Scan barcode
A review by sdbecque
Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse by Timothy P. Carney
2.0
So I put this on hold at the library without knowing much more about it than the title. And as someone interested in place and social captial I was interested. So I open up the audiobook, and then like 20 minutes in, I'm like:
And I decide to read the full book description. Whoops. Didn't realize he was a conservative writer. I decided to sally forth and listen to the rest of it. Honestly, that gif of Belle sums up my reaction to the whole book pretty well.
I guess I don't even really know where to start. I agree that there is a decline in civil society, and I also think it has something to do with community, and it certainly improves your feeling of connectedness if you are participating in that civil society. But I think it's more complicated than Carney would have you believe. Let me tell you what Carney thinks will fix this whole problem: attend church. That's it. That's the whole thing.
He can't even conceive of the question--what then might one do if they don't believe in God?--so there's no room for that here. (I think his answer would be: just go to church anyway). Importantly, the idea that religious people should be asked in certain settings to go without their religious beliefs, say in their job or consumer settings, is an anathema to him, the reverse, that people just hang out at churches without religious beliefs is apparently just fine and not imposing on anyone's beliefs. How does he explain people who are very active in their communities but do not attend church? (Spoiler alert, he doesn't seem to have met such a person, and is not interested in understanding why they might feel motivated to help others beyond a framework of religiosity).
But more importantly, there's no close examination here of why exactly these people, especially the poor and working class, for whom apparently the church was such a strong institution stopped attending those same churches. He throws in a chapter about sex and marriage decline, to imply that it's just because of a shift in cultural norms around pre-marital sex and possibly divorce that lead to people not going to church as much, but that makes very little sense. If so many people are turning away from religious institutions, if we have seen a decline in religiosity and civil society over the last 60 years, then something other than free love is afoot.
Carney wants to argue that there's something more happening here than the economy. But as he talks about life in these small towns, ruined by the loss of jobs, industry, and hit hard by opioids, where there are fewer and fewer opportunities, I just found myself thinking it's the economy, stupid. He tries to argue it's not just the economy by looking at a boomtown, which would be like arguing the early Deadwood settlement was a sign that civilization could never take hold in a place dominated by men, gambling and sex. Things did change, but it took time.
He also skirts around the fact that churches are very segregated, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. There are churches where I might be welcome as a visitor, but not to stay as a member of the community. These segregated churches often belong to and reinforce segregated communities. Carney wants all social help to be provided locally, by people and churches, ignoring that it allows the churches and the people to decide who is worthy of their time and attention and who is not.
It's like this article which I'm going to keep posting until every person on the planet has read it: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-begging-you-stop-donating-canned-goods-to-food-banks - certain kinds of giving "feel better" (like giving canned goods) but are actually less helpful in the long run than just giving cash. This feels like this whole book but in microcosm. It's not that people shouldn't give their time and effort, those things are valuable. But they have to be balanced against the greater good, we can't only look for impacts on the local level.
And I decide to read the full book description. Whoops. Didn't realize he was a conservative writer. I decided to sally forth and listen to the rest of it. Honestly, that gif of Belle sums up my reaction to the whole book pretty well.
I guess I don't even really know where to start. I agree that there is a decline in civil society, and I also think it has something to do with community, and it certainly improves your feeling of connectedness if you are participating in that civil society. But I think it's more complicated than Carney would have you believe. Let me tell you what Carney thinks will fix this whole problem: attend church. That's it. That's the whole thing.
He can't even conceive of the question--what then might one do if they don't believe in God?--so there's no room for that here. (I think his answer would be: just go to church anyway). Importantly, the idea that religious people should be asked in certain settings to go without their religious beliefs, say in their job or consumer settings, is an anathema to him, the reverse, that people just hang out at churches without religious beliefs is apparently just fine and not imposing on anyone's beliefs. How does he explain people who are very active in their communities but do not attend church? (Spoiler alert, he doesn't seem to have met such a person, and is not interested in understanding why they might feel motivated to help others beyond a framework of religiosity).
But more importantly, there's no close examination here of why exactly these people, especially the poor and working class, for whom apparently the church was such a strong institution stopped attending those same churches. He throws in a chapter about sex and marriage decline, to imply that it's just because of a shift in cultural norms around pre-marital sex and possibly divorce that lead to people not going to church as much, but that makes very little sense. If so many people are turning away from religious institutions, if we have seen a decline in religiosity and civil society over the last 60 years, then something other than free love is afoot.
Carney wants to argue that there's something more happening here than the economy. But as he talks about life in these small towns, ruined by the loss of jobs, industry, and hit hard by opioids, where there are fewer and fewer opportunities, I just found myself thinking it's the economy, stupid. He tries to argue it's not just the economy by looking at a boomtown, which would be like arguing the early Deadwood settlement was a sign that civilization could never take hold in a place dominated by men, gambling and sex. Things did change, but it took time.
He also skirts around the fact that churches are very segregated, sometimes by choice, and sometimes not. There are churches where I might be welcome as a visitor, but not to stay as a member of the community. These segregated churches often belong to and reinforce segregated communities. Carney wants all social help to be provided locally, by people and churches, ignoring that it allows the churches and the people to decide who is worthy of their time and attention and who is not.
It's like this article which I'm going to keep posting until every person on the planet has read it: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/im-begging-you-stop-donating-canned-goods-to-food-banks - certain kinds of giving "feel better" (like giving canned goods) but are actually less helpful in the long run than just giving cash. This feels like this whole book but in microcosm. It's not that people shouldn't give their time and effort, those things are valuable. But they have to be balanced against the greater good, we can't only look for impacts on the local level.