Martinez 1

Gisella Martinez

Writing 2

26 April, 2020

Two Sides of the Cycle

The proposed theory of the “culture of poverty” has​ attracted academic attention in

ongoing research efforts to put an end to such inadequate living conditions for people all

around the world. In addressing and researching such a controversial topic, ​the academic field

of Anthropology focuses on the cultural and ancestral influences of poverty, and how there is

an apparent subculture that traps people in these living conditions without a way out for

generations. Human interaction and social influences are the basis of their research. On the

other hand, the field of Economics focuses on the financial decisions that may lead people to

find themselves in this same cycle. It is a study of man’s behavior during times of scarce

resources and mainly ​uses the scientific method and verifiable evidence to build an argument.

Both the disciplines of Economics and Anthropology have different ways of showcasing their

research and findings concerning the topic of the culture or cycle of poverty, which

demonstrates the differences in the exclusive scholarly discourse communities they are a part

of. Differences are apparent in the discourse of the two disciplines, in their evidence and

sources, ways they address the audience, jargon, and overall organization of their pieces of

writing.

The first apparent difference between the fields of Economics and Anthropology is in

the way they present their findings and evidence. Although both disciplines believe in a cycle

of poverty, Anthropology offers a continuous discussion along with a number of quotes,

anecdotes, and real life accounts. In the article “Acculturation, Entropy, and the
 Martinez 2
Culture of Poverty,” the authors argue that certain norms are passed down through

generations that prevent people from breaking from the cycle of poverty that their parents and

ancestors lived through. (Douaud, Patrick, and Cronin 228-230) This claim is supported by

references to earlier studies by other academics within the field and multiple real life

accounts. For instance, the article offers a quote of Griffin, an individual living in urban

poverty who feels that his existence has become a “grinding effort.” (Douaud, Patrick, and

Cronin 227) There are no visuals added as evidence and the article is more focused on the

ethical and emotional appeals of the poverty discussion. Although it can be said that both

disciplines study the behavior of human beings in the face of scarce resources, the field of

Anthropology focuses on group behavior rather than individual. This is done by addressing

the interactions within communities, which is less fact based, as there is not a definite

measure of things such as human emotion. On the other hand, the article, “Poverty and

Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday.”

argues that people living in poverty are prone to making less educated financial decisions

which causes them to be stuck in the cycle. (Carvalho, Leandro S, Meier, and Wang 260) The

article explains the results of their “designed and administered online surveys” through the

use of data tables. A total of nine data tables and graphs are used, with each demonstrating a

different type of result from their surveys. The type of evidence used shows the authors rely

on arguments or appeals to numbers to ensure their credibility. It is evident that

Anthropology and Economics take different approaches when presenting evidence, yet both

effectively address their preferred stance on the issue.

Moreover, it is common between both disciplines to cite and refer to previous studies

and research on the same topic. In the Economic academic journal, the findings of other

scholars are used as a way to compare the results of their study. The authors commonly state
 Martinez 3
that they are not the first to perform a study on the cycle of poverty, and that “previous work”

has documented different results. This is then followed by the author's new findings and an

explanation of its significance and relevance to the finding a connection between poverty and

economic resources. (Carvalho, Leandro S, Meier, and Wang 281). The observed scholars

within Anthropology take a different approach and challenge previous findings or add to a

previous discussion or debate. For instance, the authors reference and credit Scollon and

Scollon (1979) for the theory of “bush consciousness” and follow the idea with two

“objections” on the theory. Both strategies of referencing and citing other researchers and

scholars within their field of study shows that they strive to put their work in a position to

also be discussed in the future. It makes their claims both debatable and supportable, which

appears to be essential in the discourse communities these disciplines have created.

Another considered comparison between the two disciplines can be seen through the

jargon used within Economics as opposed to Anthropology. The intended audience in the

Economics article appears to be other academics and researchers within the scope of

Economics. Recent studies by other economic researchers are referenced as inspirations for

their study and the authors express their curiosity of finding the connection between long

term economic status and short term decision making. (Carvalho, Leandro S, Meier, and

Wang 281). Due to this, the jargon used consists of terms within the scope of Economics.

However, it can be inferred that the authors chose to address and reach people beyond

scholars within the scope of economics, considering that the jargon includes multiple terms

that are defined. An example of this is the mention of “causality bias” which is then followed

by a definition and explanation of what it is. (Carvalho, Leandro S, Meier, and Wang 261) In

contrast, the Anthropology article offers a different approach. It can be inferred that the

audience is most likely other researchers who might study Anthropology and poverty. This
 Martinez 4
can be deducted due to the fact that multiple prior researchers are mentioned and ideas are

then broadened and further discussed. It has an argumentative opinion based tone while still

providing evidence. The jargon used includes common terms used within the study of

Anthropology such as “culture of poverty,” “standstill phase,” “acculturative,” and “bush

consciousness.” (Douaud, Patrick, and Cronin 228-230) None of these terms are defined or

explained which leads to the conclusion that the authors assume the audience is familiar with

them. Both disciplines use jargon that is specialized to their area of study, yet the main

difference is that the Economic focused academics chose to address a much broader audience.

Furthermore, when organization of the text is taken into consideration, it is evident

that the preferred technique of the Economics based article was the use of a numerical and

clear structure. The article is divided by subheadings, roman numerals, and alphabetical lists.

This makes the several steps in the poverty study easy to locate and understand. The

subheadings are also centered, bolded, or italicized which emphasizes the shift to the next

stage of the study. (Carvalho, Leandro S, Meier, and Wang 260) It is evident that the authors

meant for their data to be well organized in an effort to strengthen their credibility and prove

their study has substantial evidence that can apply to the issue and discussion of poverty.

Given that they refer to earlier studies as inspiration, the authors strive to make their data

presentable and easily referenceable or replicated by other researchers. This technique also

shows how an appeal to numbers and data are commonly used within Economics as opposed

to the more embellished and descriptive pieces of writing within Anthropology. For instance

there are multiple times that emotionally loaded phrases are used in the Anthropological

based article such as referring to a “modern patronizing attitude,” and a “lack of awareness”

directed towards outsiders of impoverished communities. “Affluent” groups are targeted and

directly addressed in the article. The argument that an environment and the customs within an
 Martinez 5
environment are usually not considered by outsiders and consequently people living within

lower socioeconomic communities are often looked down upon is supported by the use of

emotionally loaded language. (Douaud, Patrick, and Cronin 229) The article is not separated

by subheadings, but rather is one continuous discussion only separated into paragraphs. It is

only periodically broken up by quotes or personal accounts which shows that it is meant to be

read in one piece. The author’s goal in doing so is to spark a conversation of controversial

topics, such as the stereotypes that surround poverty ridden communities, through the use of a

highly descriptive and constant flow of ideas and proposals.

Given that Anthropology is a study of human behavior, societies, norms, and culture,

it is evident that academics within the field are compelled to look for patterns within the

affected communities and to look for the root of the problem within the people themselves.

In contrast, the field of Economics looks for answers in the individual behavior and the way

people manage their money and resources, through the use of more quantitative and

numerical data. The disciplines differ in the amount and types of evidence used, the way the

audience is addressed, the jargon used, and the way that their arguments are organized.

However, they both use these unique strategies to come to similar conclusions that more

research can and should be done within their discourse communities to solve extreme social

issues such as poverty.

 Martinez 6
Bibliography

Carvalho, Leandro S., Stephan Meier, and Stephanie W. Wang. “Poverty and Economic

Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday.”

American Economic Review 106, no. 2 (2016): 260–84.

https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20140481.

Douaud, Patrick, and Mary Cronin. "Acculturation, Entropy, and the Culture of Poverty."

Anthropos 8​ 0, no. 1 (1985): 227.

https://ucsb-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/12e9sm9/TN_proquest129

751832