultureand

Poverty

ByMARIOLUISSMALL,DAVIDJ.HARDING,

andMICHÈLELAMONT

Introduction

DOI:10.1177/0002716210362077

INTRODUCTION 7

Oscar Lewis (1966) and the report on the Negro family by Daniel PatrickMoynihan(1965).Lewisarguedthatsustainedpovertygeneratedasetofculturalattitudes, beliefs, values, and practices, and that this culture of poverty wouldtendtoperpetuateitselfovertime,evenifthestructuralconditionsthatoriginallygaverisetoitweretochange.Moynihanarguedthattheblackfamilywascaughtinatangleofpathologiesthatresultedfromthecumulativeeffectsofslaveryandthe subsequent structural poverty that characterized the experience of manyAfricanAmericans(seealsoBanfield1970).

Theemerginggenerationofculturescholarsisoftenatpainstodistanceitselffromtheearlierone,andforgoodreason.Theearlierscholarswererepeatedlyaccused of “blaming the victims” for their problems, because they seemed toimply that people might cease to be poor if they changed their culture (Ryan1976).Asmanyhavedocumented, theheatedpoliticalenvironmentdissuadedmanyyoungscholarsofthetimefromstudyingcultureinthecontextofpoverty.Eventheperiod’smoretheoreticallysensitiveresearchonculture,suchasthatbyUlfHannerz(1969)orCharlesValentine(1968),whichattractedmanyfollowers,failed to stem the exodus. In fact, scholars only began asking these questions

Mario Luis Small is a professor of sociology and the College at the University of Chicago. His research interests include urban poverty, inequality, culture, networks, case study methods, and higher education. His books include VillaVictoria:TheTransformationofSocialCapitalina Boston Barrio (University of Chicago Press 2004) and Unanticipated Gains: Origins ofNetworkInequalityinEverydayLife (Oxford University Press 2009).

David J. Harding is an assistant professor of sociology and research assistant professor at the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan. His research interests include inequal-ity, urban poverty, neighborhood effects, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and pris-oner reentry. His books include Rampage:TheSocialRootsofSchoolShootings (with Katherine S. Newman, Cybelle Fox, Jal Mehta, and Wendy Roth; Basic Books 2004) and LivingtheDrama:Community,Conflict,andCultureamongInner-CityBoys (University of Chicago Press 2010).

Michèle Lamont is Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Studies and professor of sociology and African and African American studies at Harvard University. Her scholarly interests cen-ter on shared concepts of worth and their impact on hierarchies in a number of social domains. Her books include Money,Morals,andManners:TheCultureoftheFrenchandtheAmericanUpper-Middle Class (University of Chicago Press 1992), The Dignity of Working Men:Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration (Harvard University Press 2000), How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press 2009), and SuccessfulSocieties:HowInstitutionsandCultureAffectHealth (with Peter A. Hall; Cambridge University Press 2009).

NOTE:ThisvolumewouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthegeneroussupportoftheFordFoundation,theNationalOpinionResearchCenter(NORC),andtheUniversityofChicago,whichfundedtheminiconferenceonCultureandPovertyinDecember2008inChicagothatwasthegenesisformostofthearticlesinthisvolume.KathleenParks,AdelleHinojosa,andEvaDeLaurentiisatNORCprovidedexcellentadministrativesupportfortheconference.Inadditiontotheauthorsofthearticles inthisvolume,wewishtothankthosewhoservedasdiscussantsatthisconference;GeorgeAkerlof,ChristopherJencks,WilliamSewell,andJohnSkrentny,andtheotherparticipantsattheconference;andHectorCordero-Guzman,EldarShafir,andKazuoYamaguchi,whosecommentscontributedimmenselytothefinalarticles.

8 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

againafterpublicationofWilson’s (1987)The Truly Disadvantaged (seeSmallandNewman2001).Thisrenewedinterestwasmadepossibleinpartbyaresur-genceofinterestincultureacrossthesocialsciences.

Contemporaryresearchersrarelyclaimthatculturewillperpetuateitselfformultiplegenerationsregardlessofstructuralchanges,andtheypracticallyneverusetheterm“pathology.”Butthenewgenerationofscholarsalsoconceivesofcultureinsubstantiallydifferentways.Ittypicallyrejectstheideathatwhetherpeoplearepoorcanbeexplainedbytheirvalues.Itisoftenreluctanttodivideexplanations into “structural” and “cultural,” because of the increasingly ques-tionable utility of this old distinction.1 It generally does not define culture ascomprehensivelyasLewisdid, insteadbeingcareful todistinguishvaluesfromperceptionsandattitudesfrombehavior.Italmostalwayssetsasidetheideasthatmembersofagroupornationshare“aculture”orthatagroup’scultureismoreorlesscoherentorinternallyconsistent.Inmanycases,itsconceptionsofculturetendtobemorenarrowlydefined,easiertomeasure,andmoreplausiblyfalsifi-able.Aswediscussbelow,italsotendstodrawonanentirelydifferentliterature:thelargebodyofnewresearchthathasemergedoverthepastthirtyyearsorsoinculturalanthropologyandculturalsociology.

* * *

Inspiteofthisspurtofscholarlyactivity,thefutureisfarfromclear.Whiletheaforementioned scholars have sought to inject cultural analysis into povertyresearch,othersremaindeeplyskepticalof,andevenantagonistictoward,suchefforts.Manythoughtfulscientiststodayinsistthatcultureisepiphenomenalatbest,explainable,asperthelong-standingMarxisttradition,bystructuralcondi-tions.Stillothersremainsuspiciousofthepoliticalintentionsofthenewculturescholars,andchargesof“blamingthevictim”havenotdisappearedfromcontem-porarydiscourse.Furthermore, thepoverty scholarswho study culturedonotconstituteaschoolofthought,agroup,orevenanetwork—theyhavenotissuedacoherentagendaorevenacommitmenttostudythesequestionsforthenearfuture. There is no common vocabulary or agreed-upon set of questions. Thetopicmaywelldisappearfromscholarlyconsciousnessasquicklyasitemerged.

Ourobjective inthis introduction is totakestockof thisbudding literature;identify issues that remain unanswered; and make the case that the judicious,theoreticallyinformed,andempiricallygroundedstudyofculturecanandshouldbeapermanentcomponentofthepovertyresearchagenda.Webeginbyidenti-fyingthescholarlyandpolicyreasonswhypovertyresearchersshouldbedeeplyconcernedwithculture.Wethentackleadifficultquestion—whatis“culture”?—andmakethecasethatsociologistsandanthropologistsofculturehavedevelopedatleastsevendifferent,thoughsometimesoverlapping,analyticaltoolsforcap-turingmeaning-makingthatcouldhelpanswerquestionsaboutmarriage,educa-tion, neighborhoods, community participation, and other topics central to thestudyofpoverty.Finally,wediscusshowtheeightstudiesthatfollowhelpenrichourunderstandingofpovertybyengagingculture.

INTRODUCTION 9

WhyStudyCulture?

Studentsofpovertyshouldbeconcernedwithcultureforbothscholarlyandpolicyreasons.

Scholarly motivations

Poverty scholarshipshouldbeconcernedwithculture forat least threerea-sons.Thefirstistounderstandbetterwhypeoplerespondtopovertythewaytheydo—bothhowtheycopewithitandhowtheyescapeit.

Why do people cope with poverty the way they do? The literature on howpeoplerespondtomaterialhardshipordeprivationislarge,andithasidentifiedanumberofcopingstrategies:usingfamilyties,exchanginggoodswithinfriend-shipnetworks,seekinghelpfromthestate,turningtoprivateorganizations,relo-cating,andothers(seeEdinandLein1997;NewmanandMassengill2006).Butpeoplediffersubstantiallyinwhichcopingstrategytheyemploy,andsomeofthisheterogeneityprobablyresultsfromculturalfactors.Forexample,researchersinimmigrationhaveshownthatpoorimmigrantsoftencreaterotatingcreditasso-ciationstogenerateresourcepoolsavailabletothegroup(Portes1998;seealsoSanyal[2009]onmicrocreditassociationsinaninternationalcontext).Animpor-tantquestion,andonethatculturalmodelsmighthelpanswer, iswhycreatingrotatingassociationsismuchmorecommonamongtheimmigrantpoorthanthenative poor. Similar questions—about why some individuals or groups employfamily ties, formal organizations, exchange networks, and other strategies—remaintobeanswered.Somesociologistsarguethatpeople’sresilience,includingtheir ability to cope with stigma, is associated with cultural identity and socialmembership(HallandLamont2009;Lamont2009).

Whydopeopledifferintheirabilitytoescapepoverty?Ultimately,thegreat-estbarriertomiddle-classstatusamongthepoorissustained material depriva-tion itself. But there is significant variation in behavior, decision making, andoutcomes among people living in seemingly identical structural conditions, asseveralresearchershavenoted(Hannerz1969;Newman1999;Small2004).Thefact that similarly poor people living in the same high-poverty neighborhoodsmakesubstantiallydifferentdecisionsregardingpregnancy,studying,drugsales,communityparticipation,androbberyhasbeendocumentedrepeatedlybyeth-nographers (see Newman and Massengill [2006] for a recent review). Whatexplainsthisvariation?Itislikelynotthatsomehavethe“wrong”setofvalues.Indeed,the“right”setofvaluesorbeliefsmayactuallyundermineone’smobilitywhenexercised inadifficultcontext.Forexample,considerthebelief in indi-vidualism and personal responsibility, which many Americans consider to bepositive.Inarecentstudy,SandraSmith(2007)hasshownthatthisvaluemayactuallyunderminepeople’sabilitytofindajob.Weknowthatmanypeoplegetjobsbymobilizingtheirsocialnetworks(Granovetter1974).Butinherstudyofjobseekingamongpoorblackwomenandmen,Smithfoundthatsomepeoplefailedtousetheirnetworksbecauseof(amongotherthings)astrongsenseof

10 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

individualism,whichdictatedthatpeopleoughttosucceedbasedprimarilyontheirownefforts.AmongSmith’srespondents,thedecisiontonot usetheiravail-ablesocialconnectionstogetajobwasnottheresultof“bad”values,evenifitwas,inpart,culturallydetermined.Second,“values”constituteonlyoneconcep-tionofculture,andprobablynot theonewiththegreatestexplanatorypower.Forexample,ifwethinkofcultureasaperson’ssetofstrategiesofaction(suchashowtoapplyforcollege,howtonetworkproperly,howtorequestfavorsfromacquaintances),thenpeoplewholackaparticularstrategywillhaveamoredif-ficult timemaking aparticulardecision (Swidler1986).Similarmodelsof theroleofcultureinmobilityhavebeenusedtoexplainwhyworking-classboysseekworking-class,ratherthanmiddle-class, jobs(Willis1977);andwhysomepoorandworking-classmenbutnotothersseektoleavetheirneighborhoods(Whyte1943).Exploringfurtherhowlow-incomepopulationsmakesenseoftheirexpe-rienceandoptionsisessentialfordevelopingstrongerexplanationsofhowtheyescapepoverty.

Asecondreasontostudycultureistodebunkexistingmythsabouttheculturalorientationsof thepoor.The “cultureofpoverty” thesishasbeencriticized atlength,sinceshortlyafteritspublication,becauseofitsmanytheoreticalincon-sistencies (e.g., Valentine 1968). But basic empirical work is needed to assessmanyratherstraightforwardbeliefsabouttheculturalorientationsofthepoororofethnicminorities.Forexample,JohnOgbuarguedthat,inpartasareactiontowhattheyperceivedasblockedopportunities,poorblackstudentsdevelopedanoppositionalculture thatdevaluedperformingschoolworkas “actingwhite”(FordhamandOgbu1986;Ogbu1978).Butinaseriesofrecentstudies,scholarstestingthetheoryagainstnationallyrepresentativedatahavefoundlittlesupportfor it (Cook and Ludwig 1998; Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey 1998; but seeFryerandTorelli2005).(Infact,netofsocioeconomicdifferencesblackstudentstendtohavegreaterproschoolattitudes.)Similarassessmentsregardingparent-hood,marriage,work,andmobilityareripeforinvestigation.Developingamorecomplete understanding of the conditions that produce and sustain povertyrequires analyzing empirically with greater detail and accuracy how the poormakesenseofandexplaintheircurrentsituations,options,anddecisions.

Athirdreasonforpovertyscholarstostudycultureistodevelopandclarifyexactlywhattheymeanbyit—regardlessofwhethertheybelieveithelpsexplainanoutcome.Culturewasa“thirdrail”inscholarshiponpovertyforsolongthatitbecameessentiallyablackbox,onenowripeforreopening.Inthisendeavor,studentsofpovertyshouldread,critique,anddeploytheworkofsociologistsandanthropologistsofculture.Thistaskwillbedifficult:theliteratureonpovertyandtheliteratureonculturearetoooftenproducedinsubstantiallydifferentintel-lectualworlds,worlds that involvedifferent interlocutors, theoriesofbehavior,stylesofthought,andstandardsofevidence.Traditionally,theformerworldhasincluded not merely sociologists but also economists, political scientists, anddemographers;favoredquantitativeevidence;placedapremiumonclarity;andoperatedwithaneyetosolvingsocialproblems.Thelatterhasincludedhumanists,anthropologists, historians, and sociologists; favored interpretive or qualitative

INTRODUCTION 11

analysis;andrewardedthedevelopmentofnewtheories.Asaresult,majorworksinonefieldhaveoftenhadlittleimpactintheother.

Nevertheless,onecanexaggeratethedifferencesbetweenthesefields.Manyofthemostimportantworksonpovertyhavebeenqualitativeorinterpretiveinnature(seeNewmanandMassengill2006),andsomeoftheclassicsinthesociol-ogy of culture have relied on quantitative analysis (Bourdieu 1984). In fact, anumberofpovertyscholarsareincreasinglycomfortablewithmultiplemethodsandstylesofthought.SuchconvergencesareevidentnotmerelyinthearticlesinthisvolumebutalsoinrecentissuesofTheAnnals thathaveshowcaseddevelop-mentsinculturalsociologyandpovertystudies.2

Inrecentyears,economistshavealsobeguntodrawuponculturalconceptstounderstandwhereindividuals’beliefsandpreferencescomefrom(seeRaoandWalton 2004). For example, Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2006) develop amodelinwhichgroup-levelbeliefsandnormsaffectindividualbeliefsandpref-erences,whichinturnaffecteconomicoutcomesandeconomicdecisionmaking.AkerloffandKranton(2000,2002)drawontheconceptofidentitytodevelopamodelinwhichindividualshavepreferencesforbehaviorthatisconsistentwiththeir group identities andderiveutility fromsuchbehavior (see alsoBenabouandTirole2006).AndAmartyaSen(1992)hasdevelopedtheconceptofcapa-bilities to understand aspects of inequality in well-being not captured by thetraditionalnotionofutility.Thesedevelopmentsarepromisingandmaysuggestpossibilitiesforgreaterinterdisciplinarydialogue.

Policy motivations

Researchers and others interested in policy should also be concerned withculture, for several reasons.First, ignoringculturecan lead tobadpolicy.TheanthropologistSimonHarragin(2004),forexample,examinedtheimplementa-tionof foodreliefpolicies in southernSudan toaddress the famine thataroseamongtheDinkain1998.Reliefagenciesdevisedatargetedprogramthatwouldgive aid only to those with signs of advanced malnutrition. Local authorities,however, were reassembling the international aid and redistributing it to thegeneralpopulationthroughtheirkinshipleadersalongkinshiplines.Manywhowerehungrybutnotmalnourishedweregettingaidbecausetheirfamilymem-bersweremalnourished.Agencies tried tocombat thispractice,considering itevidence of corruption and local dysfunction. But the Dinka operate within aculturalsystemthatisbothegalitarianandkinship-based,whereinfoodisalwayssharedinequalpartsamongallmembersofextendedfamilies,administeredbykinleaders.Inaddition,accordingtoHarragin,theonlyreasonthatseverefam-inearosein1998,ratherthan1997,wasthatlocalkinleadershadbeenredistrib-utingtheirdwindlingfoodsuppliesequitablyandwithaneyetothoseinneed.Changingtheseculturalpracticesnowwasinfeasible,andfewrecipientsin1998,nomatterhowdestitute,wouldhoardaidfromthosefamilymemberswhoayearearlierhadhelpedthemsurvive.Harrigansuggests,andweareinclinedtoagree,thatamoreculturallyawarepolicy—onedesignedtoworkwithinlocalkinship

12 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

andequitycustoms, rather than (inadvertently)attempting to sidestep them—would have proved more effective and would have avoided the allegations ofcorruptionthattaintedtheaideffort.3

AnotherexamplecanbeseenamongpolicymakersintheUnitedStates.Inrecentyears,politicianshavelaunchedpromarriage“campaigns”tochangecul-turalattitudestowardmarriageamongthepoor,basedonthebeliefthatthepoorhavehigherbirthstounmarriedmothersbecausetheydonotvaluemarriageasmuchasmiddle-classpeople.ButKathrynEdinandMariaKefalas(2005)inter-viewedmorethanahundredlow-incomemothersandfoundthat,onthecon-trary,manyof themprizedmarriage—infact, theyheldmarriage insuchhighesteemthattheywerereluctanttomarryuntiltheybelievedthatboththeyandtheirpartnerswereemotionallyandfinanciallyprepared.Unfortunately,manyofthewomenhad littleconfidence that theirpartnerswouldeverbecome“mar-riagematerial,”suchthatwaitinguntilmarriagewouldhaveplacedthemathighriskofneverbecomingmothers.Regardlessofwhatpolicymakersbelieveaboutthewisdomofthesedecisions,ifEdinandKefalas’smothersarerepresentativeoflow-incomemothers,thenpoliciesdesignedtomakesuchmothersvaluemar-riagehighlyaresimplytryingtoconvincepeopleofwhattheyalreadybelieve.

Peoplewhocareaboutpolicyshouldalsobeconcernedwithculturebecauseitshapeshowpolicy elitesmakedecisionsaffectingthepoor.Amongpolicyelitesweincludethescholars,journalists,andpunditswhodiscusspovertypolicy;theactivists,advocates,scholars,andpractitionerswhopurporttospeakonbehalfofthepoor;andthelawmakers,employers,andnonprofitleaderswho,onewayoranother,makepolicydecisionsthataffecttheconditionsofthepoor.Thepublicdiscourseonpoverty, and thepolicies resulting from thatdiscourse, are them-selvesculturalproducts,subjecttothewhims,predilections,prejudices,beliefs,attitudes, and orientations of policy elites. Both the discourse and the policyreflectdeeplyheld(ifofteninconsistent)assumptionsaboutthegoalsofpolicyand especially about work, responsibility, service, agency, “deservingness,” andthestructureofopportunity.Thesecircumstancesareparticularly important intherealmoflawmakingandpublicpolicy.Lawmakersdonotmakepolicybasedmerelyonpublicopinionpolls(Kingdon1984;Stone1989).Forexample,Somersand Block (2005) have documented that, at multiple points in history, povertypolicyhasreflectedtheinfluenceofoneparticularidea,whichtheycalltheper-versitythesis—thebeliefthatgovernmentaidtothepooractuallyincreasespov-ertybycreatingdependence.MostrecentlyinvokedbyMurray(1984)inLosing Groundandinstitutionalizedinthewelfarereformsofthelate1990s,theperver-sitythesiswasalsocentraltoMalthusianreformstotheEnglishPoorLawsinthe1830s (seealsoBullock2008).These ideasdiffer substantially fromcountry tocountry,andtheyconstituteanimportantpartoftheuniverseofalternativesthatpolicyelitesenvision;theydeterminetheparametersunderwhichpolicydebatesoccurandpolicydecisionsaremade(Steensland2006;O’Connor2001).

Athirdpolicy-relatedreasontostudycultureisthat,forbetterorworse,cul-ture is already part of the policy discourse on work, marriage, crime, welfare,housing,fatherhood,andahostofotherconditionsrelatedtopoverty.Itispartof

INTRODUCTION 13

the debate on both sides of the political spectrum, not merely on the right.Duringthe2008presidentialcampaign,BarackObamaarguedthatpartoftheproblemwithyoungchildrenisthattoomanyfathershadfailedtotakeresponsi-bility for their children, leaving mothers and children to fend for themselves.Then-candidateObamagavelittlegroundtothosewhocounteredthatpovertyunderminedfatherhood—hewasfirminhisbeliefthatfathersneededtochangetheir(cultural)attitudesaboutparenting.(Infact,somecriticsbelievedhewasunfairlytargetingAfricanAmericans,sinceheoftenmadethoseargumentswhenspeaking toblackchurches.)Regardlessof a scholar’spositionon thisorotherissuesinwhichthepublicdiscussesculture,refusingtostudy,thinkabout,andcommentonculture’srelationshiptopovertywillnotmakethedebatesdisappear.

Scholars of poverty and inequality also invoke culture in public debates—selectively.OrlandoPatterson(2000)hasnotedthatscholarsofinequality,whotendtolieontheleftofthepoliticalspectrumonpolicymatters,areoftenunwill-ingtoturntoculturalfactorswhenexplainingmanyaspectsofpovertyorsocialinequality. However, they eagerly turned to cultural explanations during therecent public controversy over racial differences in IQ. After Herrnstein andMurray(1994)arguedthatracialdifferencesinIQtestscoresare,inpart,genet-ically determined, researchers responded with a slew of arguments, many ofwhichinvokedculturalfactorsexplicitly:forexample,thatIQtestsareoftencul-turallybiasedandthatblackandwhitechildrenmayoperateinculturalenviron-mentsthatencouragedifferentstylesoflearning.Invokingculturalexplanationsselectivelyonlyunderminestheabilityofsocialscienceresearchtoinformpolicydiscussion.

Moving forward

Somewillcomplainthatmakingacaseforthestudyofcultureinthecontextof poverty advances a conservative agenda that seeks to blame the victims fortheirproblems.Wehopewehavemadeclearwhywestronglydisagree.Noneofthethreeeditorsofthisvolumehappenstofallontherightofthepoliticalspec-trum,butourpoliticalorientationisbesidethepoint.Whether,when,andhowcultural tools and cultural constraints matter is ultimately an empirical, not apolitical,question.Itisalsoimportanttoasktherightquestions,andsomeper-spectivestendedto“blamethevictim”becausetheylackedsufficientevidenceoraskedthewrongquestions.Webelievethat invocationsofculturewouldbemorecompellingiftheywereinformedbythemuchmoresophisticatedcultureliteraturethathasdevelopedoverthepastthreedecadesorso.

WhatIsCulture?

Readerswillnotethatwehavenotdefined“culture,”at leastnotexplicitly.Wehavetakenthisapproachbecausetheliteraturehasproducedmultipledefi-nitions,andconsensusisunlikelytoemergesoon.4Giventhisstateofaffairs,the

14 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

bestapproachisapragmaticone.Today,manyculturalsociologistshaveexam-inedempiricalconditionsusingspecificand(often)well-definedconcepts,suchasframesornarratives,thatinonewayoranotherarerecognizableas“cultural.”Whiletheumbrellaterm“culture”mightserveasusefulshorthandtopointtoaconstellationofissuestowhichpovertyscholarsshouldpaygreaterattention,itultimatelymasksmorethanitreveals,atleastwhenthepurposeistounderstandaspecificproblem,suchaswhypoorerstudentsspendfewerhoursdoinghome-workorwhylow-incomewomenmoreoftenbearchildrenoutsideofmarriage.Inwhatfollows,weoutlinesevendifferentbutsometimesoverlappingperspec-tives,basedonsevendifferentconcepts—values,frames,repertoires,narratives,symbolic boundaries, cultural capital, and institutions—illustrating how agreater sensitivity tocultural conditionscanenrichourunderstandingofpov-erty.5Webelievethatusingthesenarroweranddistinctanalyticaldevicesisfarmoreusefulthanusingtheconceptof“culture,”whichisgenerallyusedintoovagueafashion.

Values

The Parsonian conception of culture as values may be the most commonlyknownamongpovertyresearchers.Valuesspecifytheends towardwhichbehav-ior isdirected (asopposed to themeans toachieve them,or the lens throughwhich to interpret action).The corepropositions relevant to ourdiscussion—that values are robust predictors of behavior and that the poor exhibit valuessubstantiallydifferentfromthoseofthemiddleclass—havereceivedlittlesup-portintheliterature.Infact,thereisconsiderableevidenceofthewidespreadadoption of mainstream values among the poor (e.g., Young 2004; Newman1999; Edin and Kefalas 2005; Dohan 2003; Hayes 2003; Carter 2005; Waller2002;Duneier1992).

Some scholars have proposed alternative models based on values. Probablythe most prominent is Rodman’s (1963) “lower-class value stretch.” Rodmanarguesthatthepoorexhibitnotdifferentvaluesbutawidersetandlesscommit-menttothem.Testingthetheory,DellaFave(1974)foundlittlesupport(seealsoAinsworth-DarnellandDowney1998).However,severalscholarshaveadoptedthenotionofgreaterheterogeneityamongthepoor,basedondifferentconcep-tionsofculture(Hannerz1969;Anderson1999).Vaisey,inthepresentvolume,makesacasefortheimportanceofvaluesineducationalattainment.

Frames

Thebasicpremisebehindtheideaofaframeisthathowpeopleactdependsonhow they cognitivelyperceive themselves, theworld, or their surroundings(see Goffman 1974). A frame is often thought of as a lens through which weobserveand interpret social life.Frameshighlightcertainaspectsof social lifeand hide or block others. Frames are ways of understanding “how the worldworks”(Young2004).Theconceptofframeisbasedonthepremisethatdifferent

INTRODUCTION 15

individualsperceivethesameeventsdifferentlybasedontheirpriorexperiencesandunderstandings.Theyencodeexpectationsaboutconsequencesofbehaviorandtherelationshipsbetweenvariousaspectsofoursocialworlds.Aframestruc-tureshowweinterpreteventsandthereforehowwereacttothem.FramesasaconcepthaverootsintheworkofShutz(1962),BergerandLuckman(1966),andGoffman(1974),amongothers.

By understanding the frames that different individuals or groups bring tosocialinteractionsanddecisionmaking,wecanbegintounderstandvariationintheirinterpretationsandunderstandings.Forexample,Small(2002,2004)ana-lyzedlocalcommunityparticipationinaLatinopublichousingprojectinBoston.The housing project had been built after political mobilization by communityresidentsdecadesearlier.Smallfoundthattheframesthroughwhichresidentsviewed the neighborhood, rather than the degree to which individuals valuedcommunityparticipation,affectedparticipation.Thosewhoframedparticipationthroughthelensofthecommunity’shistoryofpoliticalmobilizationweremorelikelytoparticipate,whilethosewhoframedthecommunityasjustanotherpub-lichousingprojectdidnotparticipate.Furthermore,residentswhohadformerlybeen uninvolved only became active participants after first reframing theirunderstandingoftheneighborhood.Harding(2007,2010)appliedtheconceptofframe to decision making regarding romantic relationships and teenage preg-nancy among adolescents in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Frames regardingteenagepregnancydefinethesocialandeconomicconsequencesofearlychild-bearing.Drawingonbothnationally representativesurveydataandqualitativeinterview data from three neighborhoods in Boston, he documented the widearrayofcompetingandconflictingteenagepregnancyframes indisadvantagedneighborhoods. These include both conventional or mainstream frames thathighlightthepotentialforateenagepregnancytoderailschoolingandcareerandthealternativeframesthathighlighttheadultsocialstatusandrequirementforresponsibilitythatcomeswithchildbearing.

These examples illustrate two contributions to poverty research that weremadepossiblebyfocusingonframes.First,whilethesubcultureofpovertyper-spectiveexpectsauniformsetofresponsestopoverty,bothSmallandHardingmakeclearthatheterogeneityiscommonandimportant.Poorneighborhoodsareculturally heterogeneous, and so they also contain a heterogeneous array ofbehaviorsandoutcomes.BothSmallandHardingrejectthenotionthatthereisa single, cohesiveghettoculture sharedby residentsofhigh-povertyneighbor-hoods. Instead, both find considerable variation in framing in these contexts.Second,framesallowforadifferentconceptualizationofthelinkbetweencultureandbehavior.Ratherthanatightcause-and-effectrelationshipbetweencultureandbehavior,conceptualizingcultureasframesmakespossiblewhatSmall(2002,2004)callsa“constraint-and-possibility”relationship.Ratherthancausingbehav-ior,framesmakeitpossibleorlikely.Thus,howonethinksaboutprocreationislikelytobeinfluencedbyotherframes:howoneconceivesopportunitiesintherealmofworkorthinksaboutsalvation,forexample.Framesdefinehorizonsofpossibilities,individuallifeprojects,orwhatisthinkable.

16 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

Repertoires

Theideaofrepertoiresofactionisbasedontwopremises:first,thatpeoplehavealistorrepertoireofstrategiesandactionsintheirminds(howtoapplytocollege, how to fire a gun, how to wear a condom); second, that people areunlikelytoengageinanactionunlessthestrategytoperpetrateitispartoftheirrepertoire.Hannerz(1969)describedarepertoireasasetof“modesofaction”andmeanings.Eachindividualhasarepertoireoftheseculturaltoolsandcallson them when action is required. Hannerz argued that the residents of theWashington,D.C.,ghettoneighborhoodthathestudiedhadaccesstobothmain-streamand“ghetto-specific”culturalelements.Themetaphorofa“toolkit”hasbeenusedbySwidler(1986)toexplainhowtherepertoireworks.Arepertoireisacacheof ideas fromwhich todrawrather thanaunified systemofvaluesornorms(Swidler1986).Swidlerarguedthatthepoordonotpossessdifferentval-uesfromtherestofsocietybutratherhaveaccesstoadifferentrepertoirefromwhichtoconstructtheirstrategiesofaction.ThisapproachwasrecentlyusedbyVanHookandBean(2009)toexplainthewelfarebehaviorsofMexican immi-grants.Theseauthorsdemonstrated the importanceofproworkrepertoires,asopposedtowelfare-dependencerepertoires,forthispopulation.

Repertoiresmayvarynotonlyinthecontentoftheirelementsbutinthenum-berandscopeoftheirelements.Thus,someactorsmayhavegreaterhorizonsofpossibilitybecausetheyhaveawiderarrayofrepertoiresofaction.Awiderarrayintroducesthepossibilityofcontradictions.Indeed,cognitiveresearchsuggestswearenotonlyabletobutfrequentlydolivewithsuchcontradictions,employingdifferenttoolsindifferentsituations(DiMaggio1997).

While the repertoire concept has considerable potential, it requires furthertheoretical and empirical development. In particular, Lamont (1992, chap. 7)arguesthattherepertoireperspectivehasfailedtoexplainwhysomeelementsoftherepertoirearechosenforconstructingacourseofactionwhileothersarenot.Lamont suggests that opportunities and constraints influence these decisions(LamontandThévenot2000).Inaddition,thereisconsiderableslippageinter-minology between strategies, repertoires, skills, habits, and styles in Swidler’sformulation, which undermines the application of the concept among povertyresearchers.

Narratives

Thekeypremisebehindtheideaofnarrativeisthatpeopleinterprettheirlivesasasetofnarratives,orstoriesthathaveabeginning,amiddle,andanendandcontain causally linked sequencesof events.Whatdistinguishesnarrative fromotherconceptsisthattheycontaincausallylinkedsequencesofevents(SomersandGibson1994;EwickandSilbey2003;Polletta2006).Individualsmakesenseoftheirlivesthroughnarrativesabouttheirpersonalexperiences,andasEwickandSilbey(2003)argue,narrativesareexchangedandbuildupononeanother,becoming“partofastreamofsocioculturalknowledgeabouthowstructureswork

INTRODUCTION 17

todistributepoweranddisadvantage.”SomersandGibson(1994)arguethatakeyaspectofnarrativesisthattheylinkpartsofthesocialworldtogether(whattheyterm“emplotment”),ratherthansimplycategorize.Forthisreason,narra-tivesprovideaccountsofhow individualsview themselves in relation toothersandarethereforecentraltohowweconstructsocialidentities.Theyaffectone’sactionsbecauseindividualschooseactionsthatareconsistentwiththeirpersonalidentities andpersonalnarratives.Theyoftencaptivatebecause theyappeal toemotionandsharedhumanexperiences.

Forpoverty researchers,narratives are importantbecause, as storiespeopletell about themselves and others, narratives reveal how people make sense oftheir experiences, constraints, and opportunities. For example, Young (2004)studiedthemobilitynarrativesofpoor,young,blackmenlivinginahousingproj-ectontheWestSideofChicagoanduncoveredasurprisingtwistontheideaofsocialisolation(Wilson1987,1996).Theyoungmenwhoweremostisolatedfromwhitesandhadexperiencedtheleastinvolvementinthelabormarketwerethemostoptimisticaboutequalityofopportunityandtheleastlikelytobelievethatracismaffectedtheirlifechances.Onlythosewhohadconsiderableexperiencewithwhitescitedprejudiceasanimportantbarriertoeconomicadvancement.

Symbolic boundaries

Theconceptofsymbolicboundariesrecognizesthatschemesofsocialcatego-rizationareculturallyconstructed.Symbolicboundariesaretheconceptualdis-tinctionsthatwemakebetweenobjects,people,andpractices.Theyoperateasa“systemofrulesthatguideinteractionbyaffectingwhocomestogethertoengageinwhatsocialact”(LamontandFournier1992,12).Inshort,symbolicboundar-iesconstituteasystemofclassificationthatdefinesahierarchyofgroupsandthesimilarities and differences between them. They typically imply and justify ahierarchyofmoralworthacrossindividualsandgroups.Symbolicboundariesareanecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforthemorereadilyvisiblesocialbound-ariesofresidentialandoccupationalsegregation,racialandclassexclusion,andpatternsofintermarriage(LamontandMolnár2002).Likenarratives,symbolicboundariesareintegraltosocialidentities,butwhilenarrativesfocusonlinkstoothers,symbolicboundariesilluminatetheculturalbasisofgroupdivisions.

Lamont(2000)usesananalysisofsymbolicboundariesofworking-classmeninFranceandtheUnitedStatestoinvestigatehowtheydistinguishthemselvesfromthepoor.IntheUnitedStates,working-classmendrawstrongmoraldistinc-tionsbetween themselves and thepoor, emphasizinghardwork, responsibility,and self-sufficiency in their own self-definitions. In contrast, French working-classmendonotdrawsuchstrongmoralboundariesbetweenthemselvesandthepoor, instead viewing the poor as fellow workers temporarily displaced by theforces of capitalism (and thus worthy of support). These cross-national differ-encesinsymbolicboundariesaretheproductofdifferentpoliticalandculturaltraditions(e.g.,individualismintheUnitedStatesvs.Catholicismandsocialismin France). For scholars of poverty policy, the important point is that cultural

18 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

categoriesofworthcorrespondtopolicydifferencesinredistributiveandwelfarepoliciesacrossthetwonations(seealsoSteensland2006;Dobbin1994).Theactofconstructingandsustainingsymbolicboundariesistermed“boundarywork.”Boundaryworkinvolvesconstructingcollectiveidentitybydifferentiatingoneselffromothersbydrawingoncriteriasuchascommontraitsandexperiencesaswellasasenseofsharedbelonging.

While studiesofboundaryworkand symbolicboundaries among the largerpublicrevealtheroleoftheseprocessesinpolicymakingandserviceprovisionfor the poor, studies of boundary work among the poor themselves reveal thedegreetowhichthepoordefinethemselvesasclosetomainstreamormiddle-class society. For instance, Newman (1999) shows how fast-food workers inHarlem define themselves in contrast to the unemployed poor, developing asense of identity as workers who are morally superior to the unemployed.Anderson(1999)documentsthedivisionsbetween“decent”and“street”familiesin a Philadelphia ghetto. “Decent” families define themselves in contrast to“street”familiesonthebasisoftheiremploymentintheformallabormarket(vs.the underground economy); discipline and self-control of their children; andavoidanceofcrime,violence,druguse,andotherdeviantbehavior.

Cultural capital

Theterm“culturalcapital”hasbeenusedinmanyways,sometimestomeanknowledgeorinformationacquiredthroughsocialexperienceandsometimes—initsmoreoriginalformulation—asstylesortastesassociatedwithupper-classmembership. Such styles and tastes are often unconsciously expressed andobserved.Here,weuseLamontandLareau’s(1988)definition:“Institutionalized,i.e.widelyshared,highstatusculturalsignals.”Theconceptofculturalcapitalcontributestoourunderstandingofpovertyandinequalitybyhelpingtoexplainhow middle- and upper-class parents are able to pass on advantages to theirchildrenby familiarizing themwithhabitsandbehavioral stylesvaluedby theeducationalsystem.AlthoughtheinitialfocusofU.S.researchonculturalcapitalfocused on familiarity with high culture (e.g., DiMaggio 1982), more recentworkhasexaminedawiderrangeofhigh-statussignals.Oneinterestingfindingis that shared dislikes may be as important a cultural signal as shared likes(Bryson1996).

The original cultural capital conceptualization developed by Bourdieu andPasseron (1977) holds that the school system uses middle-class standards toevaluate children, disadvantaging those from working-class and poor familieswhodonothave theopportunity to learn thesebehaviors and styles athome.Moreover,poorandworking-classchildrenmaycometoevaluatethemselvesandtheir origins according to the standards of middle-class culture, experiencing“symbolicviolence”thatattackstheirself-worthandself-esteem.

Akeyrecentfindinginresearchonculturalcapitalandpovertyisthatdiffer-ent cultural environments privilege different tastes, habits, and styles. Carter(2005)developstheconceptof“nondominantculturalcapital,”ormusicaltastes,

INTRODUCTION 19

clothing styles, and speech patterns that signal “cultural authenticity” in poorminoritycommunities.Nondominantculturalcapitalsignalsgroupmembershipamongpeers,asadolescentswhodonotexhibitfacilitywiththeseculturalsignalsareportrayedas“actingwhite.”Carter’sfindingshighlightthemismatchbetweentheculturalsignalsfavoredbymiddle-classinstitutionsandthosenecessaryforinclusion,identity,andsocialsupportinpoorurbancommunities.

Lareau(2003)describestheprocessesbywhichmiddle-classparentspassonculturalcapitaladvantagestotheirchildren.Middle-classparentspracticewhatLareau terms “concerted cultivation” by providing their children with manystructuredactivitiesthatteachthemtofunctionininstitutionalsettingsandbytalkingtotheirchildreninwaysthatengagethemratherthancontrolthem.Incontrast,poorandworking-classparentspractice“naturalgrowth,”allowingformuchunstructured free time socializingwith family andcommunitymembersandteachingchildrentobedeferentialandquiet.Childrenfromthesefamilieslearnself-relianceandsocialskills,butmiddle-classchildrenlearnculturalskillsthataremorevaluedbytheeducationalsystemandinthelabormarket.

Institutions

Amongthesevenconceptsdiscussed,“institutions”maybe themostwidelyemployedinsociology(seePowellandDiMaggio1991).Unfortunately,thereisasubstantialrangeofdefinitions,someofwhichstronglyresembleseveraloftheconceptsofculturediscussedabove.Forthisreason,wedonotarguethatinstitu-tionconceptionsofculturecaneasilybepittedagainstothers.However,thereisoftenadifferenceinunitofanalysis.Forotherconceptions,cultureistypicallylocatedinindividualsoringroupsorininterpersonalrelations;bycontrast,insti-tutions are typically located either in organizations or in society at large. In areviewofoldandnewinstitutionaltheories,Scott(1995)identifiesthreediffer-entconceptionsof institutions:as formal rulesofbehavior thatarecodifiedaslawsorregulations,asnormsofappropriatebehaviorthatareenforcedthroughinformalsanctions,andastaken-for-grantedunderstandingsthatsimplystructureorframe(asintheconceptionabove)howactorsperceivetheircircumstances.

Twoexamples illustrate.Small (2009) focusesonorganizations and the firsttwoconceptionsofinstitutions(rulesandnorms),Steensland(2006)onsocietyatlargeandthethirdconception(taken-for-grantedunderstandings).Studyingthenetworks that mothers in New York City formed in child care centers, Small(2009)askedwhysomemothersmademanyconnectionstoothermotherswhileothersmadefew.Hefindsthatpartoftheanswerliesintheinstitutionalrulesthroughwhichdifferentcentersregulatedparents’behavior,suchastherulesfordrop-offandpickup;thenumberoffieldtripsthecenterheldeachyear;andtheorganizationofformalparents’associations,whichprovidedvaryingopportuni-tiestoencounterothers.Steensland(2006)askedwhataccountedfortheriseandfallofguaranteedincomepolicyproposalsinthe1960sand1970s.Hefindsthat(amongotherthings)thetaken-for-granteddistinctionbetweenthe“deserving”and “undeserving”was institutionalized inexistingprograms to suchanextent

20 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

thatitreinforcedtheperceivedboundariesamongcategoriesofthepoor,makingproposalsthatdidnotaccordwiththoseboundariesdifficulttoinstitute.

TheArticlesinThisVolume

Inselectingauthorsandtopicsforthisspecialissue,thethreeeditorsaimedtoconveyacompositeandmultileveledpictureofhowmeaning-makingfactorsintotheproductionandreproductionofpoverty,soastodemonstratetheheu-ristic value of some of the analytical tools described above. We also aimed toconsiderpovertyintheUnitedStatesandabroad,aswellasattheelite,policy-makinglevelandinthedailylivesoflow-incomepeoplethemselves.Whilethecontributionsrepresentbroadergenresofanalysis,theyareallsuggestiveofnewtrendsinpovertyresearch.

The first set of articles concerns poverty as experienced from below, oftenrevealingaspectsofmeaning-makingthathavebeenignoredbypolicymakers.SandraSmithexamineshowLatinoandAfricanAmericanserviceworkers’deci-sionsaboutreferringacquaintancesfor jobsdependontheirperceptionoftheacquaintances’ moral character. Alford Young analyzes how upwardly mobilepoormenunderstandtheconstraintsontheirsocialmobilitybyinvestigatingtheframestheyusetodefine“thegoodjob.”Drawingonsurveydata,StephenVaiseymakesacasefortheimportanceofidealsforunderstandingtheeducationalout-comesofpooryouth.MaureenWallerconsidershowlow-incomenoncustodialfathersunderstandandmakesenseofpaternity,paternalduties,andtheirabilitytomeettheirobligations.AndNathanFossestudieshowlow-incomeblackmenthinkaboutprocreationandthedevelopmentofstablerelationships.

The second set of articles concerns the policy realm. Vijayendra Rao andParomitaSanyalexaminehowaninnovativepolicyaffectedthepoor’sattempttoinfluencethedistributionofresourcesinIndia,whileJoshuaGuetzkowexploreshowpolicymakersunderstandtheculturalcharacteristicsofthepoor.WilliamJ.Wilson offers a broader theoretical reflection on the relationship between theculturalandstructuralcausesofpovertyandconsiderstherolesofeachinsocialpolicy.

* * *

In “A Test of Sincerity: How Black and Latino Service Workers MakeDecisionsaboutMakingReferrals,”Smithanalyzes interviewswithLatinoandblackblue-collarworkerstoexaminehowtheydeterminewhethertohelpcoeth-nicsinthesearchforemployment.Shefindsthattheirdecisionisgroundedinacarefulassessmentofwhether the individual seekinghelppresents theproperworkorientationandwilltarnishorenhanceone’sreputationintheworkplace.Smitharguesthatbecauseof largerethno-racialdifferences inhowunemploy-mentisinterpreted,LatinosaremorelikelytohelptheircoethnicsfindjobsthanAfricanAmericans.Thesefindingssuggestthattheoriesofsocialcapitalmobilization

INTRODUCTION 21

must take into consideration individuals’ access to and deployment of culturalresources to fullyunderstand thecircumstancesunderwhichactors aremobi-lizedforinstrumentalandexpressiveaction.

In“NewLifeforanOldConcept:FrameAnalysisandtheReinvigorationofStudies inCultureandPoverty,”Youngexamineswhatpoorandworking-classAfricanAmericanmenbelievea “good job” tobe.Drawingon in-depth inter-viewswithyoungmeninDetroit,heexamineshowhissubjectsunderstandthecharacteristics of a good job. He finds that men of different education levelsconstructsubstantiallydifferentvisionsofagoodlifeandframeagoodoridealjobinremarkablydifferentways.Youngsuggeststhattheseconceptionsmayhelpexplaintheirattitudesaboutthejobmarketandworkopportunities.

Vaiseychallengesthecontemporaryshifttoconceptionsofculturethatfocusonmeansoverends.In“WhatPeopleWant:RethinkingPoverty,Culture,andEducationalAttainment,”hearguesthatpovertyscholarshavebeentooquicktodismiss the role of values in explaining the educational outcomes of the poor,throwingtheproverbial“babyoutwiththebathwater”whencritiquing“cultureofpoverty”models.Drawingonanationallyrepresentativelongitudinalsurveyofadolescentsandyoungadults,heshowsthatpoorandnonpooryouthhavediffer-ent educational aspirations and that these aspirations help account for differ-ences in educational outcomes by family background. Vaisey proposes thatscholarsworkingatthenexusofcultureandpovertyneedtointegratevaluesandpreferencesintotheoreticalformulationsbasedonrepertoires,frames,andsche-mas, combining “unconscious evaluative worldviews” with “the more strategicuseofculture.”

Over the past three decades, significant legislation has been passed tostrengthentiesbetweendisadvantagedfathersandtheirfamilies.Althoughpolicymakershavebecome increasingly interested inaddressingcultural factors thatmay shape men’s decisions to provide economic support for their children, toassumeimportantparentingresponsibilities,andtomaintainrelationshipswiththeirchildren’smothers,policystudieshaveprimarilyfocusedonidentifyingtheeconomic determinants of paternal involvement in poor communities. As aresult,policymakershaveoftenturnedtoanecdotalratherthanempiricalevi-dence tounderstandwhyandhowparticularpatternsofpaternal involvementunfold. In “ViewingLow-IncomeFathers’Ties toFamilies throughaCulturalLens,”Wallerdrawsonin-depthinterviewswithdisadvantagedmenandwomeninNewJerseyandCaliforniatoillustratehowasystematicinvestigationintothemeaningoflow-incomefathers’tiestofamiliesmayelucidate,orprovidealterna-tiveexplanationsfor,resultsfrompreviousstudies.Inparticular,sheshowshowanalyzingpaternalinvolvementthroughaculturallensrevealsnewmechanismsand practices associated with men’s involvement. This analysis informs recentpolicyinitiativesaroundfatherhoodbyreducingtheriskthattheywillbemisdi-rectedorhaveunintendedconsequencesforpoorfamilies.

In“TheRepertoireofInfidelityamongLow-IncomeMen,”Fosse,basedonin-depth interviews,examineshowlow-incomemenunderstandromanticrela-tionships.Hefindsagreatdealofvariationinsexualbehavior,partlyasaresult

22 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

ofdifferencesintheirsenseofselfandtheirorientationstowardthefuture.Thedifferencesaretiedtoculturallogicsaboutthreeissues:doubt,duty,anddestiny.Forexample,dutycanbeunderstoodasdutytofriendsordutytofamily,withdifferent implications for infidelity.Hisanalysis illustrates,moregenerally, theheterogeneityofinner-citycultureandtheagencyofinner-citymeninconstruct-ing,manipulating,andapplyingculturallogicstoeverydaylife.

In“DignitythroughDiscourse,”RaoandSanyalexplicitlyabandonaviewofcultureassomethingcontainedintheheadsofindividualsinfavorofaviewofculture as something fundamentally relational, observable primarily throughinteractionandcommunication.TheyexaminethecaseoftheIndian“gram sab-has,”publicdeliberativeforumsinstitutedbylawinall2millionIndianvillagestoincreasethevoiceofthepoorinthepoliticalprocess.RaoandSanyalfindthatpoverty shapes the discursive style characteristic of the gram sabhas, whichreflects less an orientation toward consensus than a constant, identity-basedcompetitionforapieceofthepie.Inaddition,theauthorsfindthatforpeopletosuccessfullynegotiatetheseforums,theymustpossessculturalskill,whichmakesclearwhycultural factorscanbe important intheabilityof thepoortosecurevaluable resources toalleviateorescapepoverty.Thecaseof thegramsabhasillustratestheculturalchallengestoegalitarianpoliticalreformintheserviceofpovertyalleviation.

In“BeyondDeservingness,”Guetzkowturnsaculturallensonelitedecisionmakers,examiningthecongressionaldiscourseonpovertyintwotimeperiods,1961 to1967and1981 to1996.Heargues that antipoverty initiatives canbeunderstood as “policy tools” aimed at changing the behavior of the poor.Drawingontranscriptsfromcongressionalhearings,Guetzkowfindsthatdur-ing the1960s,povertywasunderstoodtobeaproductof“communitybreak-down” due to blocked opportunities, with the poor becoming hopeless andunmotivatedasaresult;duringthe1980sand1990s,povertywasunderstoodtobeaproductofwelfarebenefitsthatfosteredlazinessandteenagepregnancy,withthepoorviewedasrationalactorswhoselackoffamilyvaluesledtotheirdependency.Hisanalysistracestheseframestospecificpolicydevelopmentsineachera,demonstratingtheimportanceofframingbypoliticalelitesforsocialpolicydevelopment.

Wilson,whohaslongbeenknownasaneconomicstructuralist,contributesanarticleattheintersectionofscholarlyandpolicyinterests.Hearguesthatsomeofthemechanismsbywhichneighborhoodpovertyaffectslifechancesarecul-turalinnature.Forexample,long-termexposuretohigh-povertyneighborhoodscan result in exposure to linguistic patterns that undermine academic perfor-mance.Furthermore,policiesthattakeculturalconditionsintoaccountaremorelikely to be successful. As evidence, he cites the successes of the HarlemChildren’sZone,aprogramthathasattemptedtoaddressthedisadvantagesasso-ciatedwithconcentratedpovertybyaddressingnotonlystructuralbutalsocul-turalissues,suchastheparentingpracticesofnewmothersandfathers.

Thevolumeconcludeswithcommentariesoncultureandpoverty fromtwolawmakers, Representative Lynn Woolsey and Representative Raúl Grijalva.

INTRODUCTION 23

RepresentativeWoolseyemphasizes the importanceof lawmakers’ recognizingculturalchangeswhendevelopingsocialpolicyingeneralandpovertypolicyinparticular.ShediscusseschangesinnormsandvaluessurroundingtheAmericanfamily,thewaysthatfederallawhasandhasnotkeptupwiththesechanges,andtheimplicationsforthepoor.RepresentativeGrijalvaconsiderssomeofthecul-turalconsequencesofpoverty,bothforthepoorthemselvesandfortheframe-worksthroughwhichpolicymakersunderstandpoverty.Heconcludesthatthecomplexityandenormityofpoverty’seffectson individuals, families,andcom-munities require comprehensive investments to ensure economic security andstability,qualityeducation,andaccesstohealthcare.

* * *

Inbringingtogetherthesearticles,wehopetofosteradynamicandproduc-tivedialogueamongpoverty scholars,notonlywithin sociologybut across thesocial sciences as a whole. We believe that a more serious interdisciplinaryengagement is essential if researchers are to break free from the predictableanalyticalpathwaystowardwhichexistingliteratureshaveledus.Ultimately,ouraimistoworktowardidentifyingnewapproachesandnewquestionsthatmayresult in a more exhaustive, precise, and complex grasp of the processes andmechanismsthatleadtothereproductionofpoverty.Again,wedonotdenytheimportanceofmacrostructural conditions, suchas the concentrationofwealthandincome,thespatialsegregationacrossclassesandracialgroups,ortheper-sistentinternationalmigrationoflaborandcapital.Instead,wearguethatsincehuman action is both constrained and enabled by the meaning people give totheiractions,thesedynamicsshouldbecomecentraltoourunderstandingoftheproductionandreproductionofpovertyandsocialinequality.

Notes1.Partoftheproblemisthat,insociology,theterm“structure”hasbeendefinedinseveraldifferent

ways: the economic constraints an individual faces (as in much of the poverty literature), the mode ofproductioncharacterizingasociety(asintheneo-Marxistliterature),orthesystemofnodesandtiesthatcharacterizeasetofrelations(asinthenetworkliterature),amongothers.Whenapplyingthestructure-culturedistinctioninitssimplestandmoststraightforwardform,scholarsarguethatthebehaviorofthepoorresultsnotfromtheirvalues(culture)butfromtheirlackoffinancialresources(structure),whetherthisdeprivation is individual(as inthecaseofmaterialhardship)orcollective(as inthecaseofunder-fundedschoolsororganizationallyisolatedneighborhoods).Forexample,Steinberg(1981)madeanargu-ment of this type when rejecting the idea that ethnic differences in behavior resulted from culturaldifferencesamongethnicgroups.Forreasonswediscussthroughoutthisarticle,weareinclinedtoagreethat ideas such as “ethnic cultures” or “ghetto culture” lack much explanatory power. However, as wediscussbelow,thesubstantialvariationinresponsestosimilarfinancialconstraints(whetherindividualorcollective constraints) makes clear that such material constraints cannot explain everything. At issue isuncoveringwhatkindofalternativeexplanationscanbeuncovered,includingexplanationsregardingtheconstraints in theculturalrepertoires that individualshaveaccess to.Weaddthat inculturalsociology,some scholars distinguish social structure (defined in one of the aforementioned ways) from cultural structure,definedassharedandtaken-for-grantedmeaning.

24 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

2.See“CulturalSociologyandItsDiversity,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science619(September2008),especiallythearticlesbySkrentny(2008)andCharles(2008);and“The Moynihan Report Revisited: Lessons and Reflections after Four Decades,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 621 (January 2009), especially the article by Wilson(2009b).

3.Alongtheselines,drawingonthetoolsofculturalsociology,AnnSwidler(2009)hasbeenstudyinginstitutionalfitbetweenpoliciesandtheirtargetedpopulationsinthecaseofAIDSpreventioninseveralAfricansocieties.

4.Sometakeculturetomeananactor’svalues;others,thecognitivecategoriesthroughwhichtheactorperceives(ratherthanevaluates)theworld.Somebelieveitresidesinthemindsof individuals;others,thatitisnecessarilyagroup,ratherthananindividual,trait.Fiftyyearsago,sociologistsmighthavequietlyreliedonthedominanceofTalcottParsonsandresortedtohisconceptionasthenormsandvaluescom-montoasocietyandrequiredforitsmaintenanceandreproduction.Anthropologistsmighthavetakencomfort in a more or less agreed upon, if somewhat ambiguous, conception of culture, derived fromEdwardTylor(1871):“thatcomplexwholewhichincludesknowledge,belief,arts,morals, law,custom,andanyothercapabilitiesandhabitsacquiredbymanasamemberofsociety.”Buteventhentheagree-mentwasmoreimaginedthanreal.IntheirCulture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions,A. L. Kroeber andClydeKluckhon (1952) spentnearly fourhundredpagesdescribing,distilling, andassessingthemanydefinitionsofculturethatanthropologyhademployedtodate,onlytoleavethereaderoverwhelmedbythesheernumberofissues(historicity,norms,psychology,language,etc.)thatculturalconcepts had attempted to capture. The fifty years since have produced entire new vocabularies(frames,habitus,doxa,structuration,etc.)thatwouldmakeanupdatedversionofthatvolumeevenmoreoverwhelming.

5.AmoredetailedreviewcanbefoundinLamontandSmall(2008).

ReferencesAinsworth-Darnell,James,andDouglasDowney.1998.Assessingtheoppositionalcultureexplanationfor

racial/ethnicdifferencesinschoolperformance.American Sociological Review63:536-53.Akerloff, George A., and Rachel E. Kranton. 2000. Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of

Economics115(3):715-53.Akerloff,GeorgeA.,andRachelE.Kranton.2002.Identityandschooling:Somelessonsfortheeconomics

ofeducation.Journal of Economic Literature40:1167-2101.Anderson,Elijah. 1999.Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city.

NewYork:Norton.Banfield,Edward.1970.The unheavenly city: The nature and future of our urban crisis.Boston:Little,

Brown.Benabou, Roland, and Jean Tirole. 2006. Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quarterly

Journal of Economics121(2):699-746.Berger,PeterL.,andThomasLuckman.1966.The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology

of knowledge.GardenCity,NY:Doubleday.Bourdieu,Pierre.1984.Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste.TranslatedbyRichardNice.

Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture.

BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.Bryson, Bethany. 1996. Anything but heavy metal: Symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. American

Sociological Review61(5):884-99.Bullock,HeatherE.2008.Justifyinginequality:Asocialpsychologicalanalysisofbeliefsaboutpovertyand

inequality. In The colors of poverty, ed. Ann C. Lin and David R. Harris. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Carter, Prudence. 2005. Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.

INTRODUCTION 25

Charles,Maria.2008.Cultureandinequality:Identity,ideology,anddifferencein“postascriptivesociety.”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619(1):41-58.

Cook,Phillip,andJensLudwig.1998.Theburdenof“actingwhite”:Doblackadolescentsdisparageaca-demicachievement?InThe black white test score gap,ed.ChristopherJencksandMeredithPhillips,375-401.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.

DellaFave,Richard.1974.Successvalues:Aretheyuniversalorclassdifferentiated?American Journal of Sociology80(1):153-69.

DiMaggio,Paul.1982.Culturalcapitalandschoolsuccess:TheimpactofstatuscultureparticipationonthegradesofU.S.highschoolstudents.American Sociological Review 47:189-201.

DiMaggio,Paul.1997.Cultureandcognition.Annual Review of Sociology23:263-87.Dobbin,Frank.1994.Forging industrial policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the railway age.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Dohan,Daniel.2003.The price of poverty: Money, work, and culture in the Mexican American barrio.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Duneier,Mitchell.1992.Slim’s table: Race, respectability, and masculinity.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.Edin,Kathryn,andMariaKefalas.2005.Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before

marriage.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Edin,Kathryn,andLauraLein.1997.Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-

wage work.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Ewick,Patricia,andSusanSilbey.2003.Narratingsocialstructure:Storiesofresistancetolegalauthority.

American Journal of Sociology108(6):1328-72.Fordham,Signithia,andJohnOgbu.1986.Blackstudents’schoolsuccess:Copingwiththeburdenof“act-

ingwhite.”Urban Review18(3):176-206.Fryer,RolandG.,andPaulTorelli.2005.Anempiricalanalysisofactingwhite.NBERWorkingPaperno.

11334,NationalBureauofEconomicResearch,Cambridge,MA.Goffman,Erving.1974.Frame analysis.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Granovetter, Mark. 1974. Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

UniversityPress.Guiso,Luigi,PaolaSapienza,andLuigiZingales.2006.Doescultureaffecteconomicoutcomes?Journal

of Economic Perspectives20(2):23-48.Hall,PeterA.,andMichèleLamont,eds.2009.Successful societies: How institutions and culture influence

health.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hannerz, Ulf. 1969. Soulside: Inquiries into ghetto culture and community. New York: Columbia

UniversityPress.Harding,David J. 2007.Cultural context, sexualbehavior, and romantic relationships indisadvantaged

neighborhoods.American Sociological Review 72:341-64.Harding, David J. 2010. Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Harragin,Simon. 2004.Relief andunderstandingof local knowledge:The caseof southernSudan. In

Culture and public action,ed.VijayendraRaoandMichaelWalton.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Hayes,Sharon.2003.Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. 1994. The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life.NewYork:FreePress.

Kingdon,John.1984.Agendas, alternatives and public policies.Boston:Little,Brown.Kroeber,A.L.,andC.Kluckhohn.1952.Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.Cambridge,

MA:PeabodyMuseum.Lamont,Michèle.1992.Money, morals and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-

middle class.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and

immigration.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

26 THEANNALSOFTHEAMERICANACADEMY

Lamont, Michèle. 2009. Responses to racism, health, and social inclusion as dimensions of successfulsocieties.InSuccessful societies: How institutions and culture influence health,ed.PeterA.HallandMicheleLamont. NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lamont,Michèle,andMarcelFournier,eds.1992.Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Lamont,Michèle,andAnnetteLareau.1988.Culturalcapital:Allusions,gaps,andglissandos inrecenttheoreticaldevelopments.Sociological Theory6:153-68.

Lamont,Michèle, andViràgMolnár. 2002.The studyofboundaries across the social sciences.Annual Review of Sociology28:167-95.

Lamont, Michèle, and Mario Luis Small. 2008. How culture matters: Enriching our understanding ofpoverty.InThe colors of poverty,ed.AnnC.LinandDavidR.Harris,76-102.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

Lamont,Michèle,andLaurentThévenot.2000.Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lareau,Annette.2003.Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Lewis,Oscar.1966.La vida: A Puerto Rican family in the culture of poverty—San Juan and New York.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Moynihan,DanielP.1965.The Negro family: The case for national action.Washington,DC:OfficeofPolicyPlanningandResearch,U.S.DepartmentofLabor.

Murray,Charles.1984.Losing ground: American social policy 1950-1980.NewYork:BasicBooks.Newman,KatherineS.1999.No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city.NewYork:Vintage

andRussellSageFoundation.Newman,KatherineS.,andRebekahMassengill.2006.Thetextureofhardship:Qualitativesociologyon

poverty1995-2005.Annual Review of Sociology32:1-24.O’Connor,Alice.2001.Poverty knowledge: Social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth century

U.S. history.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Ogbu, JohnU.1978.Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective.

NewYork:AcademicPress.Patterson, Orlando. 2000. Taking culture seriously: A framework and an Afro-American illustration. In

Culture matters: How values shape human progress,ed.LawrenceE.HarrisonandSamuelP.Huntington.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Polletta,Francesca.2006.It was like a fever: Storytelling in protest and politics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Portes,Alejandro.1998.Socialcapital:Itsoriginsandapplicationsinmodernsociology.Annual Review of Sociology24:1-24.

Powell,Walter,andPaulDiMaggio.1991.The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Rao, Vijayendra, and Michael Walton, eds. 2004. Culture and public action. Palo Alto, CA: StanfordUniversityPress.

Rodman,Hyman.1963.Thelower-classvaluestretch.Social Forces42(2):205-15.Ryan,William.1976.Blaming the victim.Rev.ed.NewYork:VintageBooks.Sanyal,Paromita.2009.Fromcredittocollectiveaction:Theroleofmicrofinanceinpromotingwomen’s

socialcapitalandnormativeinfluence.American Sociological Review74(4):529-550.Scott,RichardW.1995.Institutions and organizations.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Sen,Amartya.1992.Inequality reexamined.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Shutz,Alfred.1962.Collected papers.Vol.1.TheHague,theNetherlands:MartinusNijhoff.Skrentny, John D. 2008. Culture and race/ethnicity: Bolder, deeper, and broader. The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science619(1):59-77.Small,MarioL.2002.Culture,cohorts,andsocialorganizationtheory:Understandinglocalparticipation

inaLatinohousingproject.American Journal of Sociology108:1-54.Small, Mario L. 2004. Villa Victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston barrio. Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress.

INTRODUCTION 27

Small, Mario L. 2009. Unanticipated gains: What the experience of mothers in daycares reveals about networks, inequality, and well-being.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Small,MarioL., andKatherineS.Newman.2001.UrbanpovertyafterThe Truly Disadvantaged:Therediscoveryofthefamily,theneighborhood,andculture.Annual Review of Sociology27:23-45.

Smith,SandraS.2007.Lone pursuit.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.Somers,Margaret,andFredBlock.2005.Twohundredyearsofwelfaredebate.American Sociological

Review70:260-88.Somers,Margaret,andGloriaGibson.1994.Reclaimingtheepistemological“other”:Narrativeandthe

socialconstitutionofidentity.InSocial theory and the politics of identity,ed.C.Calhoun.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.

Steensland, Brian. 2006. Cultural categories and the American welfare state: The case of guaranteedincomepolicy.American Journal of Sociology111(5):1273-1326.

Steinberg,Stephen.1981.The ethnic myth: Race, class, and ethnicity in America.NewYork:Atheneum.Stone, Deborah. 1989. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly

104:281-300.Swidler,Ann.1986.Cultureinaction:Symbolsandstrategies.American Sociological Review51:273-86.Swidler, Ann. 2009. Responding to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: Culture, institutions, and health. In

Successful societies: How institutions and culture influence health, ed. Peter A. Hall and MichèleLamont.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tylor,Edward.1871.Primitive culture: Researches into the mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and cus-tom.London:JohnMurray.

Valentine,CharlesA.1968.Culture and poverty: Critique and counter-proposals.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Van Hook, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2009. Explaining Mexican-immigrant welfare behaviors: Theimportanceofemployment-relatedculturalrepertoires.American Sociological Review 74:423-44.

Waller,MaureenR.2002.My baby’s father: Unmarried parents and paternal responsibility.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Whyte,William.1943.Streetcorner society.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Willis,Paul.1977.Learning to labor.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Wilson,WilliamJulius.1987.The truly disadvantaged: The inner-city, the underclass, and public policy.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Wilson,WilliamJulius.1996.When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor.NewYork:Knopf.Wilson,William Julius. 2009a.More than just race: Being black and poor in the inner city.NewYork:

Norton.Wilson,WilliamJulius.2009b.TheMoynihanReportandresearchontheblackcommunity.The Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science621(1):34-46.Young,AlfordA.,Jr.2004.The minds of marginalized black men: Making sense of mobility, opportunity,

and life chances.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.