Naïve thinking would have suggested that Joe Biden’s victory would finally cool the divisive flames that have plagued the country. As any firefighter knows, fire does not start by itself. Understanding the causes of a fire is essential in learning from disasters and misfortune. In politics, this education requires people to look beyond their political walls and recognize the lives of different Americans, Arlie Hochschild pitches this perspective in her novel, Strangers in Their Own Land. Published in the wake of the 2016 Presidential Election, Strangers in Their Own Land offers an eye-opening journey into the outlook of Tea Party supporters as Hochschild illuminates how Tea Partiers’ understanding of the American Dream shapes their perspective in the face of declining financial fortunes. Both liberal and conservative readers might find the sentiment of disillusionment Hochschild uncovers sounds quite familiar, a sign of their shared economic worries.
Hochschild starts out to explain and understand the Great Paradox: why do the people who could best benefit from government assistance vote against that support? Stepping outside her familiar Berkley bubble, Hochschild investigates this paradox by traveling to rural Louisiana, a state ranked 49th in its “human development ranking” and last in overall health by the Social Science Research Council (28). On top of these socioeconomics issues, the state also suffers many environmental problems, compounded by pollution from manufacturing and energy corporations. However, as the Great Paradox indicates, many residents continually vote to oppose federal aid or strong environmental protection laws. Through interviewing various members of the Tea Party and focus groups, Hochschild tries to investigate this paradox by talking to people who support further cutting the federal government from their lives, seemingly against their self-interest.
Moving beyond conventional, economic analysis which distills a population into mere numbers, Hochschild examines the social landscape and reaches the apex of her study. The deep story is a psychological narrative not necessarily one based on reality but rather “a feel-as-if story — it’s the story feelings tell, in the language of symbols” which allows for “both sides of the political spectrum to stand back and explore the subjective prism through which the party on the other sides sees the world” (182). Everyone, Hochschild says, left or right, has a deep story, but for rural Louisianans in Strangers, their deep stories share the common theme of the white American Dream. For the Tea Partiers, their deep story visualizes this “dream of progress – the idea that you’re better off than your forebears just as they superseded their parents before you” (182). This idea is visualized as a long line, in which waiting is not only just a “badge of honor” but moving up is fair and just. However, for many rural white Louisianans, this line has seemingly stalled. Globalization, automation, and corporate greed limit social mobility opportunities, and the federal government supports line-cutters, lifting oppressed minorities who neither look like nor share their beliefs. Feeling like “strangers in their own land,” a sentiment of betrayal swells up among Tea Partiers, not against the powerful corporations but towards the federal government. A seemingly self-defeating behavior, Hochschild states that the right “see[s] the free market as its ally against a powerful alliance of the federal government and takers” (201). For the Louisianans, the polluting plants offer jobs, while the government taxes and helps the “underserved.” Big companies, however damaging in the long-term, provide an effective Faustian bargain.
The narrative structure of the deep story is one of the greatest strengths of Hochschild’s Strangers. Instead of focusing on economic needs to lambast or explain why the Tea Party supporters should support the federal government, Hochschild attempts the earnest task of understanding the supporters’ emotional component. Possibly a product of America’s capitalistic culture, people tend to rationalize or explain voting behavior in a purely economic frame. Hochschild recognizes that this mindset cannot explain the Great Paradox; people are emotional beings, and ignoring feelings in the context of voting excludes valuable insight. What seems paradoxical for many left-wing voters makes sense for Tea Party supporters in Louisiana. Although voting against government assistance cannot be rationalized economically, it aligns with many white Louisianans’ deep stories and affirms their culture and ideas. However, this validation comes at a conscious sacrifice for these voters: the acceptance of environmental degradation and corporate power elevation.
Perhaps the more sinister, underlying analysis found in Strangers is that the rural Louisianans have become sacrificial pawns for corporations. Although her interviewees distance themselves from the victim mentality that the “undeserved” minorities embody, Hochschild paints a stark reality where much of the free market’s rewards leave Louisiana. Powerful companies have massive sway over Louisiana and other Southern states, leaving many “white, older conservatives” to brave the “worst of an industrial system, the fruits of which liberals enjoyed from a distance in their highly regulated and cleaner blue states” (249). But therein lies the guilty connotation: the hands of blue-state liberals are not clean. Both conservatives and liberals fuel the industries that feed their consumption need. Neither is perfect. While it may be easy for liberal audiences to accuse Tea Party supporters of being irrational, Hochschild does not pile the guilt on solely one party and takes an uncondescending, sympathetic tone to best explore her interviewees’ rationales.
Strangers in Their Own Land is Hochschild’s plea to both liberals and conservatives to look beyond their empathy walls and attempt to understand each other’s deep stories. Rather than a call to accept conservative values, Hochschild highlights the economic commonalities that both liberal and conservatives Americans may share. The book tells a familiar tale for many Americans, the story of decline and growing wealth disparity, which has fostered dissatisfaction across all demographics. The rural Louisianans’ fading economic realities parallel those of city dwellers, both sharing the byproduct of disillusionment. Although the book focuses on a narrow portion of Americans’ deep stories, the perspective that such narratives offer seems essential in reaching a common ground and healing a divided country. Realizing people are more than just their party affiliations is the first step towards a more united America.