Take a photo of a barcode or cover
550 reviews for:
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right
Arlie Russell Hochschild
4.09 AVERAGE
550 reviews for:
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right
Arlie Russell Hochschild
4.09 AVERAGE
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
"A deep story is a feels-as-if story – it's the story feelings tell, in the language of symbols. It removes judgement. It removes fact. It tells us how things feel. Such a story permits those on both sides of the political spectrum to stand back and explore the subjective prism through which the party on the other side sees the world. And I don't believe we understand anyone's politics, right or left, without it. For we all have a deep story.
I read this book after being introduced to it in a sociology class and after reading The righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Both books converge on explaining many political divides in emotional rather than rational ways. Why are people in a heavily polluted state so fervently against environmental regulations? That's the paradox Hoschchild tries to study and tries to answer about how people feel and the history of how they came to feel that way.
I really enjoyed Hoschchild's notion of deep story. I felt like the book promoted understanding, compassion and respect across political lines, but contrary to Haidt's book, it was heavier on fact-checking distorted views rather than seeing them as emotional value differences everyone was entitled to. I am inspired by the balance between compassion and understanding for an emotional story and respect for fact checking and rational discourse in the book.
I've been thinking for a while about how to think of political division. It seems that positions go either towards a facile "every opinion is equal" position or a "aren't people who think differently completely stupid and evil?" position. The first one gives up on critical thinking, notion of facts and discernment of things that are equivalent or not, and the second one seems overly righteous and not conducive to living in a diverse state of the world. Hoschchild's approach seems to manage to get somewhere in the middle by paying attention to self-narratives, the emotions connected to it, the wishes they express, and the institutions and history that contribute to this story, while also fact checking empirical statements and questioning the way the preferred strategies of people might come to meet their needs.
I really enjoyed Hoschchild's notion of deep story. I felt like the book promoted understanding, compassion and respect across political lines, but contrary to Haidt's book, it was heavier on fact-checking distorted views rather than seeing them as emotional value differences everyone was entitled to. I am inspired by the balance between compassion and understanding for an emotional story and respect for fact checking and rational discourse in the book.
I've been thinking for a while about how to think of political division. It seems that positions go either towards a facile "every opinion is equal" position or a "aren't people who think differently completely stupid and evil?" position. The first one gives up on critical thinking, notion of facts and discernment of things that are equivalent or not, and the second one seems overly righteous and not conducive to living in a diverse state of the world. Hoschchild's approach seems to manage to get somewhere in the middle by paying attention to self-narratives, the emotions connected to it, the wishes they express, and the institutions and history that contribute to this story, while also fact checking empirical statements and questioning the way the preferred strategies of people might come to meet their needs.
First of probably many books trying to understand the current political climate. The book consists of interviews with Tea Party supporters in Southern Louisiana seen through the context of their communities versus the rampant industrial pollution of the petrochemical industy. Hochschild's "deep story" theory of what politically motivates white Conservative southerners - feeling like minority groups are cutting in line - makes sense. What to do about it, who knows? Maybe there isn't anything to do about it other than empathy and acknowledgement of legitimate anger and loss. Or maybe take the Trump route of grandiose promises with no practical details.
I was surprised that that so many Louisianans in the book felt that it was virtuous to endure exposure to the toxic pollutants that decimated the wetlands and increased the human cancer incidence. Wow, that would be completely unthinkable for most people that I know.
Well researched, even-handed book. Would be fascinating to return to this community in four years to see if Trump's policies have any impact.
I was surprised that that so many Louisianans in the book felt that it was virtuous to endure exposure to the toxic pollutants that decimated the wetlands and increased the human cancer incidence. Wow, that would be completely unthinkable for most people that I know.
Well researched, even-handed book. Would be fascinating to return to this community in four years to see if Trump's policies have any impact.
Great ethnographic study. It focuses on tea party adherents specifically, in Louisiana, but parallels can be made with a much larger voting block. For me, the book emphasizes on the dangers of discounting people’s concerns about work and preserving their (often religious) culture.
I put this book on hold at the library shortly after the 2016 election; I read an NPR article that recommended two books based on how you voted: if you voted for Trump, they recommended Between The World and Me by Ta Nehisi Coates. If you voted for Hillary, they recommended this book.
After the election, I kept hearing, "if you want to understand Trump voters, read Hillbilly Elegy!" I read that one before the election, and I thought it was a good memoir based on one man's experience. I don't think he set out with the objective of explaining the perspective of an entire voting block when he wrote that book; I think his publishers saw an opportunity to promote it after Nov 2016 when a lot of people in Blue Country were reeling.
This book, however, does attempt to help liberal Democrats understand where rural Republican Tea Party/Trump voters are coming from. The author is a sociologist who set out with this objective in mind. And while I found a LOT of it frustrating (mainly how people continue to vote against their own self-interest, to the benefit of big corporations), it was the first time I could see over what Hochschild calls the "empathy wall". She spent a lot of time with people in these communities in Louisiana, and she was able to articulate a narrative that explains the mindset. I don't agree with it or relate to it, but I feel like I understand it better having read this book. She also included appendices that fact-checked a lot of the sentiments that she repeatedly heard (about the number of people on welfare, for example, or about the stereotypes of government employees). I highly recommend this book to anyone who truly wants to see where people are coming from but struggle to understand in this current political climate.
After the election, I kept hearing, "if you want to understand Trump voters, read Hillbilly Elegy!" I read that one before the election, and I thought it was a good memoir based on one man's experience. I don't think he set out with the objective of explaining the perspective of an entire voting block when he wrote that book; I think his publishers saw an opportunity to promote it after Nov 2016 when a lot of people in Blue Country were reeling.
This book, however, does attempt to help liberal Democrats understand where rural Republican Tea Party/Trump voters are coming from. The author is a sociologist who set out with this objective in mind. And while I found a LOT of it frustrating (mainly how people continue to vote against their own self-interest, to the benefit of big corporations), it was the first time I could see over what Hochschild calls the "empathy wall". She spent a lot of time with people in these communities in Louisiana, and she was able to articulate a narrative that explains the mindset. I don't agree with it or relate to it, but I feel like I understand it better having read this book. She also included appendices that fact-checked a lot of the sentiments that she repeatedly heard (about the number of people on welfare, for example, or about the stereotypes of government employees). I highly recommend this book to anyone who truly wants to see where people are coming from but struggle to understand in this current political climate.
I actually enjoyed this more than Hillbilly Elegy, but it was a harder read and a lot more academic. This book gave greater insight into why Trump voters and a large portion of Americans are angry, feel left behind and forgotten. While Hillbilly Elegy was more an exploration into a a sense of place and the long lasting effects of multi-generational poverty, Strangers explores disillusionment, anger, and people's own willingness to not accept a world that is changing around them.
A Berkeley professor goes to rural Louisiana to try to understand how people are impacted by environmental degradation yet be opposed to governmental regulations that could prevent them. Interesting interviews with interesting people. That people's identities as Christian or Republican are most important element, some suggestions for how to try to bridge the gap.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I read this book bc NPR had an article titled, 'How to bridge the political divide: read books not for you,' and this was the book they had recommended for democrats.
Since reading the book, Ive been recomending it to everyone. It attempts to answer the question of 'the great paradox' as the author calls it. Ie- why do so many people on the right seem to vote against their best interests.
The best part of the book is that it gave insight into the thoughts and decision making of conservative voters, which made me realize how opposite it was to my own thought process. With every situation brought up in the book, I would immediately view it as more reason for gov regulation, whereas a conservative would view it as a call for less gov regulation. I also thought it was really helpful that the author is a liberal, because most counter points I could think were addressed in the book as afterthoughts. However, I aplaud the author as I felt she was very patient with her interviews, unbiased and really tried to get to the heart of the issue. She treated the interviewed as nuanced human beings and not sinplified dumb rednecks which she easily could have done.
I would also recommend this book to any environmentalist as the book focuses a lot on the environment in LA.
Since reading the book, Ive been recomending it to everyone. It attempts to answer the question of 'the great paradox' as the author calls it. Ie- why do so many people on the right seem to vote against their best interests.
The best part of the book is that it gave insight into the thoughts and decision making of conservative voters, which made me realize how opposite it was to my own thought process. With every situation brought up in the book, I would immediately view it as more reason for gov regulation, whereas a conservative would view it as a call for less gov regulation. I also thought it was really helpful that the author is a liberal, because most counter points I could think were addressed in the book as afterthoughts. However, I aplaud the author as I felt she was very patient with her interviews, unbiased and really tried to get to the heart of the issue. She treated the interviewed as nuanced human beings and not sinplified dumb rednecks which she easily could have done.
I would also recommend this book to any environmentalist as the book focuses a lot on the environment in LA.
I chose this book in an effort to reach outside of my bubble and learn more about people who grew up or live lives with different backgrounds and beliefs from mine, and I think the Hochschild did a great job in presenting the stories of Louisiana Tea Party voters.
What I found particularly insightful was the analysis of the "deep story," which encapsulated much of the logic between the "makers vs. takers" and why resentment is focused on the poor for trying to rise to the middle class rather than the 1% looking to keep everyone else down. Hochschild writes compassionately and empathetically about the people she gets to know over a series of visits, and I appreciated the epilogue post-2016 election that accompanies the paperback version.
4 stars because I kept grasping for a tighter conclusion, but since this is nonfiction and the lives and feelings of those represented in this book are still fresh and real and evolving, I acknowledge that a snappy ending or one sentence "lesson" for those on the left may not actually be possible.
What I found particularly insightful was the analysis of the "deep story," which encapsulated much of the logic between the "makers vs. takers" and why resentment is focused on the poor for trying to rise to the middle class rather than the 1% looking to keep everyone else down. Hochschild writes compassionately and empathetically about the people she gets to know over a series of visits, and I appreciated the epilogue post-2016 election that accompanies the paperback version.
4 stars because I kept grasping for a tighter conclusion, but since this is nonfiction and the lives and feelings of those represented in this book are still fresh and real and evolving, I acknowledge that a snappy ending or one sentence "lesson" for those on the left may not actually be possible.
I consider myself a conservative, but does that mean I am by definition a moron as well?
In "Strangers in Thgeir Own Land" sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild embeds herself in the battalions of Republican foot soldiers to help her understand why these people believe the litany of lies propounded by the Republican Party against good government and common sense. Hochschild hopes to find some common ground upon which the two sides can meet to help the country move forward and not backward on some pretty crucial societal issues, not the least of which is the degradation of the environment. The setting for this story is Louisiana, among the poorest, least educated, and politically backward states in the union.
The story seems to end on a hopeful note but I for one closed the book absolutely enraged. Oil refineries, chemical processors, and plastics factories have turned significant parts of the state into a toxic dump and the residents are so grateful for the jobs that they don't put up the least fight for their homes.
They twice elect Republican Bobby Jindhal and he turns over their taxes to corporate welfare bums, cuts deeply into education and social welfare, and virtually dismantles their environmental protection department. Are these people total ignoramuses?
They hate taxes and they hate their federal government. What do they get in return? Marshes sodden with deadly chemical dumps, wildlife on their last gasp, and wetlands destroyed at a frantic pace.
To a some degree I can empathize with the notion that the northern, cleaner and richer states harvest the benefit of plastics production and the southern slower states reap the booby prize.
But give me a break.
These people let themselves be deluded by their religion, their history, and their idiotic television news programs into thinking that the government is against them, that anybody with an education must be a carpetbagger, and that immigrants are grabbing the ring ahead of them on the carousel of life.
What motivates these people? Envy. Suspicion. Mistrust. This does not not bode well for a democracy. People have to participate, share, and compromise. A misguided trust in totally unregulated capitalism, the Protestant work ethic and self-help philosophy means that if somebody doesn't do things the way you want them to, they must be working for some nefarious Big Brother.
As an antidote to this defeatism I recommend reading "Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek," by Dutch critic Rutger Bregman. Instead of blaming the poor, says Bregman, we should focus on addressing inequality. It will make people less suspicious of their neighbours, less anxious about their own status, and more productive in the long run.
As for their suspicion that government is their enemy, GET OVER IT! Your government is just your own people, whether they are two minutes from your home or 2,000 miles away in Washington DC.
I'm going to quote myself here: Rome fell for less!
In "Strangers in Thgeir Own Land" sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild embeds herself in the battalions of Republican foot soldiers to help her understand why these people believe the litany of lies propounded by the Republican Party against good government and common sense. Hochschild hopes to find some common ground upon which the two sides can meet to help the country move forward and not backward on some pretty crucial societal issues, not the least of which is the degradation of the environment. The setting for this story is Louisiana, among the poorest, least educated, and politically backward states in the union.
The story seems to end on a hopeful note but I for one closed the book absolutely enraged. Oil refineries, chemical processors, and plastics factories have turned significant parts of the state into a toxic dump and the residents are so grateful for the jobs that they don't put up the least fight for their homes.
They twice elect Republican Bobby Jindhal and he turns over their taxes to corporate welfare bums, cuts deeply into education and social welfare, and virtually dismantles their environmental protection department. Are these people total ignoramuses?
They hate taxes and they hate their federal government. What do they get in return? Marshes sodden with deadly chemical dumps, wildlife on their last gasp, and wetlands destroyed at a frantic pace.
To a some degree I can empathize with the notion that the northern, cleaner and richer states harvest the benefit of plastics production and the southern slower states reap the booby prize.
But give me a break.
These people let themselves be deluded by their religion, their history, and their idiotic television news programs into thinking that the government is against them, that anybody with an education must be a carpetbagger, and that immigrants are grabbing the ring ahead of them on the carousel of life.
What motivates these people? Envy. Suspicion. Mistrust. This does not not bode well for a democracy. People have to participate, share, and compromise. A misguided trust in totally unregulated capitalism, the Protestant work ethic and self-help philosophy means that if somebody doesn't do things the way you want them to, they must be working for some nefarious Big Brother.
As an antidote to this defeatism I recommend reading "Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-hour Workweek," by Dutch critic Rutger Bregman. Instead of blaming the poor, says Bregman, we should focus on addressing inequality. It will make people less suspicious of their neighbours, less anxious about their own status, and more productive in the long run.
As for their suspicion that government is their enemy, GET OVER IT! Your government is just your own people, whether they are two minutes from your home or 2,000 miles away in Washington DC.
I'm going to quote myself here: Rome fell for less!