An Article Critique on Poverty and Culture of Daily Life - Essay Example

Summary of the Fundamental Scope and Purpose of the Article The article written by Mukul Kumar entitled “Poverty and Culture of Daily Life” proffered pertinent issues relative to the concepts of culture of poverty and culture of daily life (23). The fundamental scope was therefore the exploration of culture as a contributory cause of poverty and to determine through observing daily life activities, which among these facets likewise affect poverty. As such, the author clearly stipulated that the purpose of the article was to present a more comprehensive exploration on the nature of culture as it significantly affects the lives of the poor and determine to what extent culture influences the poverty. Summary the Author’s Fundamental Thesis The author’s fundamental thesis was to affirm that both cultural and situational factors are significant in influencing the status and condition of the lives of people considered to be the lowest in income classes, and are therefore relegated as poor. Identification and Brief Explanation of the Evidence to Support Thesis To support the thesis, the author initially expounded on the nature of culture (25); the culture of poverty (26); and the culture of daily life (30) where different evidences of actual experiences, as gathered and noted by different authors from their previous researches on the subject. Two explicit examples of the culture of daily life were explained from the experiences of jajmani, allegedly a traditional that supports division of labor in India through landowner and tenant relationships (30); and that of sharecropping and tenancy relations noted from the residents of Palanpur, described as located in the Moradabad district of Uttar Pradesh (30). The relationships noted and observed herewith evidently manifested ruling and acceding relationships, where, as the author disclosed exemplify continued cooperation and conflict which supports and sustains their respective needs. Likewise, Kumar differentiated between everyday needs versus non-everyday needs as a crucial factor in explaining the culture of daily life (31 – 32). In addition, the author also presented three distinct cases or scenarios where some innovative poor individuals were able to get out of poverty and have enabled them to successfully improve their social standing and be focused on other pursuits, instead of being immersed in the culture of daily life. Summary of the Conclusion There were four generalizations or conclusions that were explicitly stated in the article, to wit: (1) culture was evidently presented as a crucial and contributory factor to poverty and development; (2) the culture of daily life enables people who had been oriented and born into this social and cultural structure continue to support and sustain both cooperative and conflicting scenarios; (3) the elements or values of culture of daily life were deemed to be incompatible and not homogeneous in nature; but rather, a more contradictory and diverse conglomeration of cultural norms, values, traditions that get to be refined through daily activities; and (4) the culture of daily life was described as accommodative and lending in nature to the status quo; as such any distinct or separate experience that tends to be unconventional or untraditional does not disrupt its very nature and continue to persist for a long time through the future (36 – 37). Critique the Author’s Argument The author’s argument was actually logically sound and objective; as well as fair and balanced since at the onset, various theoretical and conceptual frameworks on the subject were provided to establish an in-depth overview and understanding of the nature of culture and the culture of daily life, as required. The review of related literature aptly supported the given arguments and the author also presented other researches and studies that provided counter arguments to those that were previously premised. The author initially cited the works of Oscar Lewis regarding the culture of poverty (24) and how these particular discourses, including those of a host of other authoritative works, were viewed by other scholars from social science disciplines. A total of 47 references were used to provide ample support and strengthen the credibility and reliability of the author’s contentions. Critique of the Evidence Used by the Author The evidences used by the author were varied as he used both secondary sources of information through the works and studies of different scholars; as well as through his own observation and immersion. Therefore, all evidences were factual and were appropriately cited and referenced. However, one noted that since the author published the article in 2010, it was surprising that there were a lot of the supporting sources that exceeded the updated time frame. From the 47 references that were effectively cited, only 9 or 19% were within the 10 year time frame (from 2000 up to publication date); while a staggering 51% or 24 out of 47 references, were published below 1980. These outdated sources could actually diminish the reliability and applicability of the arguments. Thus, despite the adequate, sufficient, and substantive information that allegedly provided support to the contentions, the fact that almost half were already outdated could have presented unsubstantially applicable support to contemporary contentions. Critique of the Author’s Conclusion The evidence based on the author’s personal observations are valid but need to be supported with reliable, applicable, credible and validated sources to strengthen the conclusions that were arrived at. As they are, the evidences effectively supported the conclusions and did not go beyond the area of discourse. However, there were apparent weaknesses in terms of the inability of the author to discuss the limitations of the study. As evident, the conclusions were based primarily from evidences of three people who experienced improvement in their social status; which could not be enough and conclusive in totality. Thus, there are limitations in the number of valid cases, as well as in using outdated references to strengthen the author’s assertions. Likewise, the observation was limited to only a particular village; where the culture of life could only distinct and unique to the experiences of those who reside within these confines. More valid results could be generated in future research as the study could be expanded in other poor communities and where experiences of more people whose lives were evidently uplifted from the culture of daily life and culture of poverty would be appropriately documented. Work Cited Kumar, Mukul. “Poverty and Culture of Daily Life.” Psychology Developing Societies. Volume 22. Number 2, pp. 331-359. 2010. Print. Read More