You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
551 reviews for:
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right
Arlie Russell Hochschild
4.09 AVERAGE
551 reviews for:
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right
Arlie Russell Hochschild
4.09 AVERAGE
Equal parts enlightening, confirming, and frustrating.
As a left-winger who has spent most of my life in the kinds of places this book depicts, I was curious to see if the author, who is pretty much the caricature of the liberal elitist my conservative friends and neighbors imagine, could figure out what's going on in rural America. Unfortunately, I couldn't stomach the book long enough to figure out her thesis.
Books that ostensibly describe political phenomena are not credible if they can't get basic facts right. If the author can't be trusted with verifiable, obvious statements, why would I trust her analysis (or her recounting of her experiences with her subjects)? By page 13, things had gone very, very wrong for me in the trust department.
First, on page 12, she states that between 1972 and 2014, whites went from "composing 41 percent of all Democrats to 24 percent and from 24 percent of Republicans to 27 percent." I couldn't accept that she really believes that a demographic group that composes roughly 65% of the population is only a quarter of the two main political parties, so I checked her end notes. There, she says white Democrats composed 24% of the electorate as a whole and white Republicans 27%, but that's not even close to being the same thing. Nor, for that matter, do those line up all that well with numbers from Pew and Gallup, which both put white Republicans around 35% of the electorate.
Just one page later, we get this gem: "Just 158 rich families contributed nearly half of the $176 million given to candidates in the first phase of the presidential election of 2016 - $138 million to Republicans and $20 million to Democrats." $158 mil is far more than "nearly half" of $176 mil - it's "nearly 90%". Back to the end notes, where the NY Times article she references, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html, makes totally different claims - the 138 and 20 are NUMBERS OF FAMILIES, not contributions, and the $176 million figure was the total they contributed. Not to mention the fact that her sentence construction indicates the contributions were directly to the candidates, which would have obviously been illegal with the limit of $2700 per candidate per person. Basic reading comprehension and numeracy should have been enough for her (and frankly, her editors) to realize she was off in the weeds.
At that point, I just started skimming, but when she put "Smith and Weston" [sic] into the mouth of one of her conservative friends on page 68, I gave up. Maybe her thesis (whatever it is) is actually correct, but one doesn't normally get to correct conclusions with faulty premises. If it infuriates me when the Trumpers get reality wrong, it's not fair to take liberals seriously when they can't handle basic facts either.
Books that ostensibly describe political phenomena are not credible if they can't get basic facts right. If the author can't be trusted with verifiable, obvious statements, why would I trust her analysis (or her recounting of her experiences with her subjects)? By page 13, things had gone very, very wrong for me in the trust department.
First, on page 12, she states that between 1972 and 2014, whites went from "composing 41 percent of all Democrats to 24 percent and from 24 percent of Republicans to 27 percent." I couldn't accept that she really believes that a demographic group that composes roughly 65% of the population is only a quarter of the two main political parties, so I checked her end notes. There, she says white Democrats composed 24% of the electorate as a whole and white Republicans 27%, but that's not even close to being the same thing. Nor, for that matter, do those line up all that well with numbers from Pew and Gallup, which both put white Republicans around 35% of the electorate.
Just one page later, we get this gem: "Just 158 rich families contributed nearly half of the $176 million given to candidates in the first phase of the presidential election of 2016 - $138 million to Republicans and $20 million to Democrats." $158 mil is far more than "nearly half" of $176 mil - it's "nearly 90%". Back to the end notes, where the NY Times article she references, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html, makes totally different claims - the 138 and 20 are NUMBERS OF FAMILIES, not contributions, and the $176 million figure was the total they contributed. Not to mention the fact that her sentence construction indicates the contributions were directly to the candidates, which would have obviously been illegal with the limit of $2700 per candidate per person. Basic reading comprehension and numeracy should have been enough for her (and frankly, her editors) to realize she was off in the weeds.
At that point, I just started skimming, but when she put "Smith and Weston" [sic] into the mouth of one of her conservative friends on page 68, I gave up. Maybe her thesis (whatever it is) is actually correct, but one doesn't normally get to correct conclusions with faulty premises. If it infuriates me when the Trumpers get reality wrong, it's not fair to take liberals seriously when they can't handle basic facts either.
Phew! I'm thrilled to be finished with this one. Not that it's not good. It's well-done, readable non-fiction that's story based. But I felt uncomfortable the entire time I was reading.
The author is a sociologist from Berkeley, CA -- she's a blue state liberal who wanted to try to understand the thinking of people in red states, many of whom support Donald Trump. And I think Hochschild does a good job of humanizing this group of the American populous whose collective voice seems to be on the ascendant. These are loving mates and devoted parents. They go to church and work hard. They're friendly and supportive of neighbors.
As a blue state person myself, what made me so uncomfortable was NOT that the interviewees Hochschild profiles in the book can be dismissed as uneducated or stupid. They can't. It's that their thinking is so WILDLY different from my own, in so many areas. And those differences are so profound that I found myself getting increasingly demoralized about the prospect of these two sides ever reaching a meeting point.
Hochschild shows how the individuals profiled feel left out of the American dream. And it is true they HAVE lost a lot of ground during the last couple of generations. Particularly those who are high-school educated, white and male. Many traditional, decent-paying jobs have moved overseas. Technology has revolutionized the workplace so that others jobs are now automated. Income is stagnant. And instead of sitting at the top of a world built on white privilege, this is a group that must now compete for employment against women and minorities. (Not so 50 years ago.)
They are also tired of being told to be politically correct and they are just plain angry at those they see passing them on the ladder of success. I do now understand how these people are drawn to what I see as Trump's anger, vitriol, racism, and promises to "make America great again." (This actually seems to mean return America to the way life was in the 1950s -- few women in the workplace, little competition from minorities, and plenty of jobs for unskilled or marginally skilled workers).
All the interviewees are from Louisiana, home of the so-called "cancer corridor", reflecting the large number of cancers reported in certain areas of the state. Also where many large chemical companies (Dow, Monsanto) and oil and gas companies run huge facilities. But instead of holding companies responsible for associated pollution (and its potential health threats), these folks blame a bloated government with too many regulations. And they don't understand why government should be helping out those with no health insurance (Obamacare) or no income (welfare) or immigrants seeking asylum. Not when too many "regular" Americans are struggling. They believe THESE are the folks whose welfare should be prioritized. Which, honestly, strikes me as a fair argument. Hochschild points out the great paradox. While believing in smaller government and NOT believing in government hand-outs -- about 50% of Louisiana's yearly budget comes from federal funds.
But it's not just anti-government sentiment that left me discouraged. Or faith in American corporations. Or even feeling that women and minorities should remain disadvantaged. It's a culture that doesn't value advanced education. That accepts pollution as an acceptable by-product of industries that provide jobs and manufacture the consumables we all demand. And then there's that widespread belief that the United States should essentially be a Christian country, guided by the teachings of the Bible (i.e. no abortion, no Muslims, women's primary role is to support their men, no belief in global warming except perhaps as a portent of The Coming Rapture).
No need to go on, right? Will this book help humanize Trump supporters? Yes. Will it help you understand why they feel as they do? Yes. Will you empathize with their struggles? Definitely. But will it encourage you about the future of the country? I'm not so sure. Instead, like me, I'm afraid it will leave YOU feeling like a stranger in YOUR own land.
The author is a sociologist from Berkeley, CA -- she's a blue state liberal who wanted to try to understand the thinking of people in red states, many of whom support Donald Trump. And I think Hochschild does a good job of humanizing this group of the American populous whose collective voice seems to be on the ascendant. These are loving mates and devoted parents. They go to church and work hard. They're friendly and supportive of neighbors.
As a blue state person myself, what made me so uncomfortable was NOT that the interviewees Hochschild profiles in the book can be dismissed as uneducated or stupid. They can't. It's that their thinking is so WILDLY different from my own, in so many areas. And those differences are so profound that I found myself getting increasingly demoralized about the prospect of these two sides ever reaching a meeting point.
Hochschild shows how the individuals profiled feel left out of the American dream. And it is true they HAVE lost a lot of ground during the last couple of generations. Particularly those who are high-school educated, white and male. Many traditional, decent-paying jobs have moved overseas. Technology has revolutionized the workplace so that others jobs are now automated. Income is stagnant. And instead of sitting at the top of a world built on white privilege, this is a group that must now compete for employment against women and minorities. (Not so 50 years ago.)
They are also tired of being told to be politically correct and they are just plain angry at those they see passing them on the ladder of success. I do now understand how these people are drawn to what I see as Trump's anger, vitriol, racism, and promises to "make America great again." (This actually seems to mean return America to the way life was in the 1950s -- few women in the workplace, little competition from minorities, and plenty of jobs for unskilled or marginally skilled workers).
All the interviewees are from Louisiana, home of the so-called "cancer corridor", reflecting the large number of cancers reported in certain areas of the state. Also where many large chemical companies (Dow, Monsanto) and oil and gas companies run huge facilities. But instead of holding companies responsible for associated pollution (and its potential health threats), these folks blame a bloated government with too many regulations. And they don't understand why government should be helping out those with no health insurance (Obamacare) or no income (welfare) or immigrants seeking asylum. Not when too many "regular" Americans are struggling. They believe THESE are the folks whose welfare should be prioritized. Which, honestly, strikes me as a fair argument. Hochschild points out the great paradox. While believing in smaller government and NOT believing in government hand-outs -- about 50% of Louisiana's yearly budget comes from federal funds.
But it's not just anti-government sentiment that left me discouraged. Or faith in American corporations. Or even feeling that women and minorities should remain disadvantaged. It's a culture that doesn't value advanced education. That accepts pollution as an acceptable by-product of industries that provide jobs and manufacture the consumables we all demand. And then there's that widespread belief that the United States should essentially be a Christian country, guided by the teachings of the Bible (i.e. no abortion, no Muslims, women's primary role is to support their men, no belief in global warming except perhaps as a portent of The Coming Rapture).
No need to go on, right? Will this book help humanize Trump supporters? Yes. Will it help you understand why they feel as they do? Yes. Will you empathize with their struggles? Definitely. But will it encourage you about the future of the country? I'm not so sure. Instead, like me, I'm afraid it will leave YOU feeling like a stranger in YOUR own land.
I found the "keyhole issue" that the author used (environmental pollution) the most interesting part of the book. I learned a lot about pollution in Louisiana and about how government is essentially betraying these people in favor of big industry. I understand their mistrust to state officials much better.
As far as the rest of the political debate, I am sorry to say that it did nothing to widen my horizons or change my mind towards the issues and the people. It might be that my "empathy wall" is too high or my desire to climb it too low. My main problem is that, based on the interviews and the rest of the stories, the decision-making process is based on anything but logic. I have trouble understanding making life-or-death decisions (because pollution is literally killing these people) on sentiments of resentment, anger, or religion.
As far as the rest of the political debate, I am sorry to say that it did nothing to widen my horizons or change my mind towards the issues and the people. It might be that my "empathy wall" is too high or my desire to climb it too low. My main problem is that, based on the interviews and the rest of the stories, the decision-making process is based on anything but logic. I have trouble understanding making life-or-death decisions (because pollution is literally killing these people) on sentiments of resentment, anger, or religion.
Great, but I wanted more. I had very high expectations, and those expectations were undoubtedly the reason for any disappointment I felt about the book. I have plenty of life experience that tells me there are plenty of good and well-meaning people in the conservative and tea party movements. There is some strong analysis, and the writing is fantastic for a sociological book. Definitely worth reading, no matter what your political slant is. Probably essential if you're a liberal who finds your world to be too insulated from honest outside voices.
So this was an important -- and at times, difficult -- read. UC Sociology professor travels to Louisiana to try to understand why Tea Party fans hate the EPA when they suffer harsh environmental degradation because of loosely (or unregulated) companies in their backyard. The part that was hard is that many say why they are supporting DT before he became our 45th president. The book goes a long way to helping to understand how we can reach across the partisan divide, by explaining the feeling that many have of waiting in line for the American Dream, and watching the "other" cut in front of them.
Here's the part I want to remember:
"that appeal [of DT's racial intolerance, etc.] obscures another--to the right wing's good angels-- their patience in waiting in line in scary economic times, their capacity for loyalty, sacrifice, and endurance--qualities of the deep story self."
AND
"in the liberal deep story, an alarming event occurs: marauders invade the public square, recklessly dismantle it, and selfishly steal away bricks and concrete chunks from the public buildings at its center. Seeing insult added to injury those guarding the public square watch helplessly as those who've dismantled it construct private McMansions with the same bricks and pieces of concrete, privatizing the public realm."
Here's the part I want to remember:
"that appeal [of DT's racial intolerance, etc.] obscures another--to the right wing's good angels-- their patience in waiting in line in scary economic times, their capacity for loyalty, sacrifice, and endurance--qualities of the deep story self."
AND
"in the liberal deep story, an alarming event occurs: marauders invade the public square, recklessly dismantle it, and selfishly steal away bricks and concrete chunks from the public buildings at its center. Seeing insult added to injury those guarding the public square watch helplessly as those who've dismantled it construct private McMansions with the same bricks and pieces of concrete, privatizing the public realm."
A very empathetic view of the two Americas that seem to exist after the 2016 US Presidential Election. Her metaphor of American’s waiting in line to get to the American dream is the best that I’ve heard for the anxiety of the white middle class and lower middle class voters. I love the empathy wall concept that she uses throughout the book.
Definitely worth reading and much better than the more popular Hillbilly Elegy.
Definitely worth reading and much better than the more popular Hillbilly Elegy.
I wish I could say this book made me sympathic to the other side of the fence but it really didn't. Not because of the way the author wrote the book but just because of my own biases.
I will say, it was informative and I feel like I understand how we got to where we are. After the election, I had an intense feeling of "how could this happen?" and this book answered that question for me. It was also interesting seeing how much I disagree with some of the things I used to believe that was presented in this book.
I do think everyone should check out this book, no matter what your political leanings.
I will say, it was informative and I feel like I understand how we got to where we are. After the election, I had an intense feeling of "how could this happen?" and this book answered that question for me. It was also interesting seeing how much I disagree with some of the things I used to believe that was presented in this book.
I do think everyone should check out this book, no matter what your political leanings.
It’s easy to fall into a trap of only subscribing to content that already matches your belief system. This book does an great job of removing you from the bubble and experiencing life through somebody else’s shoes. It also is a good reminder that there is a way to bridge the gap and collectively move forward.