Strangers in Their Own (stolen) Land
Upon reading the book written by Arlie Russell Hochschild I started to understand and gain insight into a world which is otherwise a mystery to myself and others. This world I speak of is the highly conservative, Southern, Tea Party environment. Those who are members of this society are like others in the sense that they live in communities of people who are like themselves and think like themselves. Dr. Hochschild mentions this phenomenon in this book to illustrate how society is divided and becoming even more divided because of this practice/preference. Many of the revelations in this book did not come to me as a surprise, it was mostly supporting documentation of how far the population has come from what was intended by the founding fathers and what is taught in civics classes throughout the country.
The most obvious of the deviations from the intended government(as I have come to understand it) is that the government is being selected based on religious beliefs. In the text Hochschild interviews many people who agree with the deep story she develops, which is a simplification of the feelings of her interviewees so that readers and others can understand their “feelings” put in a way to make it relatable without triggers. This selection of political representatives being based on faith invades the government with church, rhetoric, and discourse. One of the greatest rights the forefathers wanted to ensure is that people are able to have religious freedoms and keep church and state separate. It seems that other countries around the world have put this in practice in their democracy, but the United States has not. This practice of having faith-led representatives then allows for discourse between the representatives on a basis which cannot be shook. One’s faith is the strongest belief that one can hold and it is beyond logic by its very definition. So the debate between those who govern is doomed from the beginning because at the root, it will come back to a fantastic basis and no science or logic can overrule faith.
Herein lies one problem or weakness which is the very conservative constituents who elect the representatives who wear their faith on their sleeves, hearts, and ballot boxes. This known fact then allows them to be objects of manipulation for organizations and the government they establish. In Hochschild’s research she found a consultant named J. Stephen Powell who interviewed people and found a “’least resistant personality profile’:
· Longtime residents of small towns in South or Midwest
· High School educated only
· Catholic
· Uninvolved in social issues, and without culture of activism
· Involved in mining, farming, ranching
· Conservative
· Republican
· Advocates of the free market” (Pp 81)
These people who fit these profiles and characteristics are more likely to allow big business to move in at any cost and allow them to destroy the environment. As long as big business promises jobs then these less resistant individuals are fine with them moving in and damaging the neighborhood even at the expense of the health of the residents and earth. When people in the area fall ill and there are natural disasters, morality prevails and people rely on their faith. They believe what they endure is acceptable because the rapture is coming and they will go to heaven. So in essence this life does not matter much. One of the interviewees named Harold says “We’re on this earth for a limited amount of time, but if we get our souls saved, we go to heaven, and heaven is for eternity. We’ll never have to worry about the environment from then on. That’s the most important thing. I’m thinking long-term.” (Pp. 54). In his, and many others throughout the text, opinion this is ultimately the goal, to be judge by God as being moral, living well, and attaining the American Dream (whatever that may be) without people being imposed on their right to do so.
The most troubling statement in the text is “Pollution is the sacrifice we make for capitalism.”. This is so troubling because a sacrifice is something which is made by someone based on what they have to give up for what they will gain. When it comes to pollution and making that your sacrifice, you are actually making a sacrifice for everyone else and those who will have to deal with the consequences although they did not willingly make a sacrifice. So the feelings of imposition on those who identify with the deep story as presented to them are doing the very same thing, but not even from a place of authority. In the deep story as presented to the interviewees and eventual friends, Hochschild identifies the federal government as the director who permits people to cut in the line in front of those already in line because of some demographic which allows them to now cut in the line (i.e. race and gender based on affirmative action). The federal government is identified as a form of authority, the ability to give others the right to cut in line, and their position of authority is not challenged, only their actions are thought to be unfair. In reality the people choosing to make pollution a sacrifice, are not in a place of authority. They are the same everyday citizens who are neighbors, fellow parishioners, and constituents in no place of authority. They decide with their votes, work, and allowance to permit pollution and negligence at levels that do not only impact them, but also others who rely on the ecosystem at hand, even down to the wildlife which are also to be considered in this conversation. No matter how upset one may get when told animals have rights as well, it is because everyone and everything is connected and need to keep things in balance so that life can evolve and be sustainable (think about the Circle of Life from Lion King).
So it is not fair to use your own feelings to justify how you can feel wronged and not use your same feelings to understand how you are wronging or have wronged others. This is a paradox of its own being that these interviewees and people who share the same feelings want to avoid the “poor me” persona and do not want to be considered victims, but the basis of the deep story is that they are victims to the infringement of the federal government. Those who do not identify with the deep story, they are considering moochers or underserving even though they are also victims of other varied circumstances. It is also the case that the interviewees use extreme cases to speak about the people who they feel are line-cutters and moochers and it is not even clear that these are true examples or just hyperbole they now believe and use to support their stance. There was plenty of talk about the mother on welfare who has 6 or more children they feel they are supporting with their tax dollars. No one had a name and address for the mother of 6 living on welfare and unemployment, but they all seem to know of her. The actual paradox is about how Louisiana, who receives the most in federal dollars per person can have low scores in life expectancy, health, wealth, and other measures of “good living”. The people are individually against receiving government assistance however the state as a whole is not against it and in fact the money is received and then given to the big oil business for coming to their communities. This is just a fraction of the list of paradoxes at play when considering the social/cultural beliefs of the interviewees and their political and actual stances.
Of the topics which were discussed in the text, I find the correlation of the planter class and poor whites in comparison to the modern wealthy oil-rich class with current poor whites to be an interesting dynamic. Much of the discussion of slavery is mainly discussed in the terms of the owners and slaves. Then the paid workers who had positions to facilitate the slave trade and slave work. There is not much discussion of the displaced poor whites and how they were impacted. Hochschild writes, “Since the planters relied on slave labor, and since they bought most of their hay, corn, beef, and wood from the North or Midwest, poor whites became surplus labor, left to live on what they themselves could produce. Marginalized and without demand for their labor poor whites bore up under rude epithets…” (Pp. 209). This does not change the horrible race relations rooted in slavery, it instead shows there were people who were disserviced while slaves were being robbed of their humanity by the very same people. I actually find it to make things that more interesting and I intend to further research the topic to gain a better understanding. The better understanding is needed because it would seem that instead of bearing animosity against people who are being treated as property and less than human, one would think the animosity would be better aimed at the person/institution responsible for the wrongdoing and imposition on one’s rights. Somehow this is not how things were/are and instead there are terrible race relations now just as there was then. One interviewee is on record saying, “…you can’t secede from a mentality. You have to think your way into and out of that mentality.” (Pp. 211). This is a perfect summation of the whole experience.
All of this argument and stance is based on feelings versus facts. The feelings about faith, victimhood, and honor excuse the facts of deteriorating health, environment, and climate change. It is a fact that all of these interviewees have personally been impacted by the chemicals and oil in the atmosphere surrounding their homes. Some have whole family bloodlines who have had cancer, however the fact that the people who passed, died as Christians somehow make it all alright. One interviewee even stating how terrible it is for a nine-year-old boy to have cancer, but also going on to say “pollution is the sacrifice we make for capitalism.” I am sure that as a nine-year-old the little boy was not given the choice to participate in said sacrifice. The fact that Louisiana is losing more than a football field size of shoreline everyday is another fact. This cannot be explained away by anything except for jobs. The fact of low income taxes and welcoming big business is best summed up in the two terms of former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindahl who gave the people exactly what he promised and they wanted, low taxes and big oil. However, the lower taxes and oil companies meant big layoffs of state officials and substandard schools, hospitals, and poorer quality of living. The feeling of not having federal influence on your situation and receiving tax cuts at the expense of other services is sufficient. So ultimately, appearance and spin is everything and fact does not matter. Ultimately, there is a point of no return and some of these very people will be climate/pollution refugees (for the second/third time) and Louisiana is not going to be an option. They will have to move even further inland and establish roots there. The feeling is that everything will be fine and sacrifices can continue and everyone will continue making money (if they want to do so) and the fact is there will be hell to pay and everyone will have to pay the price.
This was an insightful, depressing, and infuriating read for me. I look forward to reading maybe another of Hochschild’s works now that I know her style and what to expect because I appreciate the authenticity of the subjects and the way she was able to get their perspective and develop the deep story. I could go on about the deep story all on its own, but I won’t. This one is a good rental from the library. I wouldn’t want to keep this one (although I will be keeping mine since I wrote throughout my copy).
What are your thoughts?
-Toni Gecway
Comentarios