Reviews
Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russell Hochschild
danacoledares's review against another edition
2.0
I do not understand the mindset behind conservative talking points any better now than I did before reading this book. Deregulating business and lack of oversight are terrible ideas. Financial support and infrastructure that benefits individuals are "handouts" that lead to dependency and laziness, but handouts to corporations are perfectly fine for some reason.
There was a lot of environmental stuff in here, which is actually not a pet issue of mine. But I just don't think it should be a big deal to demand businesses to behave in ways that benefit everyone, not just themselves. Historically, if we don't MAKE them behave in those ways, THEY DON'T.
There was a lot of environmental stuff in here, which is actually not a pet issue of mine. But I just don't think it should be a big deal to demand businesses to behave in ways that benefit everyone, not just themselves. Historically, if we don't MAKE them behave in those ways, THEY DON'T.
sby's review against another edition
5.0
This book helped me understand Trump supporters better than anything else I've read. Any book that can do so deserves five stars!
rebeccazh's review against another edition
4.0
Kinda wished the author had given a summary of each chapter so I could skip to the relevant ones.
- really appreciated the author's attempt to include emotions in politics
- am in admiration of the author's care in painting very detailed and sympathetic portraits of her interviewees
- the author's use of empathy - the deep story and the empathy wall - reminded me of brene brown's work and it's really inspirational
- this book explained a lot, but i skimmed most of the chapters before chapter 9: the deep story coz they were sort of repetitive and were basically examples illustrating the thesis in chapter 9. imo, the thesis should have come first, then the examples.
the tldr: 1) the clash between the uneducated poor conservative white and the liberal middle-class educated white is a class struggle that is disguised as a moral/political conflict. 2) many of trump's supporters vote for him because of a variety of factors - (toxic) white masculinity, protestant work ethic, christian moral purity and a sense of alienation because of a rapidly technologized/automated country.
it strikes me that trump supporters and the educated liberals are like the blind men and the elephant parable.
there were some really moving quotes in here. anyway, finally i have an answer to the great paradox and i understand the factors influencing this group of people and their emotional motivations.
- really appreciated the author's attempt to include emotions in politics
- am in admiration of the author's care in painting very detailed and sympathetic portraits of her interviewees
- the author's use of empathy - the deep story and the empathy wall - reminded me of brene brown's work and it's really inspirational
- this book explained a lot, but i skimmed most of the chapters before chapter 9: the deep story coz they were sort of repetitive and were basically examples illustrating the thesis in chapter 9. imo, the thesis should have come first, then the examples.
the tldr: 1) the clash between the uneducated poor conservative white and the liberal middle-class educated white is a class struggle that is disguised as a moral/political conflict. 2) many of trump's supporters vote for him because of a variety of factors - (toxic) white masculinity, protestant work ethic, christian moral purity and a sense of alienation because of a rapidly technologized/automated country.
it strikes me that trump supporters and the educated liberals are like the blind men and the elephant parable.
there were some really moving quotes in here. anyway, finally i have an answer to the great paradox and i understand the factors influencing this group of people and their emotional motivations.
marisacarpico's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
3.0
A struggle to finish, frankly. Many reasons why including the way certain phrases (was going to become homicidal if I had to see “empathy wall” one more time) are repeated ad nauseam to the extensive bites section.
Think I could have stood that, though, if this were structured better. The first half should have been the second half, giving us the details of these lives after we already understood what they represent in the book’s overall point. Maybe that only seems possible because the Cowboy and Rebel type chapters were set up first, but the book was a bit of a repetitive slog until the Deep Story concept is fully explained.
Also, maybe this is a journalistic motive, but I was extremely frustrated by the way easily refutable statements are left unchecked in the moment—typically with he lame excuse of the “empathy wall”. Many of these points are eventually made in their of the THREE appendices, but it’s rhetorically bizarre and frankly, irresponsible to leave them unaddressed in the moment.
I do perhaps wonder if some of this frustration is couched in the fact this research wrapped up mid-2016 and much has happened since then in the ideological battle this book essentially addresses. Regardless, a book I’ve been excited to read for years that I found a total chore to endure.
Think I could have stood that, though, if this were structured better. The first half should have been the second half, giving us the details of these lives after we already understood what they represent in the book’s overall point. Maybe that only seems possible because the Cowboy and Rebel type chapters were set up first, but the book was a bit of a repetitive slog until the Deep Story concept is fully explained.
Also, maybe this is a journalistic motive, but I was extremely frustrated by the way easily refutable statements are left unchecked in the moment—typically with he lame excuse of the “empathy wall”. Many of these points are eventually made in their of the THREE appendices, but it’s rhetorically bizarre and frankly, irresponsible to leave them unaddressed in the moment.
I do perhaps wonder if some of this frustration is couched in the fact this research wrapped up mid-2016 and much has happened since then in the ideological battle this book essentially addresses. Regardless, a book I’ve been excited to read for years that I found a total chore to endure.
leannaaker's review against another edition
5.0
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. The author is a liberal woman from Berkeley who decides she will immerse herself in Louisiana culture, particularly that of the Tea Party....not to critique it, but to truly understand it. I was impressed both with her ability to be honest about her own conflicted feelings as she forms relationships with people, and also with her ability to paint a real picture that makes you empathize with "the other side." I will be honest... my journey reading the book probably paralleled her journey making it.... For probably 2/3 of the book, I would read, understand, and internally say "yes, but!!!!!" When I got to page 221, when she relays the story of being at a Trump rally, I had a sinking feeling. She had painted such a story at that point that I totally understood how "this" could have happened. I really did get it.
At the end of the book, she reflects on "what she would say" to her liberal friends and her new friends on the right. What she would say does leave you with some hope that there can be a common ground.
I also appreciate the fact checking she included in the appendices...and that she kept it separate from the book. We don't win others over by facts, but rather by "emotional self-interest" as she calls it, and she really tried to put into play what she discovered through her exploration by keeping the fact-checking separate from the story.
At the end of the book, she reflects on "what she would say" to her liberal friends and her new friends on the right. What she would say does leave you with some hope that there can be a common ground.
I also appreciate the fact checking she included in the appendices...and that she kept it separate from the book. We don't win others over by facts, but rather by "emotional self-interest" as she calls it, and she really tried to put into play what she discovered through her exploration by keeping the fact-checking separate from the story.
dkai's review against another edition
5.0
Sometimes it can come across a little condescending, as well as hitting you over the head with certain key phrases (empathy wall, deep story, etc). But in general, I think it's a valuable read for most people. For people leaning left, it's valuable to see that seeming contradictions in views of those leaning right are not exactly contradictions, but differing focus (which was actually best described in the new afterword). For those leaning right, the perspective the author offers in how they view the attitudes of those they interview is a look directly into the mind of a classic left-leaning American. If anything, it shows how easy it can be to find common ground, but how hard it is to act on that without the ground falling apart (sometimes literally).
mariahhanley's review against another edition
3.0
I wanted to like this book, but I didn’t. I didn’t connect with any of the featured characters, although I felt as if there could have been opportunities to do so. To me, Hochschild seemed as if she was trying to prove them wrong while also making others try to see their point of view.
lakecake's review against another edition
3.0
This was a tough read, mostly because I think the idea that there are folks out there willing to be so ignorant to the truth of matters in order to feel like they’ve “won.” Though I know they’re only people, and the human mind is wired to enjoy quick rewards and dopamine rushes, there is also a lot out there that describes that phenomena and to then change your habits once you recognize it. And I know the author’s plan was to make us empathize with people who are different from us by finding that common ground but…honestly, this further solidified for me the idea that the differences when writ large are honestly not surmountable. One on one I think it’s possible, but I also truly believe that folks who were willing to put aside common decency to vote for Donald Trump on the premise that he would help them “win” aren’t worth trying to find common ground with.