Abstract
In responding to Tony Novak's criticisms of his earlier article "The Class Analysis of Poverty," the author makes four principle points. First, contrary to Novak's views, a class analysis to poverty should define poverty in terms of both income-poverty and asset-poverty. Second, while Novak is correct that the term "underclass" often has a pejorative meaning, it remains an important concept for identifying segments of the population that are deeply oppressed economically, but not exploited. Third, the concepts of class analysis must be elaborated at a variety of levels of abstraction, not simply the highest level of the pure "mode of production," as is implied by Novak's arguments. Finally, class analysis must acknowledge and conceptualize the specific forms of complexity of contemporary class structures, which is impossible if it restricts its class concepts to a simple polarized notion.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
