The Naturalization of Culture in the Underclass Myth

974 Words4 Pages
(words: 956) In his essay The Underclass Myth, Adolph Reed Jr. suggests that the notion of an Underclass allows for and is shaped by the notion of ‘culture’ as having destructively innate qualities within the Underclass. This “naturalization of ‘culture,’” as he terms it, defies traditional contentions of what ‘culture’ means in that it is infused with the idea of ‘nature’ of the nature/culture dichotomy, and in that it works counterproductively for the group it describes. When it is used to describe or explain the disposition, attitudes, values and behavior of the Underclass, the word ‘culture’ serves to aggregate supposed members of the Underclass as a degenerate ‘people.’ It projects a set and quality of values, attitudes and behavior onto the Underclass collective in such a way that not only defines it, but also predicts its course. Citing the conventional Victorian ideas of race and class as interchangeable terms, Reed claims the innateness that the Victorians associated with both terms resonates in the modern discussion of the Underclass. In this way, applying a ‘cultural’ cause and nature to the idea of the Underclass necessarily takes away its ability to help itself (because innateness cannot be reversed), while it absolves those outside the Underclass of responsibility for it, in that it suggests a causal relationship between the plight of the Underclass and its own deficiency. Belief in the notion of the Underclass primarily involves characterizing the various predicaments of poor and marginalized people as stemming from the behavior and deficiency of such individuals. Such a belief can only be plausible in itself if one accepts that the behavior and deficiencies examined are not shared with people outside the Underclass. Hence, one must look at behavior and deficiency through the screen of the Underclass notion to see either in such a light as to
Open Document