Professional Documents
Culture Documents
o r l a n d o pa t t e r s o n ,
eth a n fosse,
Harvard University
Harvard University
The past half century has witnessed remarkable changes in the condition
of African Americans and, more generally, the state of race relations in
America. These changes, however, have created a paradoxical situation.
The civil rights movement and subsequent policies aimed at socioeconomic reform have resulted in the largest group of middle-class and elite
blacks in the world, several of them leading some of the most powerful
corporations in the nation and abroad; yet the bottom fifth of the black
population is among the poorest in the nation and, as Hurricane Katrina
exposed, often live in abysmal Third World conditions. Politically,
blacks are a powerful presence and the most loyal members of one of the
nations two leading parties; yet, race remains a central lever of American
politics and sustains its most fundamental regional and ideological alignments. Blacks have a disproportionate impact on the nations culture
both popular and eliteyet continue to struggle in the educational system
and are severely underrepresented in its boom of scientific and high-end
technology. And although legalized segregation has long been abolished
and anti-exclusionary laws strictly enforced, the great majority of blacks
still live in highly segregated, impoverished communities. It is a record of
remarkable successes, mixed achievements, and major failures.
Nowhere is this paradox more acutely exhibited than in the condition
of black American youth, especially male youth. They are trapped in a
seemingly intractable socioeconomic crisis, yet are among the most vibrant
creators of popular culture in the nation and the world. President Barack
Obama (2014) has lamented that:Fifty years after Dr. [Martin Luther]
King talked about his dream for Americas children, the stubborn fact is
that the life chances for the average black or brown child in this country
lags behind by almost every measure and is worse for boys and young men.
Only between 52 and 61 percent (depending on method of calculation) of
1
2 Introduction
Introduction 3
Family in the United States (1948) and Negro Youth at the Crossways
(1940), as well as Kenneth Clarks Dark Ghetto (1965). What we can
gather from their analyses is that the authors of this classic era felt free to
study black culture and its relation to social conditions as they saw fit,
unburdened by any prevailing social science dogma concerning what was
academically appropriate, either conceptually or terminologically.
The second period, which we might call a period of disjunctions, began
in the mid-sixties, ironically the period that witnessed some of the best
cultural studies on the urban poor, and it was sparked by reaction to the
work of two authors, Daniel Patrick Moynihans policy report The Negro
Family: The Case for National Action (1965) and Oscar Lewiss badly
theorized summary of his otherwise remarkable ethnographic works
(1961, 1966). The reaction to the Moynihan analysis was by far the most
virulent, inaccurate, and often grossly unfair. As the sociologist William
Julius Wilson (1989) and others have pointed out (Rainwater and Yancey
1967), Moynihans report simply summarized what was the consensus
sociological position on the troubled black lower-class family at the time,
including the views of leading African American sociologists. He identified the economic and social consequences of single female-headed households, but further pointed out that this was the result of the racial and
socioeconomic oppression of black Americans. Critics, as William Julius Wilson
(1989) has observed, egregiously neglected the corollary to his argument
and pilloried him for pathologizing the black poor with language that
was, in fact, common in sociological circles at the time. Kenneth Clarks
work (1965), for example, published the same year as Moynihans report,
wrote at length on The Negro Matriarchy and the Distorted Masculine
Image and The Causes of Pathology. The greatest irony of all is that
Moynihan was easily one of the most liberal councilors to advise a president and was deeply committed to the single most liberal policy agenda to
aid black Americans in the history of the American government, Lyndon
B. Johnsons Great Society program. History has been kind to Moynihan:
a recent conference at Harvard by leading social scientists, all with impeccably liberal credentials, concluded that Moynihan was correct in his analysis and prediction. Looking backward, the criticisms of Moynihan were
largely motivated by the racial pride of a newly resurgent black nationalism, (Draper 1971; Patterson 1977, ch. 6; 1997, 6481), the fear of an
emerging black middle class that undue attention to the sociocultural
problems of the urban poor would redound unfavorably on them or
diminish support for liberal social policies, and the mistaken belief that
4 Introduction
Introduction 5
(Stack 1974, 22). Scanzoni (1971) likewise took no chances: his study of
black Americans focused squarely on stable, working- and middle-class
households headed by couples married for at least five years. Predictably,
given his self-censored sample, he found stable unions headed by nurturing, loving couples with childhood outcomes that varied strictly in
terms of fathers economic situations.
What is astonishing about the revisionist period is the discrepancy
between the social science consensus and the reality of urban black life,
for it was during the seventies and early eighties that major problems
among the urban poor escalated greatly: family life disintegrated beyond
anything Moynihan could have imagined (by the early 1980s, over a half
of all births were to single mothers, compared with the 25 percent that
had deeply troubled Moynihan), drug addiction soared with the catastrophic crack epidemic, and criminal victimization, including homicide,
reached unprecedented levels in contemporary American history.
Inevitably, white and black social scientists were compelled to take the
problems seriously, demarcating the fourth period in regard to the role of
culture, which we call the structuralist turn. The response, both on the
left and right, as well as those of neither political persuasion, was bad news
for the study of culture. Leading the liberal resurgence were the path-
breaking works of William Julius Wilson, who laid out a strongly structuralist position, especially in a paper written with one of his students,
Loc Wacquant, who was later himself an important player in the study of
black life. Wacquant and Wilson wrote: Our central argument is that the
interrelated set of phenomena captured by the term underclass is primarily social-structural and that the inner city is experiencing a crisis
because the dramatic growth in joblessness and economic exclusion associated with the ongoing spatial and industrial restructuring of American
capitalism has triggered a process of hyperghettoization (1989). To be
fair, this overstated the structuralism of both authors, especially Wilson,
who was always alert to the interactive role of culture in the understanding
of lower-class black life, even if this was sometimes hidden in an overall
structuralist tone.1 For example, implicit in his 1978 book, The Declining
Significance of Race, was the cultural argument that the withdrawal of
middle-class roles and lifestyles from the ghetto had deleterious consequences for those left behind, an argument that elicited a good deal of
carping from the hardline structuralists. With the publication of the The
Truly Disadvantaged (1987), Wilson found himself in complex academic
combat with both ends of the ideological spectrum, for by now the right
6 Introduction
had entered the fray with analyses and commentaries on the black poor
and, sadly for the fortunes of the cultural approach to poverty, had
embraced a cultural position that would certainly have appalled Oscar
Lewis, even though it was often expressed in his name. Mercifully, poor
Lewis was by now long dead, having prematurely passed away in 1970 at
the age of fifty-six. Noting that the number of people in poverty stopped
declining just as the expenditure on welfare was at its highest, Charles
Murray (1984) blamed the welfare policies of the 1960s and 1970s for the
growing social crisis among the urban poor. These policies, Murray
argued, created a culture of dependency that incentivized the poor to
remain idle and bear more children. Wilson responded by criticizing
Murrays work as a rehash of the culture of poverty thesis, but at the same
time faulted liberals for their failure to address straightforwardly the rise
of social pathologies in the ghetto (Wilson 1987, 12). While insisting
that social isolation and structural constraints were the major factors
accounting for the problems facing poor black Americans, he nonetheless
acknowledged that culture played some role though as a response to
social structural constraints and opportunities (Wilson 1987, 61).
Wilsons position, in which culture might be considered in the analysis as
long as it is viewed as a dependent variable, remains the standard assumption when studying the lives of the poor. Interestingly, Wilson has recently
given a more central place for culture in his most recent statement on the
subject. In More Than Just Race (2009), he concedes that culture can
operate as an intermediary variable in explaining the problems of black
Americans. While agreeing with Orlando Patterson (2001, 2006) that
cultural explanations should be part of any attempt to fully account for
such behavior and outcomes, he insists that in the final analysis structure trumps culture (Wilson 2009, 21). We respond to Wilsons newly
nuanced position on this issue in Chapter 2.
We are now in the fifth, and current, phase of the treatment of culture in
the study of African American problems and, more generally, the problem
of poverty. It is what Mabel Berezin (1994) once called a fissured terrain.
First, it should be noted that culture has returned to center stage in the
social sciences, including sociology, and was officially acknowledged in the
founding of the Culture Section of the American Sociological Association
in 1988. Enthusiasts have published thick volumes announcing the cultural turn in the discipline (Bonnell, Hunt, and White 1999). Accompanying
this turn has been an even more vibrant development in cultural studies
in the humanities, which bear a somewhat prickly relationship to cultural
Introduction 7
8 Introduction
Chapter Overviews
We now turn to an overview of the chapters in this volume. The work is
organized into five parts. Part one, Overview, provides both a theoretical
and substantive framework for the works that follow. In Chapter 1, The