Poverty Discourses

Discourses on Poverty

As I noted in my last entry, I have not untaken a full analysis/theoretical review of poverty discourse this week; most of my time has been spent on theory. However, I have been doing some reading, which I have summarised, without much in the way of organisation, below;

Much of my reading time was spent on Jeffery Sachs’ The End of Poverty (Sachs, 2005). For me the most interesting thing about Sachs’ work was that he rejects the traditional free-market capitalist position from the Bretton Woods Institutions. Indeed he positions their efforts as a cause of poverty, and thus a social antagonism (Sachs, 2005; 74, 79, 189,249, 300-314). While Sachs come close to suggesting that extreme global poverty is the result of these programmes he does not very poverty as constitutive of them. This is a position taken on by others, such as Singh and Tabatabai (1993).

Thus Sachs seeks to rearticulate capitalism in a manner that will radically reduce poverty. In doing this Sachs posits the symptom, poverty, as simply a failure that can be dealt with through a rearticulation rather than a necessary failure of the system. Similarly, Buarque (1993) argues that capitalism’s failure to deal with inequality is because of an ethical deficit. Thus a rearticulation with a stronger notion of ethics and progress would lead to a better form of economics and capitalism.

However, Sachs is not able to take it to the end and see extreme poverty as constitutive, either of ‘pure’ capital or his own brand. He creates this position in two significant moves.
Sachs identifies, correctly and importantly in my position, 1/6 of the global population as extreme poor. These people are unable to get on the development ladder. There are others who are poor, but on the ladder, doing sweatshop work etc. Sachs does identify the situation of these workers as constitutive of capitalist development, but not as a symptom, in contrast to the universal. Rather it is a necessary point of development. This is an important point to follow through. Thus there is no exploitation here of the Third World by western capital. Rather they are doing them a favour, developmentally etc

In Sachs’ opinion, the 1/6 of the world that is left out can get on the ladder, but we need a re-orientation of capitalism. Thus his position is much like the ecological modernism/sustainability approach. It has not been successful yet because the dislocatory effect has been easily pacified simply through the production of ideas like the United Nations Millenium Development Goal’s . Therefore poverty does not repeat on us in the same manner that climate change does. Likewise there is no money in it for the business. The only manner in which the ‘unreason of reason’ can come through or become a concern is in political instability. However, this is unlikely to produce any kind of radical change. Notably there is no empty signifier for the universal, although the play of objet a around the symptom (the symptom becomes objet a) is significant.

Anyway, these 1/6 are left out for reasons that while not displaced onto the victims, are not global or universal in any sense. Rather they are produced as situational antagonisms. The requirement for capitalism to have this excess is never questioned, despite Sach’s identifying that global inequality began from the industrial revolution, particularly iwht the spread of capitalism. Situational factors may have affected the initial growth rates, but this initial head start, and the system itself, is what keeping the hierarchy steady.

As noted, Sachs believes that this category of poor have not been brought into the system because classical capitalism does not give them a helping hand, which is required given their circumstances. At no point is it considered that classical capitalism may have required the extreme poor to stay as this excess. Thus for Sachs, by dealing with these antagonisms in a differentiated and collective approach, the extreme poor can get on the development ladder. What effect they would have on the rest of the world is not discussed. For example, in Sach’s development approach, the next step from extreme poverty is to get into manufacturing for the western world, particularly garment manufacturing (p.195). He contends that Africa’s failure to get into this market is a symptom of the poverty trap that they face. What he does not consider is the ethics of such exploitation, nor the global consequences, both on existing argiculture and manufacturing industries on such a move. Indeed, Sachs seems to ethically hide behind the devlopmental model in order to justify exploitation and poverty, something completely contrary to his apparent imaginary.

However, I do not seek to deny that the causes of poverty that Sachs identifies. I’m sure they are all valid reasons for why Africa is at the bottom of the developmental pile. Just like objet a, the symptom as a discourse has a logic of its own. What Sachs does not identify is the form of capital as a cause; why does there have to be a bottom of the pile to such a degree, why is poverty required in its varying degrees? Sachs appears satisfied with sweatshop economies, never considering the constitutive excess that is in operation here to be ethically problematic (p.65).

Much of Sachs’ argument is based around poverty as a failure rather than as a symptom. This occurs largely because Sachs creates a false dichotomy of capital against socialism which cuts down options. Because Sachs can see no other option to capital, and because capital seems so effective in creating wealth in so many countries, he is unable to see the limits of capital as a system.

His movement, much like the end of poverty etc is a real super-ego guilt movement that easily gives way to ideology; it is our generations challenge etc, the wrist bands as a constant reminder. Is there not another option to directly attention to poverty? Is that another possible task for this thesis?

An alternative manner of domesticating the symptom is taken on by the Bretton Woods organisations, the IMF and the World Bank. These organisations have taken on the task of ‘trying to listen to the poor’ (Narayan, Chambers, Shah, & Petesch, 2000; Narayan, Patel, Schafft, Rademacher, & Koch-Schulte, 2000; Narayan & Petesch, 2002; Robb, 2002). Thus rather than see those in poverty as an ‘object’ they seek to get to know the poor and their problems from the inside. However, this turns out to be contrary to the real issue, as it takes away the universal perspective. Rather than seeing poverty as constitutive of the global capitalism economic system, as I am advocating, poverty becomes a problem individually related to the society in which it is in operation. This is not to suggest that those in poverty are being blamed for their predicament, although this does occur in other Bretton Woods publications e.g. corrupt governments. Rather individualised reasons are found, such as bad geography and various others elements of the ‘poverty trap’. Such an analysis is also found in Sachs work.

It appears that no intermediate position can be found between the experience of poverty and its international co-ordinates. One can describe the international conditions that create statistical poverty and the experience of poverty itself, but the gap between them stays; one can only perceive the gap through the shift between positions. This is what Zizek describes as the Parallax Gap. Thus although the context for poverty can be discussed, it cannot be described in relation to global economics, something that seems awry in texts which constantly refer to globalisation; but only from the perspective of capital. The poor are victims, but not global victims.

The parallax gap to which I refer can also be called the ‘parallax real’. This is not the real as a hard kernel, but rather the real which distorts symbolic space such that the truth cannot be perceived. Instead the symptom is taken on in fantasy and particularised as a failure rather than a symptom. It is only when this parallax real is evoked that the symptom can become a concrete universal.

It seems a little strange to me that solutions, such as those suggested in the millennium development goals of the UN and Sachs, are always of a global nature, thus strengthening the universal imaginary, but the symptom, poverty, is never related to this universal in such discourses.

A lot of attention that is paid to the symptom is through aid and trade, essentially ideology and super-ego. Generally this is no where even close to system changing (debt relief and emergency aid) or may actually further engender the symptom, such is the case with many Bretton Woods style solutions.

Yet still Tariffs on imports important to the third world remain highly tariffed. As well as subsidies. Now we are getting into the territory of the concrete universal. The United Nations Millenium development report claims that these restrictions against imports from the Third World need to be removed (UnitedNations, 2005) . But what would the effect be on developed countries? Yet despite these ‘facts’ poverty doesn’t seem to be linked.

The general cause of poverty is seen to be unique to the area, although it is generally not thought of as a fault of the people. An example of this is seen in (Narayan, Chambers et al., 2000). Here the authors identify ten different elements of the web that make up the poverty trap from the perspectives of those in poverty;

Precarious Livelihoods with Few Assets
Isolated, Risky and Unserviced Places of the Poor
Hungry, Exhausted and Sick Bodies
Unequal Gender Relations
Isolating Social Relations
Insecurity and Lack of Peace of Mind
Abusive Behaviour of Those More Powerful
Disempowering and Excluding Institutions
Weak and Disconnected Organisation of the Poor
Poor in Capabilities

Similarly, Sachs identifies eight elements of the poverty trap;
Poverty itself as a cause of stagnation e.g. Lack of savings
Physical geography
Fiscal traps e.g. Debt
Governance Failures
Cultural Barriers
Geopolitics
Lack of innovation
Demographic traps




It is assumed that if some nations can do it, others can as well, as thus we must see what is occurring in the poorest nations and not the others. Because market economies have generated more wealth than socialist states, then capitalism is the only possible game.

In this short and limited review I have only really focused on one category of discourse in relation to the symptom, those discourses which particularise the symptom. This category is by far the most common grouping because it establishes the location of the symptom within the universal, and promises to fix it, either through ideology or super-ego demand. As I have previously noted, there are four other types of discourses around the symptom;
- Discourses which disavowal the symptom
- Discourses which are external to the symptom
- Discourses which reveal the symptom
- Discourses of the symptom

I have briefing touched on the last category in this review. These discourses were produced by the World Bank and the IMF, and as such cannot be thought of as pure discourses of the symptom. This is because they are produced in the terms of the abstract universal imaginary and as such suffer from the parallax gap. It is only discourses of the symptom which take on the universal imaginary and thus position themselves as the concrete universal that are interesting to me.

Perhaps the most difficult category to review is the discourses which disavowal the symptom. It is a demanding task to distinguish between a true disavowal and simple ignorance or ignoring of the symptom. For example, little or any New Zealand political economic discourse focuses on global poverty. However, is this because the symptom has been disavowed, or because global poverty is simply not the topic of discussion?

Further to this, discourses of this kind, such as ‘pure’ free-market anarcho- capitalism (e.g Friedman, 1978) may not actually directly disavowal the symptom. Indeed they may actually accept it as constitutive. However, different discursive devices are used so that this symptom is not actually real, rather it is just a moment of the discourse.

This type of discourse fits into the same category as disavowal discourses because they do not seek to particularise the symptom, but rather not see the symptom as a symptom or even a failure, but rather part of the universal imaginary itself. Freidman, admittedly writing in 1978, fails to note any aspect of global effect of capitalism, noting that in advanced capitalist societies inequality has decreased with economic growth.

‘ Few people believe that capitalism leads inexorably to the impoverishment of the masses; the evidence against this thesis is too overwhelming’ (Friedman, 1978:26).

This leaves discourses which reveal the symptom and discourses which are external to the symptom. I have not completed enough analysis on either of these modalities. The latter is especially difficult to analyse as it takes in everything that is not direct discourse on poverty. Perhaps a more subtle definition would discourses on the symptom that are external to the universal imaginary. Islam or Green radicalism fits into this category, and I plan to expand this further at a latter date. They are important because they give evidence to the existence of alternative modes of thinking, although not much hopes for radical change.

More hopeful in producing change are discourses which reveal the symptom. It is difficult to find discourses which directly view poverty as a constitutive element of capitalism. Classical Marxism did, but this now rarely focuses on the global economy. Many see poverty as caused by capitalism, but not necessarily a constitutive cause, as we might see in Zizek’s work. It appear remarkably difficult to articulate such a position from within the universal, yet not impossible, one simply has to look it the problem slightly awry, or take a Zizekian short-circuited approach.

Friedman, D. (1978). The Machinery of Freedom. Illinois: Open Court.
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K., & Petesch, P. (2000). Voices of The Poor; Crying Out for Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices of the Poor; Can Anyone Hear Us? New York: Oxford University Press.
Narayan, D., & Petesch, P. (Eds.). (2002). Voices of the Poor; From Many Lands. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robb, C. M. (2002). Can the Poor Influence Policy? Participatory Poverty Assessments in the Developing World (2nd ed.). Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction Development/ The World Bank.
Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty; Economic Possibilities fo Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.
Singh, A., & Tabatabai, H. (Eds.). (1993). Economic Crisis and Third World Argiculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UnitedNations. (2005). The Millenium Development Goals Report. New Yokr: United Nationa.