Martinez 1

Gisella Martinez

Writing 2

08 June, 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 order to address and research such a controversial topic, the academic

field of Anthropology focuses on the cultural and ancestral influences of poverty, and the

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. 1This 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 from Griffin, an individual living in urban poverty who feels that his existence has

become a “grinding effort.” 2 There are no visuals added as evidence and the article is more

focused on the ethical and emotional appeals of the poverty discussion. Authors within

academic fields may “want to weigh a proposal more heavily toward logic, or a memoir more

toward pathos.​”​ Therefore, given that Anthropology contains more personal accounts, it is

fitting that pathos is a prominent fallacy used.3 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. 4 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

1
​Douaud,Patrick, and Mary Cronin. "Acculturation, Entropy, and the Culture of Poverty."
Anthropos 80, no. 1 (1985): 227.
2
​Douaud, Patrick, and Mary Cronin.: 224.
3
Jessie ​Szalay, “Making Choices in Writing” 22.
4
​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.
 Martinez 3
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

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. 5 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. 6. Due to this, the jargon used consists

of terms within the scope of Economics. However, it can be inferred that the authors chose to

5
​Carvalho, Leandro S., Stephan Meier, and Stephanie W. Wang. 281.
6
​Carvalho, Leandro S., Stephan Meier, and Stephanie W. Wang. 282.
 Martinez 4
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. 7In

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

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.”8 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.9 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. It can be deducted that a major constraint within

the field of Economics is credibility. Constraints may be “something as simple as your

7
​Carvalho,Leandro S., Stephan Meier, and Stephanie W. Wang. 260.
8
​Douaud, Patrick, and Mary Cronin. ​228-230.
9
​Carvalho, Leandro S., Stephan Meier, and Stephanie W. Wang. 260.
 Martinez 5
instructor limiting your proposal to one thousand words, or they may be far more complex

like the kinds of language you need to use to persuade a certain community.”10 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

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.11 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

10
Laura Bolin Carroll, “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis”, 49
11
​Douaud,Patrick, and Mary Cronin, 229
 Martinez 6
numerical data. The two disciplines differ in the amount and types of evidence used, methods

of addressing the audience, use of jargon, and organization of evidence and arguments.

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 7
Bibliography

Carroll, Laura Bolin. “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps Toward Rhetorical

Analysis.”​ Writing Spaces.​ 49.

http://writingspaces.org/essays/backpacks-vs-briefcases.

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

Szalay, Jessie. “Making Choices in Writing.” Open English SLCC.​ Open English SLCC,​

August 1, 2016. 22.

https://openenglishatslcc.pressbooks.com/chapter/making-choices-in-writing/