Squatter Culture and the Church
Reference: Grigg, V. (2005). Cry of the Urban Poor. GA, USA:
Authentic Media in partnership with World Vision.
OSCAR LEWIS DEVELOPED HIS THEORY of a “culture
of poverty” in reaction to Redfield’s study of transitions. He studied groups of
poor, migrant peoples within the city who had enough cultural integration to
define some generalized characteristics. These he claimed to be universal to
groups of poor in other cities. Much of Lewis’ theory was not new, having been
generated by Lampman1 and Harrington in their studies on American
poverty.2
Understanding the culture of poverty
Lewis’ theory is not truly about a culture in the classical sense of the
word. Rather it is an excellent analysis of a subculture from a synchronic
view—at one point in time—set in a much wider diachronic (historic)
perspective—the continuum of change from folk to urban contexts. There are
many criticisms of this theory, but it is not my purpose here to analyze
these. Instead, I want to apply Lewis’ theory to the greater task of
establishing the church among the poor.
Lewis lists over seventy characteristics of the
culture of poverty, first differentiating it from poverty itself, which is
generally seen as economic deprivation. He views the culture of poverty as a
subculture within itself:
. . .With its own structure and rationale, a
way of life handed on from generation to generation along family lines . . .it
is a culture in the traditional anthropological sense in that it provides human
beings with a design for living, with a ready-made set of solutions for human
problems, and so serves a significant adaptive function.3
There are many groups of poor people that do not
fit into this culture of poverty, because in Lewis’ theory it is distinctly
related to the emergence of a two-level economic system in capitalist cities.
Poor rural or tribal peoples, some poor, low-caste urban Indians who are
integrated into the wider society, and poor Jews in Eastern Europe who are
highly educated and organized are examples of poor people who are not described
by Lewis’ concept.
The culture of poverty is both an adaptation by
the poor to the contextual culture and a reaction to their marginal positions in
a class-stratified, highly individualized, capitalistic society. Thus, the
behavior and values of the poor are not determined by their situation but are a
culturally learned response.
Limitations of Lewis’ theory
There has been a great deal of criticism of
Lewis’ theory. Nevertheless, while it may not be the most useful tool for those
whose focus is the transformation of poverty, It is perhaps the most powerful
tool we have for anticipating what the church in the slums should look like, and
for analyzing what it does indeed look like.
Lewis’ theory is also significant because it
moved the emphasis away from the individual alone to the individual in context.
It has also shifted the focus from the study of problem families among the poor
to a more positive study of effective coping behavior in the environmental
context and culture of the slum.
Disengagement from the larger society
The people . . . make little use of banks,
hospitals department stores or museums . . .. There is a hatred of the police,
mistrust of the government and of those in high positions, and a cynicism that
extends to the church.4
Lewis writes of fear, suspicion, apathy and
discrimination among the poor. He points out that the relationships of the poor
to police, army and public welfare officials reinforce these attitudes. A new
missionary told me how she had explained to a squatter child that he could trust
the police. She then walked out of the community to find a policeman at the
corner taking bribes from passing traffic violators.
It would seem that Oscar Lewis has accurately
expressed reality, but not entirely so. I have observed that in Manila, for
example, as a part of their delight in the freedom of the city, Philippine
squatters frequent the museums, department stores and hospitals of a world that
is different than theirs. I think it is safer simply to assume a predominance of
the characteristics mentioned by Lewis in the midst of a wide spectrum of
attitudes towards the institutions of the city.
The pastor needs to become what Gulick called a
“culture broker.”5 Or, Santos’ economic term, redefined as a
“cultural middleman” may be applicable also.6 Daily the pastor has to
help the people relate to the institutions of the city, and do battle against
fear, suspicion and apathy. At the same time, the pastor has to fight corruption
within the city’s institutions in order to serve the people.
The pastor or change agent in the slums is a
link between the culture of poverty and the Industrialized sector. Despite the
brutality of the police and the corruption of government officials, the pastor
is in a position to foster trust and sound relationships between the poor and
those in power who can assist them. Pastors also have moral power, which at
times may be brought into play to compel corrupt officials to provide
assistance.
In Latin America or in the Philippines, by an
incarnational lifestyle among the poor, the Christian worker can deal a death
blow to the prevailing distrust of the church.
The attitudes of distrust and fear are also
tempered by the dominant attitude in the city towards the poor. In Brazil, two
decades of military oppression of the favelados have resulted in a
general public perception of the favelas as places of great evil,
violence and fear, breeding mistrust and fear among the favelados. This
is In contrast with a city like Lima, where the pueblos jovenes are
perceived favorably.
An alternative economic system
People in a culture of poverty produce little
wealth and receive little in return. Chronic unemployment and under-employment,
low wages, lack of property, lack of savings, absence of food reserves in the
home and chronic shortage of cash imprison the family and the individual in a
vicious circle.
Thus, for lack of cash, the slum householder
makes frequent purchases of small quantities of food at higher prices. The slum
economy turns inward, showing a high incidence of pawning of personal goods,
borrowing at usurious rates of interest, informal credit arrangements among
neighbors, and use of secondhand clothing and furniture.7
The economics of church life are going to
reflect these characteristics with frequent cash shortages and different
expectations between members and the church about the repayment of loans. A
credit cooperative approach has been found to be successful by a number of
groups.
Equipment for the church usually is bought in
fits and starts. Most pastors’ build churches themselves, with help from
members. Often, they are completed years after worship is begun. Obtaining
secondhand equipment from middle-class churches is a realistic way to speed the
process.
Low level of organization
Since residents come from highly structured
rural societies and enter highly organized and complex urban societies, slums
exhibit a severe breakdown of organization. There is a lot of socializing, but
only within the nuclear or extended family. Yet there may be a strong esprit
de corps because of enforced isolation. This esprit de corps of many
slums is a plus factor for the outsider who becomes an insider, since it forms
a natural parish.
On the other hand, the disorganization and
breakdown of family life in a squatter area implies that a church there will
lack strong organization. Where there are no extra resources to manage from day
to day, people do not develop skills of management. Since building and
maintaining a church larger than about seventy people requires management
skills, most squatter churches will stay small.
Wider issues of community organization,
beginning with small things such as obtaining water or garbage clearance, need
to become an important part of building the community. They provide a way of
identification with the people in their needs.
Disengagement in marriage values
People talk of middle-class moral values, but on
the whole do not live by them. Common-law marriage avoids expense and gives both
man and woman freedom in a context where futures are uncertain. It gives the
woman a stronger claim on her children and rights to her own property.8
Marriage values of the imported European culture
are often in conflict with the submerged values of a far older culture. By
becoming involved with the people, the church planter can assist in marriages,
providing support and counseling without charging the costly fees they normally
would have to pay. Indeed, marriage values are often one of the first issues
after conversion.
There are many complexities concerning, who is
the rightful husband and father of which children. The church planter needs to
be discerning about how to apply the Scriptures, encouraging people to remain in
the state in which they were called (usually married to a second or third
husband or wife with children from each), or to seek reconciliation and
restitution. The culture has its own morality by which biblical principles may
be applied to various situations. The church planter needs to teach from the
Bible, and then have the people themselves determine the ethical courses of
action.
The role of men is the key to the transformation
of these families. Strong leadership and good biblical teaching of men
concerning their family life is critical for family development and the
long-term establishment of a church.
Shortened childhood
The family in the culture of poverty does not
cherish childhood as a prolonged and protected stage in the life cycle.
Initiation into sex comes early. With the instability of marriage by consensus,
the family tends to be mother-centered and tied more closely to the mother’s
extended family. The female head of the house is prone to exercise authoritarian
rule. In spite of much verbal emphasis on family solidarity, sibling rivalry for
the limited supply of goods and maternal affection is intense. There is little
privacy.9
Protection of children is a difficult problem in
these families. As they grow up, many lose the emotional capacity to respond
because of the traumatic experiences they have had to pass through. Often,
people are seen only as a way to acquire things. The solution to such problems
is not for the church planter to get deeper and deeper into counseling but to
develop a strong and healthy church structure where the members minister to each
other.
Psychological characteristics
The individual who grows up in this culture has
a strong feeling of fatalism, helplessness, dependence and inferiority . . .
Other traits include a high incidence of weak ego structure, orality and
confusion of sexual identification, all reflecting maternal deprivation; a
strong present-time orientation with relatively little disposition to defer
gratification and plan for the future, and a high tolerance for psychological
pathology of all kinds. There is widespread belief in male superiority and among
the men a strong preoccupation with machismo, their masculinity.10
The extent of wounds in people’s lives mean that
the emotional components of worship and the Lord’s supper are critical contexts for
healing to occur. As healing is occurring by the power of the Holy Spirit,
there is an often weeping and other emotional response. The dynamics of worship
in the slum must provide a freedom for this to occur if the people are to be set
free.
The extent of these emotional needs means that
they will not be healed over a short period of time. The pastoral structure
needs to be developed in such a way that long-term progress is assured, but
short-term patience with failure lays a foundation of grace. Feelings of
fatalism and helplessness dissipate under the regular inspiration of the
preached Word and as brothers and sisters in a healthy church help one another
grow.
The weak ego structure among slum dwellers means
that the church planter in the slums must constantly deal with disputes between
members. There is often the need for church discipline in cases of immorality.
The machismo that Lewis mentions is only an obvious characteristic in a
few places. On the whole, men have to be encouraged to take responsibility and
begin to redeem their lost sense of dignity and leadership.
Conclusion
My father-in-law recounts his first contact with
Christianity in Brazil, when fundamentalists came to preach the good news and a
few people converted. These converts seemed to become isolated from the rest of
the town.
“A couple of years later, the Assemblies of God
entered the town,” he remembers. “With their noise and their open worship and
their miracles—things very Brazilian—the whole town knew what was going on.”
A prototype emerged that was not only
identifiable, but also desirable to the people.
Despite the theoretical and tentative nature of
Lewis’ work, its core rings true to the experience of workers among the poor.
Lewis’ culture of poverty provides a useful set of characteristics that enables
us to reflect upon effective patterns of ministry among the poor—patterns that
are desirable to the people.
Notes
1. Lampman, Robert V., Poverty: Four
Approaches, Four Solutions, Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press,
1966.
2. Harrington, Michael, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, Penguin, 1965.
3. Lewis, Oscar, The Culture of Poverty,” Scientific American, Vol. 215, No. 4: 3-9, October 1966.
4. Ibid.
5. Gulick, J., “Urban Anthropology,” Handbook
of Social and Cultural Anthropology, J. Honigman, ed., Rand McNally, 1973,
pp. 979-1029.
6. Santos, Milton, The Shared Space (tr
from Portuguese by Chris Gerry), Methuen: London and New York, 1979.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Lewis, op. cit. |
|
|
