از اسطوره فرهنگ فقر تا واقعیت نظام‌های فقرزا: خوانشی انتقادی از زیست فرودستان در دولت‌آباد و کولی‌آباد کرمانشاه

Introduction: 
Poverty is not simply a lack of assets or income; it is a way of social existence, that is shaped in the context of lived experience. While policymakers typically limit poverty to quantitative indicators, conservative approaches tend to attribute it to the alleged cultural characteristics of the poor. The discourse of “culture of poverty”— which holds the poor responsible for their condition— conceals the underlying structures of economic and political inequality. This discourse, which has its roots in the works of Oscar Lewis, has been reproduced in Iranian urban politics since the 1990s, presenting concepts such as the “culture of laziness” or “subsidy dependency” as inherent characteristics of the poor. In such a context, the experience of poverty becomes intertwined with spatial exclusion, stigmatization, and silencing. The present study, adopting a critical ethnography approach, conducts a comparative examination of two informal settlements in Kermanshah—Dowlatabad and Koliabad (Aghajan)—to examine the extent to which the discourse of "culture of poverty" can explain the diverse realities of these neighborhoods.
Methodology: This research uses a critical ethnographic approach to expose structural dominance, analyze inequalities, and amplify marginalized voices. Data for this study were collected using tools such as in-depth participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and field notes. The sample included 48 residents of Dowlatabad and 39 residents of Koliabad, selected through cluster random sampling to reflect diversity in age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Data were coded and analyzed using MAXQDA software in four analytical axes: (1) stigma and place identity, (2) marginal mentality and institutional trust, (3) intergenerational reproduction of poverty, and (4) cultural adaptation/resistance and everyday agency.
Results: The analysis shows that both neighborhoods under study are products of the interaction between structural forces (housing policies, labor market dynamics, historical inequalities) and the micro-level actions of residents. 
Settlement in both neighborhoods reflects a combination of necessity (inability to enter the formal housing market) and opportunity (cheap land, incremental construction, kinship networks). The population of Dowlatabad is predominantly Kurdish and Sunni, with strong support networks acting as informal social security. This neighborhood benefits from a more regular street network, an active local market, and a diverse retail offering than Koliabad. In contrast, Koliabad has a more ethnically and religiously mixed population, irregular street patterns, lower quality infrastructure and poorer urban services – yet semi-public spaces such as small squares and communal courtyards play an important role in social interaction. In both neighborhoods, the economy is based on “survival strategies” and low-capital occupations, making it difficult to escape the cycle of poverty. Social stigma and negative stereotypes are common in both neighborhoods, leading to concealment of address, especially among young women. In both neighborhoods, a short-term orientation towards immediate needs (presentism) was observed, although in Dowlatabad, the presence of a local bazaar and park has made some social interactions more structured.

Social stigma and place identity: Both neighborhoods are plagued by negative urban stereotypes that reinforce spatial concealment, particularly among young women – significantly in Dowlatabad for women and in Koliabad for both genders. In Dowlatabad, despite social stigma, the local bazaar and kinship ties enable symbolic resistance and a relative redefinition of place identity. In Koliabad, stronger social stigma combined with infrastructural deficiencies, limits the public sphere and reinforces self-concealment. Where social stigma converges with inadequate services and perceived insecurity, it transforms from a mere stereotype into a mechanism for “access control”—to jobs, formal networks, and even symbolic dignity. In Dowlatabad, markets and in-group networks help to “neutralize” some of this control; in Koliabad, the lack of such levers makes social stigma the core of place identity.
Marginal mentality and institutional trust: Distrust of formal institutions and experiences of social exclusion exist in both neighborhoods, but in Dowlatabad, dense in-group ties and support networks mitigate this to some extent. In Koliabad, institutional distrust is exacerbated by the blockage of opportunities, leading to social withdrawal.
Intergenerational reproduction of poverty: In Dowlatabad, an active market, specific educational pathways, and relative occupational diversity allow a minority to break the cycle of inherited low-income jobs. In Koliabad, early school leaving, precarious manual labor, and lack of skill- training opportunities keep the cycle of poverty almost uninterrupted. In Dowlatabad, the local market acts as an engine of “daily stability,” and when educational or financial capital is introduced— especially highly educated families—awareness of the “ceiling” of daily wage incomes increases and fosters occupational diversity. In Koliabad, early exit from education and the lack of safe arenas for skills training reinforce the intergenerational cycle of low-skilled labor.
Cultural adaptation/resistance and everyday agency: In Dowlatabad, micro-acts of resistance—such as creative appropriation of urban spaces for small businesses and self-help in home-based workshops—are evident. In Koliabad, the scope of resistance is more limited, and adaptation often takes the form of mere survival in limited circumstances.

The combination of these four axes shows that Dowlatabad, despite local stigma (especially in Mehr housing) and the prevailing “ethic of surveillance,” is a neighborhood of “possibility” due to its active market, dense intragroup networks, and relatively coherent spatial organization—where poverty is more relative and fluid than absolute and fixed, and the gap between “daily stability” and “medium-term mobility” can be reduced through educational/financial capital. In contrast, Koliabad is an example of “closure”: spatial stigma, lack of services, and institutional neglect shorten educational-occupational paths and narrow mobility horizons to the point that the residents of this area themselves describe themselves as “cursed.”
Discussion: Comparing the two neighborhoods suggests that the micro-level elements typically commonly categorized as “culture of poverty”—such as resigned contentment, occupational inheritance, self-concealment, or institutional distrust—are not markers of an unchanging “cultural essence,” but rather adaptive responses to an unequal architecture of opportunity. When the spatial opportunity structure is more open—accessible labor markets, legible street networks, supportive social ties, and a minimal level of security and services—families can transform adaptation into constructive resistance and create narrow pathways for mobility. When this structure collapses, the same characteristics become a cycle of despair. In this sense, the “neighborhood of hope” / “neighborhood of despair” dichotomy is not a moral label, but a diagnostic tool for assessing the quality of opportunity structures and the impoverishing intensity of space.
Conclusion: The theoretical implication is clear: while the classic “culture of poverty” thesis may describe certain observable micro-patterns, it is inadequate at the macro scale without links to politics and space. What reproduces poverty is not “culture” itself, but a set of poverty-generating mechanisms embedded in urban planning and governance—from rigid standardization (lot sizes, building codes) and failure to implement development plans that are appropriate to local contexts, to the unequal distribution of services and the criminalization/stigmatization of informality. In such circumstances, behavioral-focused reforms remain ineffective. Only structural reforms—gradual improvements in space and opportunity—can slow or break the cycle. This study confirms that changing space is the most effective policy for changing culture.