Final answer:
Social Darwinism views poverty as a result of natural selection, where the poor are inevitably weeded out and should not be supported. The 'culture of poverty' attributes the persistence of poverty to the subculture of the poor, while subjective poverty highlights the individual perception of one's own economic condition.
Step-by-step explanation:
Social Darwinism and the "culture of poverty" thesis interpret poverty through different lenses.
Social Darwinism, rooted in the ideas of Herbert Spencer, portrays the poor as inherently weaker individuals who are naturally selected out of prosperity and should not be assisted, as it is viewed as going against the natural competitive order where only the 'fittest' survive.
The 'culture of poverty' thesis, on the other hand, suggests that poverty is perpetuated by a subculture among the poor, characterized by certain behaviors and values, which hinders their ability to escape poverty.
While Social Darwinism sees poverty as a biologically predestined condition, the 'culture of poverty' suggests that the poor's social and cultural backgrounds contribute to their poverty condition.
Subjective poverty differs significantly from these theories, as it relies on an individual's perception of their economic status rather than societal structures or inherent traits. A person's sense of poverty is influenced by their environment and cultural context, which means definitions of poverty can vary greatly across different societies.