Yoksulluğun Tanımı ve Nedenleri Üzerine Soybilimsel Çözümleme

Year 2026, Volume: 2 Issue: 89 , 807 - 842 , 23.04.2026

Artum Dinç , Vildane Özkan

https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1766775

https://izlik.org/JA98PD35GJ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, yoksulluğun tanımı ve nedenleri farklı paradigmatik yaklaşımlar bağlamında incelenerek, bu yaklaşımların söylemsel temellerinin soybilimsel sorgulama yöntemi ve eleştirel söylem analizi tekniği uygulanarak açığa çıkarılması amaçlandı.
Nitel araştırma modeli kullanılarak veriler yoksulluğun tanımı ve nedenlerini içeren temel kuramsal çalışmaların incelenmesiyle toplandı. Bulgular, toplanan veriler soybilimsel sorgulama ve eleştirel söylem analizi süreçlerinden geçirilerek elde edildi. Analiz süreci sonucunda, farklı evren açıklama modellerine içkin bilgi-iktidar ilişkileri çerçevesinde yoksulluğun tanımlanma ve nedenselleştirme biçimleri sınıflandırıldı.
Bulgular, alt kültür eksenli davranışçı, piyasa rasyonalitesi eksenli işlevselci ve üretim ilişkileri eksenli çatışmacı yaklaşımların temsilcilerini, tanımlama ve nedenselleştirmelerini, temel kavramlarını ve varsayımlarını karşılaştırmalı olarak sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, her yaklaşımın güçlü ve zayıf yönleri, metodolojik sınırlılıkları ve söylemsel işlevleri eleştirel söylem analizine tabi tutularak yorumlandı. Özellikle işlevselci ve neoliberal söylemler çerçevesinde yoksulluğun depolitize edildiği, bireysel sorumluluk ve piyasa rasyonalitesinin vurgulandığı; çatışmacı yaklaşımlarda ise yapısal nedenlerin görünür kılınmasına rağmen mikro düzey farklılıkların göz ardı edildiği tespit edildi.
Sonuç bölümünde çok boyutlu, tarihsel, dizgesel ve söylemsel bir olgu olarak yoksulluğun nesnel bir biçimde nedenselleştirilip tanımlanabilmesi için bütüncül, çok katmanlı ve eleştirel sorgulamayla analiz edilmesi gerektiğinin altı çizilerek akademik çalışmalarda yoksullar ve yoksulluğun görünümlerinden ziyade yoksullaştırma süreçlerine yönelmenin daha isabetli olacağı vurgulandı.

Keywords

Yoksulluk , Soybilim , Eleştirel söylem analizi , Yoksullaştırma

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırma kuramsal çalışma olduğundan, ikincil veriler kullanıldı. Bu nedenle etik kurul iznine gerek kalmamıştır. Herhangi bir çıkar çatışması bulunmamaktadır.

Supporting Institution

Herhangi bir kurumdan herhangi bir destek alınmadı.

Thanks

İlgi ve dikkatiniz için şimdiden teşekkür eder, kolaylıklar dilerim.

Genealogical Analysis on the Definitions and Causes of Poverty

https://izlik.org/JA98PD35GJ

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the definitions and causes of poverty within the framework of different paradigmatic approaches, and to uncover their discursive foundations through the application of genealogical inquiry and critical discourse analysis.
A qualitative research design was employed. Data were collected through a systematic review of seminal theoretical works addressing the definition and causes of poverty. The collected data were examined using genealogical inquiry and critical discourse analysis. These analyses processes enabled the classification of definitional and causal framings of poverty in relation to the knowledge–power relations embedded within distinct explanatory models of the social world.
The analysis compares subculture-oriented behavioral, market-rationality-oriented functionalist, and production-relations-oriented conflict approaches, outlining their main proponents, definitions and causal explanations, core concepts, and key assumptions. Critical discourse analysis revealed that functionalist and neoliberal discourses tend to depoliticize poverty by emphasizing individual responsibility and market rationality, whereas conflict approaches highlight structural causes but often overlook micro-level heterogeneity. The strengths, weaknesses, methodological limitations, and discursive roles of each approach are discussed in depth.
The conclusion highlights that poverty, as a multidimensional, historical, systemic, and discursive phenomenon, can only be objectively defined and explained through a holistic, multi-layered, and critically interrogative analysis. It emphasizes that academic studies should focus on the processes of impoverishment rather than on the poor and the manifestations of poverty.

Keywords

Poverty , Genealogy , Critical discourse analysis , Impoverishment

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics. Because the research is theoretical, secondary data were used. Therefore, ethics committee approval was not required. There is no conflict of interest.

Supporting Institution

No support was received from any institution.

Thanks

Thank you in advance for your interest and attention and best wishs.

References

• Ahmed, N., Marriott, A., Dabi, N., Lowthers, M., Lawson, M., & Mugehera, L. (2022) Inequality Kills: The Unparalleled Action Needed To Combat Unprecedented Inequality in the Wake of COVID-19, Oxford: Oxfam International, http://dx.doi.org/10.21201/2022.8465 (07.02.2025).
• Alcañiz-Colomer, J., Moya, M., & Valor-Segura, I. (2023) “Not All Poor are Qual: The Perpetuation of Poverty Through Blaming Those Who Have Been Poor All Their Lives”, Current Psychology, 42, 26928–26944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03804-6 (01.22.2025).
• Anderson, W. H. L. (1964). “Trickling Down: The Relationship Between Economic Growth and the Extent of Poverty Among American Families”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(4), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879653 (29.01.2025).
• Anderson, W. H. L. (1987). “Apologizing for capitalism”, Monthly Review, 38(10), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-038-10-1987-03_5 (29.01.2025).
• Bacchi, C. (2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to be?, Sydney: Pearson.
• Banfield, E.C. (1964) The Unheavenly City Revisited, Toronto: Little Brown and Company.
• Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Sussex: Harvester Press.
• Booth, C. (1889) Life and Labour of the People in London. Vol. 1: Poverty; East, Central and South London, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.
• Bourgois, P. (2002) “Understanding Inner City Poverty: Resistance and Self-destruction Under US Apartheid”, J. MacClancy (Ed.), Exotic No More: Anthropology on the Front Lines içinde, 15–32, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Butler, J. (2002) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York ve London: Taylor & Francis.
• Cioran, E. M. (2003) Çürümenin Kitabı, (Fransızca’dan Çev. Haldun Bayrı), İstanbul: Metris Yayınları.
• Davis, E. P., & Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2014) A Review of the Economic Theories of Poverty. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research. de Beauvoir, S. (1956). The Second Sex, (H. M. Parshley, Trans.), London: Jonathan Cape.
• Erdoğan, N. (Ed.). (2002). Yoksulluk Halleri: Türkiye'de Kent Yoksulluğunun Toplumsal Görünümleri, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Erdoğan, N. (Ed.). (2023). Kayıp Halk: Günümüzde Yoksulluk Halleri, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London ve Newyork: Longman.
• Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.), New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1977) “Nietzsche, genealogy, history”, D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews içinde, New York: Cornell University Press, 139–164.
• Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, C. Gordon (Ed.), (C. Gordon, L. M. J. Mepham, K. Soper Trans.), New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1981) “The Order of Discourse”, R. Young (Ed.), Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader içinde, Boston, London ve Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, (A. Sheridan, Trans.), New York: Vintage Books.
• Foucault, M. (2000) Entelektüelin Siyasi İşlevi, (Çev. Işık Ergünden, Osman Akınhay ve Ferda Keskin), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Gans, H. J. (1972) “The Positive Functions of Poverty”, American Journal of Sociology, 78(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1086/225324 (19.01.2025).
• Gilbert, G. (1997) “Adam Smith on the Nature and Causes of Poverty”, Review of Social Economy, 55(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346769700000001 (07.02.2025).
• Harrington, M. (1962) The Other America: Poverty in the United States, New York: Scribner.
• Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Harvey, D. L., & Reed, M. (1992) “Paradigms of Poverty: A Critical Assessment of Contemporary Perspectives”, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 6(2), 269–297.
• Le Grand, J. (1991) “The Theory of Government Failure”, British Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006244 (10.02.2025).
• Le Grand, J. (2003) Equity and Choice: An Essay in Economics and Applied Philosophy, Taylor & Francis e-Library.
• Lewis, O. (1966) “The Culture of Poverty”, Scientific American, (215)4, 19-25.
• Malthus, T. R. (1803) An Essay on the Principle of Population, or, A View of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; With an Inquiry into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils Which It Occasions (2nd ed.), London: J. Johnson.
• Martindale, D. (1981) The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory, Boston: Houghton Miffilin Company.
• Marx, K. (1982) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1; B. Fowkes, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.
• Mead, L. M. (1991) “The New Politics of the New Poverty”, The Public Interest, 103, 3–20.
• Mead, L. M. (1992) The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America. New York: Basic Books.
• Mead, L. M. (2020) “Poverty and Culture [Retracted article]”, Society. (57)4, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-020-00496-1 (23.01.2025).
• Miliband, R. (1969) The state in Capitalist Society: An Analysis of the Western System of Power, New York: Basic Books.
• Murray, C. (1994) Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980, New York: Basic Books.
• Naoroji, D. (1901) Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
• Nietzsche, F. (2009) On the Genealogy of Morals A Polemical Tract, Arlington-Virginia: Richer Resources Publications.
• Nunes, C. L. P. (2008) “The Economic Thought on Poverty Measurement: From the Nineteenth-Century to the Rediscovering Era”, ECINEQ Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, 92, 1–25. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1272567 (01.02.2025).
• Oppong, S. (2022) “Locus of Control and Culture of Poverty: An Appraisal of Lawrence M. Mead’s Ideas in ‘Culture and Poverty’”, Academicus International Scientific Journal, 13(25), 226–234.
• Øyen, E. (1996) “Poverty Research Redefined: Epistemological Considerations”, E. Øyen, S. M. Miller, & S. A. Samad (Ed.), Poverty: A Global Review – Handbook on International Poverty Research içinde, 3–17. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
• Øyen, E. (2004) “Poverty production: A Different Approach to Poverty Understanding”, N. Genov (Ed.), Advances in Sociological Knowledge içinde, 299–315, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09215-5_13 (01.02.2025).
• Rowntree B. S. (1902) Poverty: A Study of Town Life, London ve New York: MacMillan and Company.
• Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Sen, A. (1983) “Poor, Relatively Speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153–169. https://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE251/fall2008/Papers/sen83.pdf (21.01.2025).
• Sen, A. (1987) The Standard of Living, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A. (1989) “Development as Capability Expansion”, Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41–58.
• Sen, A. (2000) Development as Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Smith. A. (1776/2022) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Toronto: Ryerson Unıversıty.
• Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living, New York: Penguin Books.
• Thernstrom, S. (1994) Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City (9th Printing), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• van Dijk, T. A. (1993) “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis”, Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 (11.01.2025).
• van Dijk, T. A. (2001) “Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity”, Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Ed.), Methods Of Critical Discourse Analysis içinde, London, Thousand Oaks ve New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 95-120.
• van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Walker, F. A. (1897) “The Causes of Poverty”, The Century Magazine, 55(1), 210–216.
• Wilson, W. J. (1990) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wilson, W. J. (1998). When Work Disappears: New Implications for Race and Urban Poverty in the Global Economy, CASEpaper 17, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science. https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper17.pdf (20.01.2025).
• Wodak, R. (2001) “What CDA is About – A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and its Developments”,
• Wodak, R. and Meyer, M, Methods Of Critical Discourse Analysis içinde, London, Thousand Oaks ve New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1-13.
• Wright, E. O. (1995) “The Class Analysis of Poverty”, International Journal of Health Services, 25(1), 85–100.