WHAT IS THE CULTURE OF POVERTY?

For the sociologist Howard S. Becker  » culture is the sum of shared expectations that individuals use to coordinate theiractivities »⁽¹⁾. Thus, we will define popular culture as the sum of popular ideas and practices that individuals, whether or not they belong to the popular class, use to coordinate their activities. 

POVERTY IS NOT MISERY 

Poverty is classically defined as « what our ancestors called pauperization or indigence. This notion immediately evokes that of subsistence: the indigent is the one who has no or only just the means to survive and to make survive those who depend on him. Rowntree applied this definition to the letter and set the poverty line at the minimum necessary to maintain physical condition. »⁽²⁾. In France, three types of approaches are generally used to measure poverty:  » indicators observing social minima such as the RMI, indicators of monetary poverty, indicators of living conditions, such as budgetary constraints, late payments, consumption restrictions, housing difficulties⁽³⁾.

These different definitions of poverty should therefore be those of misery, according to the differentiation made by Brahman and Robert in their book « The Power of the Poor ». The latter « can only be considered in its historical and cultural context, in its culturally embodied or « inculturated » forms. In fact, in most cultures, the poor is simply the common man, the humble one whose number constitutes the common people, and his condition — poverty — is inseparable from a way of life, an art of living and doing […] Poverty is a state of being, linked to subsistence production, which implies vulnerability to natural disasters but relative autonomy with respect to the market. It can bring a « joyful freedom » The common man who has not been uprooted, acculturated by force or displaced in a foreign environment is the bearer of a capacity, of a power to act, the loss of which would be felt by the whole of society ».

It therefore seems necessary to differentiate several types of « poverty ». Rahnema and Robert differentiate between three different types: convivial poverty, voluntary poverty and modernized poverty. This last term, created by Ivan Illich, is synonymous with modern misery. Rahnema and Robert, define it as a  » cognitive dissonance between ritual and reality, as it promises abundance but increases scarcity. This generates new frustrations, new objects of desire, capacity of subsistence « ⁽⁴⁾.

Unlike the term poverty, the use of the term destitution should only be used in relation to one of the following two conditions (or both simultaneously). Either when an individual does not succeed in satisfying his essential needs (material misery), or when he succeeds more or less in doing so, but this situation is badly experienced for psycho-sociological reasons (Illich’s modern misery or Rahmena’s modern poverty). While misery has a quantitative dimension, poverty has a qualitative dimension. Thus, in a situation of simple satisfaction of essential physiological and material needs, the poor person will live badly this situation, while the poor person can accept this situation and live it well, within the framework of a « happy sobriety ». It is therefore a qualitative difference. However, this should not be a reason to create a two-tier society, leaving the poorest behind, even in a framework of happy sobriety, as we will see later. Happy sobriety should therefore be a free and voluntary choice and not the result of a socio-economic determination. 

Convivial and voluntary poverty, the result of this choice, advocates living together based on « the principles of simplicity, solidarity, frugality, sharing, a sense of fairness, respect for one’s neighbor … ». It aims to develop an attitude of  » Itis also a vision of a fair distribution of goods and resources, which contributes to social cohesion. « It is a simple and common sense way of life based on a realistic recognition of necessity », i.e. of what is necessary and sufficient to live well. Unlike destitution, voluntary poverty  » is based on a deliberate choice  » and  » the quest for a more liberating wealth from all superfluous material dependence. It excludes pleasures that degrade the personal relationship. »⁽⁵⁾ to others and to oneself. 

Poverty, in this sense, has not always been perceived as a negative fact. The sociologist Jean Labbens reminds us that the latter « has often advocated as a good. For moral and religious reasons, first of all; it frees us from earthly worries and allows us to go to contemplation. That is to say, poverty leaves man with enough to provide for his needs; little, no doubt, but enough, all the same, to give a feeling of security; otherwise, it would create temporal concerns, instead of removing them. The excellence of poverty is therefore not measured by the deprivation of goods, but by the liberation it brings. A good poor person must be very quiet about his subsistence « ⁽⁶⁾. That is to say that he must have at least the satisfaction of the basic needs to get out of the stage of material misery. Rahnema and Robert « However, they defend themselves from a romantic or nostalgic look at this poverty and to do so, they call upon the philosophical, sociological, economic and ecological registers, which are rooted in the notion of power, the potentia of Spinoza⁽⁷⁾. That is to say, mastery and inner fullness, whereas potestas is an external power whose essence is the exercise of a force of intervention over others. »⁽⁸⁾.

THE SATISFACTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR LIVING WELL 

Alongside the essential physiological needs and the need for power over oneself, there are other psychic needs that are essential to the « good life », as the philosopher Paul Ricoeur in particular speaks of them. 

According to the psychologist Maslow, the five main basic needs are physiological needs, the need for security, the need to belong, the need for self-esteem and self-actualization⁽⁹⁾. However, the primary basic needs should rather be the following 6: physiological needs, the need to live (life drive), the need to be strong, the need to love (to serve others, to be useful), the need for self-realization (by creating oneself or objects) and the need for understanding (curiosity). The need for self-esteem being a fundamental and secondary need, since it derives from the need to love one’s own strength. When it is experienced as a fear of low self-esteem or low self-confidence, it can lead to a neurotic need for recognition, whether conscious or not. 

Convivial poverty and happy sobriety therefore imply the satisfaction of one’s physical, material and psychological needs. To satisfy these 5 fundamental psychological needs, it is necessary to become aware of the subconscious fears generated by their non-satisfaction, and then to detach oneself from them psychically. These 5 fears are linked to the 5 fundamental psychic needs: the fear of death to the need to live, the fear of being weak to the need to be strong, the fear of not being loved to the need to love, the fear of not realizing oneself to the need of realization of oneself through creation, the fear of not understanding and therefore not mastering one’s environment to the need of understanding the world. To detach oneself from these fears supposes not only an inner work (psychological, meditative, contemplative, etc…), but also a critical analysis of the values of the society, which are of a sociological and philosophical nature. This work is made more difficult because capitalist commodification and materialism push us to create artificial needs and reinforce the neurotic dimension of non-essential needs. 

The need to love is a primary essential need. Conversely, among the primary neurotic (and therefore illusory) needs, there is the need to be loved, instead of the primary essential need to love. The neurotic fear that is linked to the fear of not being loved (of being alone or abandoned). The need for power is also a primary neurotic need. It is related to the fear of being weak. The need for security depends on the fear of insecurity, of being weak and/or of not being loved (abandoned). It is thus a secondary neurotic need, since it combines two primary needs. As well as the need to belong which is based on the fear of not belonging (of being rejected, abandoned) and by the need to be loved or recognized. The neurotic need for recognition is related to the fear of not being recognized or of having low self-esteem. However, looking for it in others will make us eternally dependent on them. Unlike the secondary essential need of self-esteem, whose satisfaction depends on oneself more than on others. The need for possession (of goods, of others, of signs of recognition) is also a secondary neurotic need. It is linked to the fear of being dispossessed by fear of lacking, by fear of insecurity, by fear of being alone (to possess the other in order not to be abandoned), or by fear of being dispossessed of the signs of recognition conferred by others. 

The main neurotic needs and fears are relatively few in number, but their combinations and weighting are almost unlimited.