POVERTY THE MEANING OF POVERTY -- PERSONAL AND GENERAL CAUSES --POVERTY IN A PROSPEROUS SOCIETY DUE CHIEFLY TO MALADJUSTMENT -- ARE THEPOOR THE "UNFIT"？ -- WHO IS TO BLAME FOR POVERTY？ -- ATTITUDE OF SOCIETYTOWARD THE POOR -- FUNDAMENTAL REMEDIES
THE most practical definition of poverty is that now widely adopted which relates it to function， and calls those the poor whose income is not sufficient to keep up their health and working efficiency.This may be vague but is not too much so to be useful， and is capable of becoming quite definite through exact inquiry.At least it indicates roughly a considerable portion of the people who are poor in an obvious and momentous sense of the word.
Being undernourished， the poor lack energy， physical， intellectual and moral.Whatever the original cause of their poverty， they cannot， being poor， work so hard， think so clearly， plan so hopefully， or resist temptation with so much steadfastness as those who have the primary means of keeping themselves in sound condition.
Moreover， the lack of adequate food， clothing and housing commonly implies other lacks， among which are poor early training and education， the absence of contact with elevating and inspiring personalities， a narrow outlook upon the world， and， in short， a general lack of social opportunity.
The poor are not a class in the sense of having a distinct psychical organization.Absorbed in a discouraging material struggle， or perhaps in the sensuality and apathy to which a discouraging outlook is apt to lead， they have no spirit or surplus energy adequate to effectual cooperative endeavor on their own initiative， or even to grasping the benefits of existing organization.As a rule they get far less from the law and its administration， from the church， the schools， the public libraries and the like， than the classes more capable of self-assertion， and this is particularly true in a laissez-faire democracy， such as ours， which gives rights pretty much in proportion to the vigor with which they are demanded.It is this lack of common consciousness and purpose that explains the ease with which， in all ages， the poor have been governed， not to say exploited， from above.
And if they are getting some consciousness and purpose at the present time， it is largely for the very reason that they are less inveterately and hopelessly poor now than in the past.
The familiar question whether poverty is due to personal or social causes is in itself somewhat fallacious， as smacking of a philosophy that does not see that the personal and social are inseparable.Everything in personality has roots in social conditions， past or present.So personal poverty is part of an organic whole， the effect in one way or another， by heredity or influence， of the general life.The question has significance， however， when we understand i as asking whether or not the cause is so fixed in personality that it cannot be counteracted by social influences.We find that in a community generally prosper--ous a part of the people梥ay ten per cent.梐re poor in the urgent sense indicated above.The practical question is， Are these people poor from causes so established in their characters (however originating) that the rest of the community can do nothing effectual for them， or are they plastic to forces which might raise them to a normal standard of living？
As to this條eaving out the various extreme opinions which attend all such questions梩here is a fair measure of agreement among competent observers somewhat to the following effect： There is a considerable number of individuals and families having intrinsic defects of character which must always keep them poor so long as they are left in the ordinary degree of self-dependence.
The great majority of the poor， however， have no ineradicable personal weakness but are capable of responding to influences which might raise them to a normal standard of living.In other words， the nine-tenths of the community which is not poor might conceivably bring influences to bear which would梚n a healthy manner and without demoralizing alms-giving梤emove all but a small part of the poverty of the other tenth.It is only a question of putting into the matter sufficient knowledge and good will.As to the view， still not uncommon， that the laziness， shiftlessness and vice of the poor are the source of their difficulties， it may be said that these traits， so far as they exist， are now generally regarded by competent students as quite as much the effect as the cause of poverty.If a man is undervitalized he will either appear lazy or will exhaust himself in efforts which are beyond his strength梩he latter being common with those of a nervous temperament.
Shiftlessness' also， is the natural outcome of a confused and discouraging experience， especially if added to poor nutrition And as to drink and other sensual vices， it is well understood that they are the logical resource of those whose life does not meet the needs of human nature in the way of variety， pleasantness and hope.There are other causes of vice besides poverty， as appears from its prevalence among the unresourceful rich， but there can be no doubt that good nurture， moderate work， wholesome amusement and a hopeful outlook would do away with a great， probably the greater， part of it.There are， no doubt， among the poor， as among the well-to-do， many cases of incurable viciousness and incompetence， but it would be no less unjust and foolish to assume that any individual is of this sort than to give up a scarlet fever patient because some will die of that disease in spite of the best treatment.