We will discuss Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land at our meeting on Wednesday, March, 28th at 4:00p.m. in the GAHS library. Please post questions, comments, concerns, criticism, and the like on this blog prior to, during, or after our meeting (before April 11th if you want extra credit). All questions and responses should indicate an active reading of the text and function to move the conversation forward. (Note: surface-level or obvious questions and responses will not count as participation.)
Those of you unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts may participate in the discussion below by posting a discussion question and offering a detailed response, or by responding to two questions already posted. The note above applies here as well, so heed it!
What I enjoyed about “Strangers in Their Own Land” was how I would normally disagree with the majority of the views of those who Hochschild interviewed, but at some parts of the book I was able to put aside my political opinions and gain a different perspective on the interviewees outlook on important political issues. However, while I was reading the book I found myself being bothered by the interviewees lack to understand other people’s views their assumption that every single person of a specific political party shares the same viewpoints- like when one of Hochschild’s interviewees states that all liberals view southerners as racist and sexist homophobes. At some parts of the book I got annoyed because I felt that the author was not always being open and honest enough in her writing solely because she referred to her interviewees as her friends and shows them gratitude for being caring people. While this is showing Hochschild’s respect for those who agreed to be interviewed by her and her tolerance for their political views whether she personally agreed or not, a lot of their points seemed harsh and unreasonable- I was personally bothered when they discussed the issues of immigration because it didn’t portray them as caring people. Though I found this annoying, I understand that she does this to show them respect and gratitude and I respect that she is able to communicate in a casual and calm manner with these interviewees, which is how we accomplish breaking down her so-called “empathy wall” that limits us from being able to understand other people’s opinions without changing our own and breaking out into a heated argument over politics. Additionally, I liked that the author chose to go to Louisiana because it was a less wealthy location which I believe helped me along with other readers to better understand the interviewees perspective. I think that this book could be a great example for not only political parties in America, but from individuals to nations worldwide to be able to communicate in a calm manner where all aspects of certain topics are considered and analyzed, like Hochschild does in “Strangers in Their Own Land.” Although I found myself becoming irritated with certain viewpoints, I liked that Hochschild was able to understand and talk about different beliefs in a mature way, and at some points in the book I realized that even I could easily understand two very diverse points of view.
Why do people feel the need to believe that people of one political party all share the exact same views on every issue? Why are political party stereotypes helpful and harmful? How will overcoming the “empathy wall” affect politics? Will this help America to become a more united nation?
Throughout the course of the book, what I thought was interesting was the way Hochschild formatted each chapter, she always started off with a scenario and gradually transformed into the larger issue at hand, easily slipping between a narrative book and an informative one. I think this aids in the readability of the book, because as a young women in the 21st century, I myself try to stay out of more politically based discussions, simply because they do not interest me, but since there was a story line to follow in this book, I was drawn in. Also, for someone who was so deeply involved in biased places, Hochschild did a really good job of keeping personal biases out of the story line, as she knew it would affect the way readers would interpret it as a whole. Another aspect that I thought was very interesting was just the premise of the book in general, how willing Hochschild was to leaving where she was comfortable politically to a place where she would be the odd one out. Also, another fact that was surprising to me was how readily the community accepted her, even though the south (especially where she went) is typically very politically divided, I really enjoyed how easily she seemed to slip into the norms of the community. This book taught me to be more open minded when discussing with people, as Hochschild was when she stuck herself into a community with very different political beliefs, and in order to better understand the people around you, you really need to stop and listen to their reasoning before jumping to a conclusion.
Lots of people have one thing that the usually greatly believe in; however would you compromise one of your strong beliefs to go with a group that overall you believe is better, such as how many Louisianans want to protect the environment more but choose to go with the Republican Party which slacks on environmental regulations?
The book was very interesting to read and it was a new genre in which I have never read before. I enjoyed how Hochschild dove deeply into understanding why people voted and supported who they did. She did not just make blanket statements because they are in the South she instead dove deeper. While interviewing the Arenos she finds that they do care about the environment but the Republican party is much more appealing to them. But most importantly they are considered to be very religious in such a way that makes it seems as though God is in charge. It was tough to read about the negative effects countless industries have caused to the Louisiana landscape and the almost unwillingness for the people to do anything about it. Most people said they wished the wildlife had gone back to where it was before but were uncomfortable with the government getting involved in their daily lives. I can kinda of understand this; getting the government involved could result in worse conditions, but why not at least take small steps to clean up the area before bashing it completely. Although I didn’t agree with much in which the people of Louisiana spoke about I at least liked that they had opinions about things; instead of just sitting silently. Also hearing people from the opposite side of the aisle, made them more human to me. I started to sort of understand why these people thought the ways they did; and although I didn’t agree with them I started to view them in more of a open light. Although I did not really change my political beliefs because of the book; it did open up my understanding on why people are in the right side opposed to the left.
*which I enjoyed
This book reminded me a lot of Spaceman because it took something that’s generally very rigid and “boring” to some ( politics and science) and added passion to make it more palatable to the average person. I thought the first portion of the book was dragging on, but once I got into the heart of the book it really picked up. The background on Louisiana did give me context though and without it she loses a perspective that aided her argument. Intertwining her passion for sociology with her questions about politics created very interesting intertwining that I enjoyed. Her archetypes and dramatization made me picture something more than concrete ideas and connected with me personally because of my love for characters. There was a common string between all four archetypes, which was pride and holding yourself to a certain standard, whether that be aligning with your party, your lord or your sense of bravery. Sometimes Hochschild found herself judging these people, but I like how she addressed that to strengthen her argument. Using the term “scale the empathy wall” made her judgement easier to discuss and removed the stigma of bias. You see the progression through out the book, because by the end she refers to the Louisiana people as her “friends”. The book doesn’t have a definite conclusion, which enjoyed, because understanding those who are significantly different is a process and doesn’t ever truly end.
How would the piece as a whole be effected if she used far right people from a predominately left state–would the people be more definite in their views because of the contrast of those around them, or less definite in their views because they’d conformed? How would that effect Hochschilds argument?
How well do you think the author did in fully discovering the beliefs and thought processes of the other side of the political spectrum?
Throughout the whole book I thought that the author did a fantastic job in having a neutral stance towards those she was following by keeping most of her ideas to herself. Sure, she was very upfront about where she stood on politics, but she didn’t let that fact get in her way of finding out their story. The author was able to challenge the beliefs of those who opposed her views while still trying to respect them by understanding the context. I believe that this kind of neutral bias should be something we all take note of seeing as how most people just jump to conclusions about another group of people. Personally, I had a hard time reading this book not because of the way the author wrote it, but because of the context in what people were saying. I may have gotten frustrated at what those she interviewed was saying, but the author helped me in trying to keep an open mind about their point of view and how they felt that way. As a reader, it seemed to me that both the author and I started to change our opinions a little bit as we discovered what was really going on in the lives of these people. The author with this book has helped me to open the door to a new world of possibilities in politics as not everything is so straightforward.