My Evolved Perspective

This article was very enlightening for me because, not only did it tell a story of hope and optimism buried in poverty, but explained different viewpoints on poverty and where they came from. Canada’s deep-rooted desire and devoted motivation to help the children in Harlem arise from a place I can slightly relate to but feel I could never fully know until I was in that position. Amazingly enough, as much I cannot pinpoint exactly why he is so faithfully determined, I do know it is very real and authentic. Canada’s story is of course unique and individual, but of all the people I have heard or read about who do something great to affect change, they are all wired in a way much like Canada. They are the people who have a raw experience, a burning optimism, untainted hope, human doubts, and the courage to always persevere. Like Canada, these people are the ones with such zealousness to continue working and doing more that they never actually feel accomplished or done. They just keep moving, moving, moving-- always forward.
As I read about the politics and evolution of how people have and still view poverty, I was able to sincerely examine my own bias positionality, and question my perspectives origins. American history is embedded with two opposing, shallow explanations of why poor people are poor. Because I am young and grew up in a fairly isolated town full of self-righteous people, I was familiar with the two perspectives. One is that the American economy denies poor people sufficient income and therefore the appropriate solution is to provide them with what they lack. The other, is that poverty is caused by bad decisions of the poor people themselves, and programs designed to help, actually perpetuate the problem (24). I believe these to be commonly held beliefs by the average middle or upper class people in American society. This is where an ultimate line is drawn between republicans and democrats. Tainted by other’s opinions and my ignorance, I have to admit I believed these explanations to be the only possible answers.
By the end of this article, I felt much more educated and actually on the verge of a sort of epiphany about poverty. All of the research described slightly persuades me, but Martha Farah’s and Annette Lareau’s viewpoints were the most influential. Farah proved practicality on the issue with the studies done on the brain. “It is a physical, mechanistic process in which specific inputs lead to specific outputs” (48). Her example made sense. “Parental nurturance… stimulates the medial temporal lobe…which in turn aids the development of memory skills” (48). Lareau's research leads to an unbiased, tangible conclusion. Observing “culture,” her study was able to, rather then say which parenting methods were “good” and “bad, critically look at advantages and disadvantages of each and gave explanations of how and why middle-class children grow up with a sense of entitlement rather then constraint. They view many adults, likes teachers, as a resources rather then authority. In many of the studies, language was an extremely important factor in children’s brain and cognitive abilities. Combine Farah's scientific research with Lareau’s sociological evidence and one can see the complex combination of factors influencing generations of poverty. All in all, my perspective is deepened by the research, changed by the variety of opinions, and evolved in a way that I will be able to carry with me, especially into my service at Canal Alliance, where it is safe to assume I am working with many children and teenagers who have grown up in poverty. This article has truly compelled me to think more critically and openly about poverty.