Empowering destitute people towards transforming communities

3Making sense of the different viewpoints and theories about the causes of destitution

Much can be learned from the different viewpoints as to the causes of destitution, as long as these viewpoints are seen as complementary.

3.1Looking deeper than just at immediate needs for the causes of destitution

Meyers (1999:82) states that our understanding of the causes of poverty and destitution also depends on where we start looking at poverty, and more important, where we stop looking. Often we focus on the immediate need as the cause of the problem, and forget about other, underlying, causes.

For example, if we are only concerned with needs, we will only see lack of water. Without further thought, lack of water is the cause of poverty, and providing water is the answer. However, behind needs are issues, such as ownership of the water. If this is the cause of the lack of water, then the response is to work on ownership or access. Yet behind issues there are structures, such as economic or even racial privileges, that influences who gets access to the water. Behind structures are groups who inhabit and enforce the structures by insisting that “it is our water and our right to control its use”. Behind these groups are the ideologies and values that inform the group and shape the social structure, the unspoken assumption that “we are to be served and they are subhuman and aren’t supposed to drink where we drink”. This is worldview (:82).

Ideologies & values Groups & “classes” Structures We are to be served… They are subhuman… Issues Behind structures are groups in power The social structure is racial/ economical privileges Needs The issue is ownership The need is water

“From needs to causes” Adapted from Meyers (1999:82)

While this theory clearly illustrates the fact that underlying causes of destitution do exist, helpers should always guard against ignoring the immediate needs of people.

3.2The causes of destitution as a two sided coin

As Sommer (2001:19) states, historically, attempts to explain why people were destitute focused on economic marginality and individual disability, and the remedies provided reflected an ideology which held that, especially among the able-bodied, destitution was a lifestyle choice. Though few today would deny that the destitute are disproportionately affected by personal disabilities, poverty, and unemployment, the exact relationship between destitute characteristics and the causes of destitution is still widely disputed.
Today these theories generally fall into one of two categories: (1) individual deficits or personal disabilities, or (2) societal or structural conditions. The former include factors such as mental illness, behavioural problems including substance abuse and addiction, and family estrangement: factors that affect one on a deeply personal or intimate level. Structural factors incorporate those larger economic or societal conditions such as the changing job market; increasing poverty, a widening income gap; and changes in the housing market (Sommer, 2001:19-20). Wright et al. (1998:25) describes this latter category as relating to the “way our society’s resources are organized and distributed”.
Seltser & Miller (1993:112-114) also argue that there are two approaches in this regard:

We suggest that there are two different approaches to understanding the causes of destitution. On the one hand, it is possible to assume an individualistic perspective that examines factors within a destitute person’s life history and decision-making that predisposes them to becoming destitute. From an individualistic vantage point one can usually identify one or two precipitating factors that result in a family becoming destitute, such as the breakup of a relationship or poor financial judgment. Individualistic explanations are often more psychological in probing family history experiences, such as childhood sexual abuse, that seem to correlate with destitution.

In contrast, structural explanations tend to explain destitution in terms of high unemployment rates, lack of available low-income housing, a low minimum wage, and welfare payments that are intended to punish their recipients. Structural explanations hold society accountable for destitution and emphasize changes in government policy. In contrast, individualistic theories of destitution commonly take one of two approaches: either they focus on rehabilitating destitute people through psychological counseling and intervention, or else they draw the conclusion that destitute people simply must learn to be more responsible and take charge of their own lives.
On the one hand certain advocates prefer structural theories (referring to issues such as social injustice, economic structures and other societal structures). (Wright, Rubin, and Devine, 1998; O’Flaherty, 1996; Koegel, Burnam and Baumohl, 1996; Jencks, 1994; Baum and Burnes, 1993; and Burt, 1992.) These advocates suggest greater government intervention in the lives of poor people.
On the other hand, in contrast, some helpers tend to place the emphasis on individual accountability (Wright and Weber, 1987; Koegel and Burnham, 1987).
Hence Seltser and Miller (1993:4) assert that in order to understand what destitute people are experiencing, we must seek to fathom not just the facts and patterns and events of their lives (their objective reality: or external factors), but the ways in which they feel and respond to these events as human beings (their subjective reality: or internal factors). They also state that a cross-cutting variable occurs whether one conceives of intervention as being fundamentally a “psychological” or “sociological” task. Psychologists and psychiatrists, for example, have tended to emphasize individual and group therapy as a way of solving past problems (such as sexual abuse), whereas those with a more sociological orientation often stress the importance of creating social support networks that connect an individual to social institutions (including family networks) within the community.
It should be clear that the causes of destitution are like a two-sided coin, where we have personal, individualistic and internal factors on the one side and structural societal factors, usually external to the individual, on the other. The interaction between the two sides of this coin should be handled with care, so that neither the individual responsibility of destitute people to take charge of their own lives, nor the responsibility of society, is neglected.