The book “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right” was written by Sociology Professor Arlie Russell Hochschild of the University of California Berkeley. For the book, Professor Hochschild occasionally traveled to southwestern Louisiana ten times from 2011-2016 to learn about Republican voters and members of the Tea Party. Her book is based off her understandings of the 60 people from the region that she interviewed. To summarize Professor Hochschild, the reason for her traveling to Louisiana was to cross an empathy wall and better understand Republican voters and why they voted the way they do. I think the quote “In 1960, when a survey asked American adults whether it would “disturb” them if their child married a member of the other political party, no more than 5 percent of either party answered “yes.” But in 2010, 33 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Republicans answered “yes.” In fact, partyism, as some call it, now beats race as the source of divisive prejudice.” Best explains her primary reasoning for writing this book (6). Professor Hochschild wanted to examine the other side of the political spectrum from a sociologist’s point of view to figure out what was going on. She understood her party, but she was struggling to understand the other party. By “seeing over the empathy wall,” she hoped to bridge some of that divide.
The book is broken into four distinct parts and three appendixes. The first part focuses on what Professor Hochschild calls the “Great Paradox.” Louisiana as a state ranks 48th in eighth-grade reading, 49th in math, and ranked last in overall health. Yet, the people of the state constantly want smaller government. The second part focuses on the social area of the people and investigates how businesses, state government, the media, and church affects their lives. Professor Hochschild attempts to really understand what influenced their beliefs. Part three is about the “deep story” of the people of Louisiana. She divides the people into four different categories – team player, worshipper, cowboy, and the rebel – and tries to delve into what drives the different types of individuals she encounters. She wanted to understand how each of these different categories viewed the world and different elements like race, gender, discrimination, and pride. Part four compares the 1860s to the 1960s and looks into the future. At the end, Professor Hochschild looked into then presidential candidate Donald Trump and examined why individuals were supporting him. Appendix A describes Professor Hochschild’s research, while B covers the relationship with pollution and politics, and C covers fact-checking.
According to Professor Hochschild, this book is described by sociologists as an “exploratory” or “hypothesis generating” type of research. Her goal was to discover merely what was going on with Republicans. What was their drivers and influences? How did their beliefs developed? How did their beliefs play out in their daily lives? She wasn’t looking to figure out how common or rare different views were or explicitly study the views. In order to do her research, Professor Hochschild created four focus groups (two Republican and two Democrat) and followed around different members of the community – talking to them and observing their actions. The book doesn’t focus on making arguments for one side or another (though she does like to attempt to reason thought processes out and look at some paradoxes she sees), but focuses on exploring the people she interviews and encounters in Louisiana. The tone of the book is definitely one of someone that seeks understanding, sometimes feels pity for the people she encounters, and sometimes in some ways condescending. Condescending in the way that sometimes these people don’t seem rational to her and she really wants to change their mind and lifestyle.
The book could influence social life by allowing people on left-of-center on the political spectrum to see into the lives of some of the people on the right. We often see someone’s views, but we don’t see how they developed those views. Understanding what motivates people and what causes them to act as they do closes some of the gap between groups. In some ways, I think Professor Hochschild actually understood these people and in some ways I think her reasoning or conclusions were off. I also disagree with her methods for gathering evidence for the book. Professor Hochschild uses one specific area of people to almost try and explain an entire voting group. Why did she choose Louisiana? It’s a very poor and poorly educated area. The Republican party has many different groups within it with many different views. She could have easily gone to northern California where residents wish to break away from California and create “The State of Jefferson,” or wheat country, or dairy country. The views between the areas are similar but different. She would have found much of the same religious influence in views but different views on the energy sector. Here in rural Pennsylvania we love the environment and love to hunt and fish (we get days off of school for hunting season) and if an oil company or coal company was putting that at risk, steps would be taken by the community to do something. I also dislike when Professor Hochschild makes a statement about conservative views, but doesn’t actually understand why we have those views. Let me show you a few examples. On page 7, Professor Hochschild tries to explain how the gap between the parties has widened because the right has moved farther right. I disagree with that assessment, but disagree more with her evidence. She references Republicans voting to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and sell non-federal lands. Republicans voted to do so because the IRS was weaponized against Tea Party groups, groups she talked to, and because many Republicans are tired of the federal government constantly claiming more land for itself even when local residents didn’t want them to. She even discussed how taxes on the rich were 91% under President Eisenhower, but fails to mention that due to the number of loop-holes the rich never paid more than 50% in taxes. She also makes observations like “The grass around the whites’ graves had been recently trimmed while that around the black graves had not” (20). Maybe the maintenance people hadn’t gotten there yet or she is just reaffirming a preconceived conception and the grass just looked like there was a difference. Moments like this make the book hard to read. I felt throughout the book that Professor Hochschild just reinforced stereotypes and misconceptions by the area she chose to study and the observations she would routinely make.
The books intended audience is definitely targeted towards people who identify as Democratic or have views left-of-center. If you wish to understand Republican voters better then read this, but I say that with a grain of salt. This book doesn’t do a great job of actually helping people climb over the “empathy wall,” but may actually reinforce their views of Republicans. From many comments that I have read, that seems to be exactly what is happening for many. If you read it, perhaps talk to a Republican or tea party member. Go ahead and ask me a question and I will explain why I believe what I do and what influenced that view. Overall, I feel this book does little to nothing to mend the divide between left and right.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: New, 2016. e-book.
