Reviews
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
wells140's review against another edition
5.0
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.
findyourgoldenhour's review against another edition
5.0
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.
librarianmillie's review against another edition
4.0
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.
pamiverson's review against another edition
5.0
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.
callitus's review against another edition
Mam zdecydowanie problem z tą książką.
Autorka, zadeklarowana demokratka, wyrusza w drogę do Luizjany, aby nieco lepiej zrozumieć prawą stronę sceny politycznej oraz przekroczyć coś, co sama nazywa "murem empatii".
Aby nieco bardziej zawęzić ogrom różnic, skupia się na czymś, co dla obu stron sporu raczej powinno być wspólne - środowisko i walka z jego zanieczyszczeniem, które w tym stanie jest ogromne.
Tylko że ta książka jest wyłącznie wykładnią tego, dlaczego osoby, z którymi przebywa i rozmawia, się mylą. Mam wrażenie, że te rozmowy, a jako przedłużenie tego - jej wnioski, są bardzo powierzchowne, bo Hochschild świetnie wykłada w swojej książce statystyki, ale jednocześnie nie konfrontuje z nimi swoich rozmówców. Opisuje swoich nowych znajomych, ich przekonania, a następnie przez kilka stron uzasadnia, co z tymi przekonaniami jest nie tak - nawiasem, chciałabym dodać, że robi to w sposób bardzo dobry, i jak na pracowniczkę naukową przystało, bibliografia tej książki jest bardzo bogata.
Natomiast autorka trochę dyskutuje z nimi na odległość, nie dając odnieść się do tych statystyk, nie próbując kontynuować rozmowy. Tym samym w czytelniku pozostawia takie poczucie absurdalności przekonań republikanów, głosującym przeciw własnym interesom, niespójnych i zamkniętych, utwierdzając wszelkie stereotypy, (nawet pisząc o ich "głębokiej historii", w której utwierdza ich obraz jako oderwanych od świata i wierzących w zabobony) które mamy, a tym samym jeszcze bardziej ten "mur empatii" wznosząc.
Książka zdecydowanie dostarcza pod kątem kolejnych argumentów do dyskusji: "dlaczego USA to najbogatszy kraj trzeciego świata", ale autorka raczej miała ambicje na coś więcej, a tego nie dowozi.
Autorka, zadeklarowana demokratka, wyrusza w drogę do Luizjany, aby nieco lepiej zrozumieć prawą stronę sceny politycznej oraz przekroczyć coś, co sama nazywa "murem empatii".
Aby nieco bardziej zawęzić ogrom różnic, skupia się na czymś, co dla obu stron sporu raczej powinno być wspólne - środowisko i walka z jego zanieczyszczeniem, które w tym stanie jest ogromne.
Tylko że ta książka jest wyłącznie wykładnią tego, dlaczego osoby, z którymi przebywa i rozmawia, się mylą. Mam wrażenie, że te rozmowy, a jako przedłużenie tego - jej wnioski, są bardzo powierzchowne, bo Hochschild świetnie wykłada w swojej książce statystyki, ale jednocześnie nie konfrontuje z nimi swoich rozmówców. Opisuje swoich nowych znajomych, ich przekonania, a następnie przez kilka stron uzasadnia, co z tymi przekonaniami jest nie tak - nawiasem, chciałabym dodać, że robi to w sposób bardzo dobry, i jak na pracowniczkę naukową przystało, bibliografia tej książki jest bardzo bogata.
Natomiast autorka trochę dyskutuje z nimi na odległość, nie dając odnieść się do tych statystyk, nie próbując kontynuować rozmowy. Tym samym w czytelniku pozostawia takie poczucie absurdalności przekonań republikanów, głosującym przeciw własnym interesom, niespójnych i zamkniętych, utwierdzając wszelkie stereotypy, (nawet pisząc o ich "głębokiej historii", w której utwierdza ich obraz jako oderwanych od świata i wierzących w zabobony) które mamy, a tym samym jeszcze bardziej ten "mur empatii" wznosząc.
Książka zdecydowanie dostarcza pod kątem kolejnych argumentów do dyskusji: "dlaczego USA to najbogatszy kraj trzeciego świata", ale autorka raczej miała ambicje na coś więcej, a tego nie dowozi.
ayatamus's review against another edition
5.0
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.
audjmo91's review against another edition
4.0
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.
mkesten's review against another edition
4.0
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!