The great paradox in Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Hochschild

Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Hochschild presents what she calls the "great paradox" of American society: why ultra conservatives vote against their best interests. By almost all accounts, red states are poorer economically, have much poorer health and educational outcomes, and a lower quality of life overall than blue states. That being the case, why would the reds continue to vote for the same platforms, even going so far as to make their situation potentially worse by voting in Tea Party candidates or the likes of Trump? The answer, according to Hochschild, is that conservatives tend to vote for emotional reasons. Because of its inherent irrationality, the great paradox cannot necessarily be resolved, as Hochschild points out. However, the great paradox can be understood with an empathetic viewpoint. Using empathy encourages understanding, which can in time tear down the cognitive and emotional barriers that create divisiveness and impede social progress and positive change.

Although the great paradox is evident throughout the nation, Hochschild focuses on Louisiana for several reasons. One is that it was essentially a convenience sample, as the Berkeley sociologist admits to not having any social ties to any other red state. Capitalizing on the social networks of her contact, Hochschild is able to conduct in depth interviews with a conservative white cohort to help her understand the great paradox. Second, using Louisiana as a case study allows Hochschild to explore the great paradox in greater depth than would be possible in most other states because of the state's low rankings on nearly every measurable outcome like health and education. Louisiana is the epitome of the great paradox because of the visible signs of environmental degradation and pollution that are direct results of the entrenched oil industry. The people Hochschild meets decry the pollution but refuse to restrict or regulate the petrochemical industry.

However, there is another reason Louisiana offers insight into the great paradox: its long and dark history with racism. Louisiana remains a racially segregated state, and outcomes for blacks in Louisiana are even worse than they are for whites. Moreover, outcomes for African-Americans in Louisiana are worse than they are in other states. According to Hochschild (2016, Kindle Edition), the average black person in Louisiana lives four years less, earns half as much money, and is half as likely to have a college degree versus a black person in Maryland -- which was also south of the Mason-Dixon line. A visual reminder of the persistence of racism in the South, Hochschild describes a cemetery in Louisiana that is divided into white and black sides, with the only grass on the white side being recently trimmed. Yet "nowhere in spontaneous direct talk" was race an acceptable topic of discussion (Hochschild, 2016, Kindle Edition). Conservatives in Louisiana consciously support and maintain a racist culture without being willing to fully acknowledge their role and responsibility for social injustice.

Hochschild is mainly interested in the environmental question: one of the most important manifestations of the great paradox. Louisiana suffers tremendously from environmental degradation and pollution due to the unbridled petrochemical industry. Hochschild claims all the interview subjects expressed desire for a cleaner environment. Yet all the same people refused to agree to regulate polluters, and even regularly sided with them. The author does a brilliant job keeping her opinions and emotional reactions out of Strangers in Their Own Land, but many readers will find her neutrality frustrating even if empathy is a reasonable and sensible goal. A similar issue related to the great paradox in Louisiana is that Hochschild found small farmers had been voting with Monsanto, and stalwart small business owners were voting with WalMart, all the while criticizing the government for not supporting small businesses. The refusal to take personal responsibility for their own problems is something that needs to be addressed frankly. Hochschild builds her argument around the central assumption that conservative voters act on their emotions and a sense of cultural solidarity.

Hochschild (2016) captures the deep and disturbing levels of hypocrisy that allow the great paradox to perpetuate itself. The poorest conservatives, for example, will accept their food stamps and other social services like Medicare but they will also refuse to break party lines. The ultra-poor conservatives therefore opt out of voting entirely, choosing disenfranchisement over betrayal of the tea party. It only requires a few notches up on the social class ladder for people to vote against social services entirely, even for people who are dangerously close to poverty. Similarly, wealthy Tea Party advocates also take advantage of all the social services programs they can but admit they are "ashamed" of doing it in the same way they are too ashamed to talk directly about race (Hochschild, 2016, Kindle Edition). If there is an underlying shame to their actions, then it indicates awareness that what they are doing is wrong. Hochschild is so committed to detachment and neutrality that the book becomes an affirmation of moral relativism. In fact, empathy veers dangerously close to condoning anti-intellectualism and the conservative assumptions underlying the great paradox.

As helpful as it can be in forging friendships with people on the other side of the political spectrum, empathy does not seem like a reasonable way to resolve the great paradox. Empathy does not translate well enough into action. As beneficial as an empathetic viewpoint might be, Hochschild's analysis might be boosted by taking the issue a step further and questioning how the underlying mistruth and hypocrisy might be undone in future generations. The "deep story" concept answers the "why Trump?" question to a degree, but Hochschild fails to offer a convincing answer to the more important question "what's next?"

The misplaced anger at the federal government and also at liberals remains an ongoing theme in Strangers in their Own Land. Instead of getting angry at companies like Texas Brine and the politicians that pander to them, the Tea Party activists are turning on the very concepts that would help mitigate their problems. Hochschild tries to show that the conservatives have not bee brainwashed and that their choices are fully conscious, but their ideas are overtly irrational. Religion is more important than education, and each person she speaks with remains proud of the cognitive schemas. Bubbling to the surface like the well-disguised guilt they carry around, the knowledge that they are shooting themselves in the foot is being suppressed and numbed by familiarity: the church, guns, and a commitment to a constructed social identity that has become more oppositional than constructive.

Although Hochschild bases the ethnographic research in Lake Charles, which is half black, race does not feature prominently enough in Strangers in Their Own Land. African-American perspectives and opinions are not being taken into account, which weakens the argument and creates a half-finished ethnography. It is technically impossible to understand Lake Charles by only interviewing its white residents. Granted, the purpose of Strangers in their Own Land is to tell the white conservative story, but in doing so, the author risks invalidating the core assumptions of the argument. The author fails to integrate alternative voices and opinions in ways that would make the discussion richer. Hochstein interviews women, but they are fully entrenched in the Tea Party system and have no consciousness of the power of intersectionality. It is understandable that the author's goal is to tell the conservatives' stories but the perceived loss of culture and sense of being "strangers in their own land" is not something that warrants much sympathy; it is akin to someone writing a book about having empathy for the Bavarians supporting the Nazi party.

Finally, Hochschild assumes that class conflict has something to do with the problem of conservativism and the great paradox. The class conflict theme does not make sense because the author interviews several affluent residents who are not only benefitting from the free market but also from the government they hate so much. Class conflict issues are not as important as the intersections between race and class that would have added greater depth to the book. The Tea Party is proof that people are not voting because of class solidarity but because of racial solidarity. Whites of all social strata are voting with other whites. Whether they choose to identify as redneck or not, the whites see their culture as being under threat from a liberal hoard that believes black lives matter.

Underneath it all is the problem of anti-intellectualism, which Hochschild also fails to address meaningfully. Anti-intellectualism is a real and potentially dangerous problem that empathy cannot solve. The refusal to accept facts enables brainwashing and social control that cause people to vote emotionally. Hochschild continually reminds readers that the great paradox can best be explained by understanding that people vote with their emotions, not with logic. That might be true, but it does not help illuminate any method of changing the situation. According to Hochschild, the tea party mentality is as much a culture as it is a cluster of ideas, and belonging to the white culture of the tea party means towing the party line and being anti-government -- even when being anti-government is counterproductive. In spite of its flaws, Strangers in Their Own Land is important because divisiveness is actually not productive and does not offer any better answers than empathy. Empathy is a valuable first step; the next step might be to generate a more cohesive left; as the author points out early in the text, "the right has moved right," but the left has not moved at all (Kindle Edition).

References

Hochschild, A. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land. New York: The New Press [Kindle Edition].