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
Took me a while to read it, since I had trouble getting really "in the book". As a social scientist, I expected the book to go into deeper layers, which it does more towards the end. This means too many times it stays at a descriptive level and misses some chances. This seems to be intentional, aiming at a broader readership. The type of endnotes chosen (without any signs on the actual pages, a nightmare for any scholar).
But, that doesn't take away the fact that the book does an amazing job in giving a better understanding on far-right supporters. For that reason, it is essential.
But, that doesn't take away the fact that the book does an amazing job in giving a better understanding on far-right supporters. For that reason, it is essential.
I recommend this for anyone, but especially for left-leaning folks who are truly seeking an answer to the question "how in the hell did Trump get elected!" It's been asked it jest by people like me to help convey our frustration, but this book seeks to honestly answer the question. To understand, we need to understand the social, environmental, financial, and regional context that gave rise to the Tea Party movement.
The book is not seeking to polarize; it seeks to help find common ground. Only by climbing over the author's so-called "empathy wall" can we ever hope to understand each other and be able to work together.
(plus I love approaching things from a sociological perspective.)
The book is not seeking to polarize; it seeks to help find common ground. Only by climbing over the author's so-called "empathy wall" can we ever hope to understand each other and be able to work together.
(plus I love approaching things from a sociological perspective.)
This was a really interesting book to read as we're waiting for the 2020 Presidential Election results. Arlie Russell Hochschild is a Berkeley sociology professor - a political progressive - with an important objective. Over the course of 5 years she spent a great deal of time interviewing and observing Louisiana Tea Party members, trying to "look over the empathy wall" and truly understand their political feelings. She chose Louisiana because it's a "red" bastion, despite being one of the poorest, most unhealthy, and most polluted states. Intellectually, it would seem that liberal government with its social programs and environmental protections would be beneficial for Louisianans, yet most residents are avidly anti-big government and pro-oil. Hochschild's mission was to try to understand this contradiction, what she calls the "Great Paradox."
She first looks for her answers in the economy and at the state governmental level, but soon decides "more jobs" in the oil industry is not a sufficient reason for so many of Louisiana's blue collar workers to vote Republican. She finally settles on the emotional appeal of the traditional party. She speaks of "the profound importance of emotional self-interest - a giddy release from the feeling of being a stranger in one's own land." Southern white Christians, particularly men, have felt left behind by the changing culture of America, and condemned for their more traditional views of morality. They feel that minorities are "cutting in line" in front of them as they queue for the "American Dream" that has not come for them as wages stagnate and and more and more is given to people who aren't willing to work as hard as they do. They feel judged and labeled by liberals as selfish, stupid, rednecks. Yet they find satisfaction and honor in their strong communities, charitable churches, and the courage of their own convictions.
These people were so ready for Trump to come along. Hochschild writes:
What I take away from Strangers in their Own Land is that the people of Louisiana, and by extension all those who support the Tea Party and Donald Trump, don't vote based on economic self-interest. They support the party that gives them dignity, that says they are good, that they are noble to protect America from the changes that are so frightening and threatening to their way of life. They reject the party that tells them they are culturally backward, intellectually wrong, and must change. It makes sense, emotionally.
I liked that Hochschild approached her questions not just with curiosity, but compassion. She developed real friendships with her interview subjects, and though she found holes in their arguments, she did not debase them or criticize their thinking. She wasn't out to change views, but to truly see over that "empathy wall." I feel like reading this book has helped me do the same. 4 stars.
She first looks for her answers in the economy and at the state governmental level, but soon decides "more jobs" in the oil industry is not a sufficient reason for so many of Louisiana's blue collar workers to vote Republican. She finally settles on the emotional appeal of the traditional party. She speaks of "the profound importance of emotional self-interest - a giddy release from the feeling of being a stranger in one's own land." Southern white Christians, particularly men, have felt left behind by the changing culture of America, and condemned for their more traditional views of morality. They feel that minorities are "cutting in line" in front of them as they queue for the "American Dream" that has not come for them as wages stagnate and and more and more is given to people who aren't willing to work as hard as they do. They feel judged and labeled by liberals as selfish, stupid, rednecks. Yet they find satisfaction and honor in their strong communities, charitable churches, and the courage of their own convictions.
These people were so ready for Trump to come along. Hochschild writes:
The real function of the excited gathering around Donald Trump is to unify all the white, evangelical enthusiasts who fear that those "cutting ahead in line" are about to become a terrible, strange, new America. The source of the awe and excitement isn't simply Trump himself; it is the unity of the great crowd of strangers gathered around him. If the rally itself could speak, it would say, "We are a majority!" Added to that is a potent promise--to be lifted up from bitterness, despair, depression. The "movement," as Trump has increasingly called his campaign, acts as a great antidepressant. Like other leaders promising rescue, Trump evokes a moral consciousness. But what he gives participants, emotionally speaking, is an ecstatic high.
What I take away from Strangers in their Own Land is that the people of Louisiana, and by extension all those who support the Tea Party and Donald Trump, don't vote based on economic self-interest. They support the party that gives them dignity, that says they are good, that they are noble to protect America from the changes that are so frightening and threatening to their way of life. They reject the party that tells them they are culturally backward, intellectually wrong, and must change. It makes sense, emotionally.
I liked that Hochschild approached her questions not just with curiosity, but compassion. She developed real friendships with her interview subjects, and though she found holes in their arguments, she did not debase them or criticize their thinking. She wasn't out to change views, but to truly see over that "empathy wall." I feel like reading this book has helped me do the same. 4 stars.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Really really good deep dive on resentment based rightwing politics in the rural American south, handled very compassionately. Very insightful and I highly recommend
The author refers to her work in understanding the motivations of Tea Party members as "scaling the empathy wall." She often has trouble doing so, coming from a very liberal background, but her effort is well worth it. It's easy to write off political differences as the opposite side being stupid or irrational, but here the author makes a commendable effort in making a mindset understandable.
There were parts I skimmed, but overall it read fast and smooth. There's a lot to be gleaned and her narrations from the perspective of those she worked with were very revelatory for me. No matter what happens on Tuesday, this is a divide that isn't going away. This book is a helpful means of crossing from disgust to understanding, if not respect.
There were parts I skimmed, but overall it read fast and smooth. There's a lot to be gleaned and her narrations from the perspective of those she worked with were very revelatory for me. No matter what happens on Tuesday, this is a divide that isn't going away. This book is a helpful means of crossing from disgust to understanding, if not respect.
As a study in empathy, this is fine. Hochschild's decision to limit her work to a small geographic area and a single political issue is a good way to bring focus to what would otherwise be an extremely broad topic. As topics go, the environment is an intelligent choice: it's a partisan issue where the extremes are far apart from each other, and environmental damage is a risk to everyone, even though it has very unequal effects. There are a few moments when Hochschild sounds unnecessarily surprised about the kindness she is shown and that she came to be friends with at least some of the people she met and observed, which seems like a strange reaction for an experienced sociologist. Of all the bigotries attributed to Southerners (fairly and not), spitting on elderly white ladies who are willing to attend church isn't one of them...even if the elderly white lady in question is a hippie from California. But those off-key moments aside, this book does have the potential to mitigate prejudice towards people who are some combination of Southern, rural, poor, and evangelical, it's a valuable - and terrifying - account of environmental destruction, and it's also simply an interesting ethnography.
But as a book published in mid-2016 and then in November added to a thousand booklists claiming to explain the U.S. presidential results, as a text to help a certain set of stunned, confused progressives grasping for a path forward, it's painfully inadequate. I don't blame Hochschild for this - the book wasn't written to be that explanatory text. But the people Hochschild writes of are never quite on the same footing as her or as the presumed liberal reader. In the book, the American political divide doesn't look like two groups of flawed people in difficult situations, both groups swayed by powerful emotions and both groups capable of reason. It looks like one set of well-meaning but deluded people and a second set of reasonable people who have facts and truth on their side. This is not to draw a false equivalence between opposing political views, but only to say that all people are driven in large part by their culture and emotions...even those people who support policies that I believe are right, reasonable, and just.
In defining the notion of the "deep story", Hochschild does say that everyone has a deep story, and she does give a few paragraphs to sketching a partial deep story of progressives, but compared to the mountain of references to the "Great Paradox" (a phrase that started to grate on me, as it sounded like some cosmic insanity and kept bringing Thomas Frank's condescending "What's the Matter with Kansas?" title to mind), those paragraphs felt insufficient.
The whole book is a bit short; I have to imagine that over the course of five years, Hochschild recorded quite a lot of observations that didn't make it into the book. I'd be fascinated to hear more about some of the values her subjects hold dear but that I don't share - in particular, an aspirational outlook and valuing work for its own sake rather than for the sake of its results. I'd also love to hear more about the "deep story" of the left and about the "cosmopolitan self" valued by the left that's referenced a few times. That would doubtless take another five years and possibly a different author, given the difficulty of dispassionately observing your own culture, but analyzing the values, emotions, and metaphors that underlie leftist thought could go a long ways towards developing more empathy on the right for the left, more humility for the left, and possibly more common ground.
But as a book published in mid-2016 and then in November added to a thousand booklists claiming to explain the U.S. presidential results, as a text to help a certain set of stunned, confused progressives grasping for a path forward, it's painfully inadequate. I don't blame Hochschild for this - the book wasn't written to be that explanatory text. But the people Hochschild writes of are never quite on the same footing as her or as the presumed liberal reader. In the book, the American political divide doesn't look like two groups of flawed people in difficult situations, both groups swayed by powerful emotions and both groups capable of reason. It looks like one set of well-meaning but deluded people and a second set of reasonable people who have facts and truth on their side. This is not to draw a false equivalence between opposing political views, but only to say that all people are driven in large part by their culture and emotions...even those people who support policies that I believe are right, reasonable, and just.
In defining the notion of the "deep story", Hochschild does say that everyone has a deep story, and she does give a few paragraphs to sketching a partial deep story of progressives, but compared to the mountain of references to the "Great Paradox" (a phrase that started to grate on me, as it sounded like some cosmic insanity and kept bringing Thomas Frank's condescending "What's the Matter with Kansas?" title to mind), those paragraphs felt insufficient.
The whole book is a bit short; I have to imagine that over the course of five years, Hochschild recorded quite a lot of observations that didn't make it into the book. I'd be fascinated to hear more about some of the values her subjects hold dear but that I don't share - in particular, an aspirational outlook and valuing work for its own sake rather than for the sake of its results. I'd also love to hear more about the "deep story" of the left and about the "cosmopolitan self" valued by the left that's referenced a few times. That would doubtless take another five years and possibly a different author, given the difficulty of dispassionately observing your own culture, but analyzing the values, emotions, and metaphors that underlie leftist thought could go a long ways towards developing more empathy on the right for the left, more humility for the left, and possibly more common ground.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
sad
medium-paced
Hochchild creates The Deep Story that forms the center of the novel. She explains the Tea Party, the shift of the working class to the right and why whites don’t like Obama through The Deep Story, which seems to be what sociologists do — gather information about a phenomenon and make stories to explain it. The story is good, but I have a critique or two.
Her story goes wrong when she says that lower-middle class whites don't like Obama because he achieved the American dream before they did. She admits that these same people don't have a problem with black celebrities. Obama is one. Tea Party types don't have a problem with black NFL players making millions, but they have a seizure when one of them doesn't stand for the anthem.
The issue is not about other people getting ahead. It's about being told what to do. Tea party types don't have a problem with Condi or Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas but they were on thier side and not tell them what to do. Tea party males don't want a woman to tell them what to do either, that's why they loathed Hillary. The only acceptable type of person to tell the what to do is a old white male from a higher status than them.
The reason why this is a problem is that Hochschild underlying story paints the tea party as entitled and jealous. Instead of simply resisting authority.
Hochshild tries to draw some parallel on the left with the Occupy movement. The problem with Occupy and Bernie is that they criticize the greed of the private sector. If they read the Big Short or Meredith Whitney's research report or talked to anyone near the street they'd realize that the Jimmy Caynes and Dick Fulds and their lieutenants had no clue about the CDOs and the sub prime. 2008 was cause by incompetence and not greed. Wall Street needs regulation from greed and incompetence.
We do need to come together but it has to be for making an authority we can all live with and not letting everyone get ahead. Ahead never ends - there is always more in the materialistic view of things. All these people she interviews have a house, some have owned multiple homes. They have cars, food, and family. How are they not already living the American dream. What do they think is on the other side of the hill? The American dream shouldn't be about consumerism or materials. It should be achieving a level of freedom and independence. That's what we have to come together over. Her friends and herself miss that.
Also she has a way of writing indirectly and repeating the same facts in the same chapter. Her prose could have been cleaner.
I will give it four stars because she does a great job on her keyhole issue - pollution in Louisiana. There are some other good insights like the church with gym and weight-loss program. She listens patiently to her subjects as her subject repeat some really bad lies the right has told them from the number of babies black women have to the trade off between jobs and the environment.
Her story goes wrong when she says that lower-middle class whites don't like Obama because he achieved the American dream before they did. She admits that these same people don't have a problem with black celebrities. Obama is one. Tea Party types don't have a problem with black NFL players making millions, but they have a seizure when one of them doesn't stand for the anthem.
The issue is not about other people getting ahead. It's about being told what to do. Tea party types don't have a problem with Condi or Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas but they were on thier side and not tell them what to do. Tea party males don't want a woman to tell them what to do either, that's why they loathed Hillary. The only acceptable type of person to tell the what to do is a old white male from a higher status than them.
The reason why this is a problem is that Hochschild underlying story paints the tea party as entitled and jealous. Instead of simply resisting authority.
Hochshild tries to draw some parallel on the left with the Occupy movement. The problem with Occupy and Bernie is that they criticize the greed of the private sector. If they read the Big Short or Meredith Whitney's research report or talked to anyone near the street they'd realize that the Jimmy Caynes and Dick Fulds and their lieutenants had no clue about the CDOs and the sub prime. 2008 was cause by incompetence and not greed. Wall Street needs regulation from greed and incompetence.
We do need to come together but it has to be for making an authority we can all live with and not letting everyone get ahead. Ahead never ends - there is always more in the materialistic view of things. All these people she interviews have a house, some have owned multiple homes. They have cars, food, and family. How are they not already living the American dream. What do they think is on the other side of the hill? The American dream shouldn't be about consumerism or materials. It should be achieving a level of freedom and independence. That's what we have to come together over. Her friends and herself miss that.
Also she has a way of writing indirectly and repeating the same facts in the same chapter. Her prose could have been cleaner.
I will give it four stars because she does a great job on her keyhole issue - pollution in Louisiana. There are some other good insights like the church with gym and weight-loss program. She listens patiently to her subjects as her subject repeat some really bad lies the right has told them from the number of babies black women have to the trade off between jobs and the environment.
If there was one word I would use to describe this book it would be, 'condescending'. Far be it for me to call someone out of touch but every reference to the Author's life just struck me as a parody of Left living (and I say this as someone who is quite liberal living in big Coastal cities my whole life). The book would have been better with less editorializing and moralizing and more allowing the interviewees to really speak for themselves.
I give this book more of a 3.5 star rating. The blurb promises a way for leftist readers to find common ground with conservatives, which it does on a personal level, but I still walked away not understanding the real reasons for one-issue voting or the platform of the religious right. The paradox remains, and I actually feel more concern that the electorate will eventually move toward common-sense voting.