There is no denying the fact that poverty has been one of the most important and urgent social problems of humanity and a constant subject of sociologists’ work. A striking example is a fact that “approximately one out of every nine people in the United States lives below the poverty line established by the federal government” (Schaefer 226). Still, despite the fact that sociologists devote much time and effort to the study of poverty with the purpose of its eradication, they come across numerous problems from the very beginning, with the task of defining poverty (Schaefer 226). In order to give a complete sociological analysis of poverty, the phenomenon should be studied from the following perspectives: conflict theory and structural functionalism.
In the first place, a reference should be made to Karl Marx, who analyzed exploitation poverty that was caused by the exploitation of the working class by the rich owners of the property and singled out its positive meaning and impact on society. In the “Poverty of Philosophy,” he stated: “they see in poverty only poverty, without seeing therein the revolutionary subversive side, which will overturn the old society” (Marx 137). Thus, Marx treated poverty as the driving force of revolutionary actions. Still, he also mentioned its negative impact on a representative of the proletariat as it: “distort(s) the worker into a fragment of man” (Marx and Mandel 799).
It is commonly known that Marx’s critical theory and Weber’s views influenced conflict theory greatly. According to the views of the supporters of this social theory, the development of society is based on several main conflicts: between different classes, races, genders, religions. The perspective of conflict theory may be used as the basis of the analysis of poverty in the world and in the USA in particular. Conflict theorists claim that social inequality and poverty, as their main consequence, are excessive and growing. For instance, it is proven by sociologists that in the USA “class system is more rigid for African Americans” in comparison with other races. The Latino population also owns times less wealth than white people (Schaefer 233). Middle-aged, mostly divorced, women, who have to provide for their children are considered to be the major part of a poor class in the USA. Besides, women have shown much less social mobility than men have. They are unlikely to gain high-income status because they are deprived of the initial capital. On the whole, American society today shows evident signs of feminization of poverty. Besides, conflict theorists prove that society’s institutions (religion, media) contribute greatly to the maintaining privileges by some social groups, while others are in a weaker position (Schaefer 16).
At the same time, while conflict theorists express great concern upon the number of people who belong to the category of poor people, and society’s unwillingness to create better opportunities and governmental support of this class, the representatives of structural functionalism justify social inequality, stating that it is necessary to some extent. “Social inequality is necessary so that people will be motivated to fill functionally important positions” (Schaefer 221). What is more, functionalists have found certain benefits of poverty to society, such as the performance of dirty work at low cost; the creation of professions that work with poor people.
In conclusion, it must be mentioned that though these two social theories represent different opinions about poverty, it, certainly, remains one of the main problems of contemporary society. Sociologists should unite their efforts with the government in order to cope with the problem of poverty.
References
Marx, Karl and Ernest Mandel. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. NY: Penguin Classics, 1990.
Marx, Karl. “The Poverty of Philosophy”. London: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001.
Schaefer, Richard T. Sociology. NY: McGraw-Hill, 2007.