Book Analysis Essay on Strangers of the Land by Arlie Hochschild

Introduction

Strangers of the land is a book by a distinguished feminist sociologist Arlie Hochschild who has been on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley. Hochschild has also earned her Ph.D. at the same university and is currently a professor emeritum. Hochschild sets on a mind-boggling journey from her copious hometown of Berkeley in California, deep into Louisiana bayou country which is predominantly a conservative right region. As she begins to know people who intensely disagree with the ideas she eminently champions, she, however, finds a mutual ground and quickly embraces the people she meets (Hochschild, 2018). Among them was a Tea Party activist whose hometown has been absorbed by a sinkhole resulted by a drilling accident. People whose main worries are basically the ones which all Americans share: hopes for their kids, the embrace of family and the yearning for community.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Summary of the Book’s Main Argument

Even though Hochschild has been keenly observing key political events and transformations of the last half-century, she admits that the present level of political polarization in America exceptionally alarming since it has begun to collapse the relationships between people on the right and left. Every side of the political divide tells a diverse narrative concerning the United States. Hochschild knows that understanding the present divide needs not just studying conservatives from her external perception but rather learning their view of the world by sympathizing with their opinion.

Just like this book, her past work highlighted the manner in which a free market unconcerned about people's feeling established dejected lose-lose situations for all classes of people. Hochschild is of the opinion that government intervention is the ideal way to solve such a mutually-damaging situation, but she wonders why there were so many Americans conservatives would choose to deal with such issues as opposed to having the government addressing them. This, however, she later explains it through an ideal she calls the endurance self.

Hochschild spends decades carrying out research by interviewing working class parents who find it difficult to make time for family life as well as the people to whom they subcontract parental responsibilities like pregnancy and childcare. Through this research, Hochschild strongly supported paid parental leave, a policy in which the U.S, unlike many other developed nations, does not provide (Hochschild, 2018. This paid parental leave was beneficial to the Americans across the political divide, but the majority of the conservatives continued to oppose it.

Hochschild is cautious to introduce Sharon's character and life story prior to discussing her politics, which is a reflection of the Hochschild strategy of sympathizing with conservatives irrespective of her profound disagreements with them. The story of Sharon also introduces some unique features of Louisiana life that will resonate on the entire book, such as industrial labor, hunting and an emphasis on inward robustness but outward hospitality. Sharon's disapproval to paid leave, even though she would greatly benefit from it, makes her Hochschild's perfect first example of the Great paradox.

Hochschild openly introduces her argument that compassion is the key political understanding. Through her emphasis that her relationship with Sharon is valuable, she demonstrates that political differences should not necessarily get into the way of precious personal relationships. She talks of her constant interest in and respect for diversity, which recommends that she may express a multicultural self.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Book

The book has the ability to influence the social life by allowing individuals on left-of-center of the political divide to look at the lives of some people on the right. Often we see the views of someone but rarely do we see how they develop those opinions. Knowing what inspires people and what makes them act that way fills some of the gaps between groups. Somehow Hochschild really understood these people and in some ways, her reasoning was completely off. I equally disagree with her methods of collecting evidence for her book. Hochschild uses one particular region of people to nearly attempt to explain the whole voting group. Why did she decide to choose Louisiana? The area is poor with low literacy levels. The Republican Party has numerous diverse groups within it with numerous divergent views. She could have opted for North California where residents desire to secede from California and establish a state of Jefferson (Books, 2017). The opinions between the areas are the same but diverse. She would have obtained much of the similar religious influence in opinions on the energy sector. The residents of Pennsylvania love the environment and love fishing and hunting and when an oil company puts the residents at risk, measures are taken by the community to address the situation. Hochschild makes a statement about conservative views yet she does not understand why the conservatives have those views.

On page 7, Hochschild attempts to explain how the gap between the parties has enlarged because the right has moved further right. I disagree with this assessment but disagree more with her evidence. Her reference is on Republicans voting to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and sell non-state lands. The decision of the Republicans to vote so was because IRS was weaponised against Tea Party groups, groups she discussed, and since the majority of republicans are fed up with federal government continuously acquiring more land for itself against the wishes of the local residents. Hochschild goes ahead to discuss how taxation on the rich was 91 percent under the regime of President Eisenhower but does not mention that as a result of loop-holes the rich did not pay more than 50% taxes. She also observes that the grass around the white graves had been lately cut while that around the black graves had not been cut. Maybe the people responsible for maintaining the grass had not gotten there or she is just reiterating a predetermined conception and the glass just appeared like there was a variation. These type of observations makes the book difficult to read. My opinion is that throughout the book, Hochschild just reinforced stereotypes and fallacies by the areas she chose to study and the remarks she would regularly make.

The book envisioned an audience is definitely directed towards people who identify themselves as Democrats or have left-of-center views. If one wishes to understand the views of the Republican voters better, then this is the ideal book to read. Nevertheless. This book does not do an ideal job of actually assisting people to climb over the responsiveness wall but may truly reinforce their opinions of Republicans.

Summary and Relevance of the Book

Hochschild perception stresses the dialectic of jointly influencing perceptions and visions on each other's deeds and thoughts. This demonstrates the main branches of the deep story but not the backgrounds. But where do the particulars and eccentric vision of fairness and the dream of Americans come from over which these rural white petit middleclass measure their personal success and that of others to start with? What are its major influences? Is it a mixture of ethnicity, class or gender? How can it be defined? Surely, Hochschild presents a historical comparison of the ancient cotton plantation south with the modern oil plant south. Both were, and feeling, restrained by the North, ethically put to shame, humiliated, resulting in secessionist inclinations of closure.

Though the body of the book pays attention to feelings behind conservatism, Hochschild also wants to understand if the Great Paradox is indeed true beyond Louisiana. The explanations by MacGillis is founded on the idea of political self-interest, so he thinks that residing close to pollution should compare with wanting environmental restrictions (INSTAREAD, 2016). Rationally, this would make a lot of sense since the people who suffer pollution should be more familiar with its risks.

The other likelihood is that the voting pattern of people is not based on political self-interest rather on some beliefs or feelings that get in the way of them declining the pollution that endangers their life.

Lastly, the type of mixture that Hochschild seeks is vital to making relationship possible across the political divide, ironically, the digital nature of much modern political disclosure seems to aggravate partyism as opposed to promoting middle ground. Hochschild thinks that institutions are exceptionally able to offer such kind of intermixture since it requires rallying people from diverse social class who would possible never meet otherwise.

References

Books, W. (2017). Summary and analysis of Strangers in their own land: based on the Book by Arlie Russell Hochschild. London: Newburyport: Worth Books.

Hochschild, A. R. (2018). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning... by Arlie Russell Hochschild. New York: The New Press.

INSTAREAD. (2016). Summary, analysis & review of arlie russell hochschild. Boston: INSTAREAD.