Scan barcode
Reviews
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
parkergarlough's review
slow-paced
2.75
to use the author's phrasing, i did not cross the empathy wall while reading this book. it kept quoting conservatives saying blatantly selfish things and then insisting those people were kind.
dreamgalaxies's review
3.0
Hmm.
I thought this was an enlightening read but I don't think it stands up to the hype. My favorite part was the 'deep story' portion, trying to get into the emotional reality working class conservatives see themselves in today. I also appreciated some of the discussion of Trump as a match that really set off a powder keg of flaring racial and class dynamics in our society.
I don't think, though, that this was a particularly groundbreaking book in terms of true connection between liberals and conservatives. Sure, maybe left-leaners will be able to understand more of why conservatives think they do if they read this--but they'll still come to the conclusion that these people vote and believe the way they do out of ignorance. To some extent, I guess it's an unavoidable conclusion--especially on the environmental front. I just couldn't get over the 'empathy wall,' as Hochschild refers to it and understand why these people think the way they do based on the life experiences they have. I guess that says a lot about the problem itself.
I also feel like there's a lot missing on race in this book, and a good bit about the 'establishment' feel in politics these days. Part of the reason we're seeing such mobility from the left to the right is that there is a right-wing answer to the feeling that we've gotten screwed by the establishment. The Left is still very much only The Establishment Left. The Democrats are not appealing to lower class folks at all. They deserve some blame in this game for that, and Hochschild doesn't get into that at all. As a Leftist who would not consider myself a Democrat, I found myself frustrated that Hochschild talked so much about class without digging into that.
I thought this was an enlightening read but I don't think it stands up to the hype. My favorite part was the 'deep story' portion, trying to get into the emotional reality working class conservatives see themselves in today. I also appreciated some of the discussion of Trump as a match that really set off a powder keg of flaring racial and class dynamics in our society.
I don't think, though, that this was a particularly groundbreaking book in terms of true connection between liberals and conservatives. Sure, maybe left-leaners will be able to understand more of why conservatives think they do if they read this--but they'll still come to the conclusion that these people vote and believe the way they do out of ignorance. To some extent, I guess it's an unavoidable conclusion--especially on the environmental front. I just couldn't get over the 'empathy wall,' as Hochschild refers to it and understand why these people think the way they do based on the life experiences they have. I guess that says a lot about the problem itself.
I also feel like there's a lot missing on race in this book, and a good bit about the 'establishment' feel in politics these days. Part of the reason we're seeing such mobility from the left to the right is that there is a right-wing answer to the feeling that we've gotten screwed by the establishment. The Left is still very much only The Establishment Left. The Democrats are not appealing to lower class folks at all. They deserve some blame in this game for that, and Hochschild doesn't get into that at all. As a Leftist who would not consider myself a Democrat, I found myself frustrated that Hochschild talked so much about class without digging into that.
terroreesa's review
4.0
this book was immensely frustrating and I yelled at the people in it several times!!
sjgrodsky's review
5.0
Arlie Russell Hochschild has done a massive amount of research. And I can only admire her open-mindedness and determination to climb what she evocatively terms "the empathy wall."
She's also brilliantly synthesized the "deep story": the way that her subjects' view recent social history and see their own lives as having been affected (most often negatively) by those trends.
So Arlie moved my needle. I saw these tea partiers as people and could admire their warmth, and hospitality, and neighborliness. It helps that I'd experienced some of that solid neighborliness myself. I lived down the hall from an ex-Marine for a few years. Bud may have been a tea partier (we never discussed politics) but I didn't care. He was very, very helpful to me on a few desperate occasions. Bud was a good guy.
And I agree with Arlie's tea party friends. There's a lot to be said for a culture that takes care of its own.
But Arlie doesn't, in the end, resolve the Great Paradox she articulates early: why do her subjects tolerate the destruction caused by the oil, gas, and chemical industries? She offers a few theses, describes the mental gymnastics her subjects engage in.
But here's a new thesis: her subjects know just what they've lost, but they are too discouraged to fight against their true enemies. So they express their sense of loss by blaming the cultural changes of the past 50 years. Easier to malign faraway "liberals" who would regulate firearms than to confront the signature on your paycheck.
She's also brilliantly synthesized the "deep story": the way that her subjects' view recent social history and see their own lives as having been affected (most often negatively) by those trends.
So Arlie moved my needle. I saw these tea partiers as people and could admire their warmth, and hospitality, and neighborliness. It helps that I'd experienced some of that solid neighborliness myself. I lived down the hall from an ex-Marine for a few years. Bud may have been a tea partier (we never discussed politics) but I didn't care. He was very, very helpful to me on a few desperate occasions. Bud was a good guy.
And I agree with Arlie's tea party friends. There's a lot to be said for a culture that takes care of its own.
But Arlie doesn't, in the end, resolve the Great Paradox she articulates early: why do her subjects tolerate the destruction caused by the oil, gas, and chemical industries? She offers a few theses, describes the mental gymnastics her subjects engage in.
But here's a new thesis: her subjects know just what they've lost, but they are too discouraged to fight against their true enemies. So they express their sense of loss by blaming the cultural changes of the past 50 years. Easier to malign faraway "liberals" who would regulate firearms than to confront the signature on your paycheck.
marysasala's review
4.0
This book is written by a liberal, sociology professor from UC Berkeley and she is studying the Tea Party in rural Louisiana.
There is much I as a conservative disagreed with this book. Mainly that the author couldn't get out of her own biases. She routinely, sublimely calls then racists and sexists. But this is a good read for those on the Left to have a friendly perspective of the Right. And even a good look at the Right and how the Left views them.
I did not like how the author stuck herself so completely in the telling. It made her an unreliable narrator to someone who disagrees with her. These issues come up in abortion when she at no point attempts to see the other side. It also comes off one sided as she uses the book to prove her point.
There is much I as a conservative disagreed with this book. Mainly that the author couldn't get out of her own biases. She routinely, sublimely calls then racists and sexists. But this is a good read for those on the Left to have a friendly perspective of the Right. And even a good look at the Right and how the Left views them.
I did not like how the author stuck herself so completely in the telling. It made her an unreliable narrator to someone who disagrees with her. These issues come up in abortion when she at no point attempts to see the other side. It also comes off one sided as she uses the book to prove her point.
mbrandmaier's review
5.0
The author spent much time talking with and interviewing people on the Tea Party end of the political spectrum to see what led them to feel this way. What I recall from the book: Tea Partiers feel that they are "in line" waiting to receive their piece of the American Dream, and that other people are always being allowed to cut them in line due to affirmative action, tax credits, etc.
They also tended to vote for people who were "Christians like themselves" (though most of these politicians are in no way, shape, or form actual practicing Christians, but anyways, back to the review.) I myself have known people who only voted for candidates because of their stance on abortion because they feel that all the other issues are irrelevant. The common viewpoint is that it is the responsibility of individual churches, not of the government, to assist the poor.
I also remember one section of the book describing how the local division of the EPA was fining people for small personal violations, but turning a blind eye to local factories' blatant violations, which contributed to many believing that the government is bloated and corrupted and needs to be reduced as much as possible. For example, one of the subjects of the book was fined for something like fishing without a license or similar, while a 2003 report from the inspector general of the EPA mentioned that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality was "unaware" whether local companies were in compliance with safety standards. The agency failed to inspect plants, or even if it found violations, to levy penalties.
Another example of incompetence/corruption by the government: The LA state government knew of a weak cavern wall that was adjacent to the Bayou Corne and issued a permit to drill anyways, prior to the Bayou Corne Sinkhole Disaster of August 2012.
Though this book is amazing (I love the fact-checking on common right wing perceptions in Appendix C, complete with cited sources) I do not feel very optimistic about the bottom 99% putting aside their differences and working together to stop the greedy 1% CEO types from hogging 90% of the world's resources for themselves.
They also tended to vote for people who were "Christians like themselves" (though most of these politicians are in no way, shape, or form actual practicing Christians, but anyways, back to the review.) I myself have known people who only voted for candidates because of their stance on abortion because they feel that all the other issues are irrelevant. The common viewpoint is that it is the responsibility of individual churches, not of the government, to assist the poor.
I also remember one section of the book describing how the local division of the EPA was fining people for small personal violations, but turning a blind eye to local factories' blatant violations, which contributed to many believing that the government is bloated and corrupted and needs to be reduced as much as possible. For example, one of the subjects of the book was fined for something like fishing without a license or similar, while a 2003 report from the inspector general of the EPA mentioned that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality was "unaware" whether local companies were in compliance with safety standards. The agency failed to inspect plants, or even if it found violations, to levy penalties.
Another example of incompetence/corruption by the government: The LA state government knew of a weak cavern wall that was adjacent to the Bayou Corne and issued a permit to drill anyways, prior to the Bayou Corne Sinkhole Disaster of August 2012.
Though this book is amazing (I love the fact-checking on common right wing perceptions in Appendix C, complete with cited sources) I do not feel very optimistic about the bottom 99% putting aside their differences and working together to stop the greedy 1% CEO types from hogging 90% of the world's resources for themselves.