Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochschild

Strangers in Their Own Land:  Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Russel Hochschild.  This is a book by a Berkeley sociologist that was a finalist for the National Book Award.  Hoping to understand the undercurrent that brought Trump into office.

Started:  2/8/2017

Completed: 2/23/2017

Recommendation: Not recommended

Recommended By:  Nearly everyone

Review:

I found this book depressing.  It is exceedingly well written by a very good sociologist who is desperately trying to understand the forces that eventually brought Trump into office.  Ms. Hochschild does the difficult of work of trying to understand the very people she is trying to help as a liberal.  Her base understanding (and it is more complex than this) is that these people feel like they are standing in line for the American Dream, but minorities, illegal aliens, and, now, refugees are jumping the line and jumping in front of them.  This means that these people view the American Dream as a zero sum game--In order for someone to move forward, someone else must move back.  That is very depressing.

There is a phrase from the New England Council Chamber of Commerce that says, "A rising tide lifts all the boats."  While many Tea Party members would argue that the arguably rising American Economy has not budged their boat at all, the phrase points out that the American Dream is not a zero sum game.  It is possible for us all to improve with nobody else losing.  In fact, this is something that is true of the World economy as well.  President Kennedy understood this and he often borrowed the phrase.

Instead, the Tea Party members have found themselves on the receiving end of ill-advised government interaction with big business.  Somehow, it has become everyman who must support big business and when big business decides to defecate all over everyman--well, that is just the pain that must be endured.  Somehow, the Tea Party bought into the big business zero sum game which says that if big business is going to succeed, it will take it out of the hide of the working man.  Whether this comes from failed labor policies, dubious government handouts, poor regulation, or just the brass balls of the companies does not seem to matter.

Now, this snowflake sheds a tear for the everyman who feels that business cannot be forced to be part of the solution instead of just taking.  Having done that, I closed the book, put it aside, and realized that the Tea Party is pretty darn unreachable.  It is clear that no matter how I engage with them, they will perceive it as a zero sum game in which one of us must lose and the other win.  "Winning," harangues Trump.

The truly sad part is that these people have so much to contribute to society that could be positive.  Their perspective, their suffering, and their intuitions have high value and are needed in our society.  It is, however, anathema for them to cooperate.  They are so very tired of losing.  They want--they need--a win so badly that they will sell the farm to get it.  The same actions that led them into such a self-destructive relationship with big business guides their politics.  How is it possible to work with someone who feels getting dumped upon is just something with which one must deal?  In the end, I cannot value someone more than that person values themselves.

It is very depressing.

Tribe, Sebastian Junger

Tribe:  On Homecoming and Belonging by Sebastian Junger is a book I saw reviewed in The Washington Post.  Sebastian Junger is probably best known for The Perfect Storm.

Started:  2/16/2017

Completed: 2/20/2017

Recommendation: Mild Recommendation

Recommended By:  The Washington Post

Review:

This book is small and it would appear from the introduction that it is almost instantly confrontational.  It is worth noting that the author finds some serious fault with current society (and offers a potential remedy) while acknowledging how cool things are in our society.  It is my feeling that discussions of war, soldiers, and PTSD are a foil for the larger issue of some of the benefits of tribal society.  Do we really care for each other?  Do we help each other?  Sometimes it seems like we do not and we certainly don't show the cohesiveness of a war band.  Do soldiers have a place in society?  Sometimes it appears that we do not and hollow thank-yous are an inadequate substitute for an actual job.

In the end, are we willing to band together and support one another?  This is a tribal quality that is missing in our large, complex, luxurious, and very modern society.  Whether this quality can be included in our society or not is a serious question and whether we, culturally, are actually willing to welcome such a thing is something else as well.

This book is long on questions and short on answers (which is just fine).  It is worth noting that many of the issues this book addresses are things that we all need to be able to handle as a society.  Not knowing of any reasonable answer is a little disconcerting, but the author does give us one suggestion that we can all pursue--hold a veterans day where veterans can come in and just speak their minds with other people listening.  This is a way to truly thank veterans for their service.  How many other professions/tasks are going unrecognized and leading to difficult situations?

The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris

The Moral Landscape:  How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris is a look into how science can play a role in Moral Philosophy.

Started:  2/4/2017

Completed: 2/15/2017

Recommendation: Highly Recommended to those who can tolerate a strong atheist

Recommended By:  Nobody

Review:

The idea that science has nothing to say about morality seems counter intuitive, particularly in the time of scientific studies of happiness.  Mr. Harris spends the vast amount of the book talking about why science should talk about Morality and saying far less about how science can talk about Morality.  At this point in the process, it would seem that "why" is far more important than "how" given that scientists have their credibility questioned the instant they start talking about morality.  To my mind, it makes perfect sense that science should wade into these waters.  If in no other way than by explaining how one could "treat others as one would like to be treated."  Even if you disagree whether that is a particularly moral goal, few would argue that science should have nothing to say about how to implement it.

I think some sort of study that helps people evaluate how they would like to be treated, for example, would be time well spent.  I say that because there seems to be a chasm between how people claim they would like to be treated and how they react when actually treated that way.  Of course, that leaves open the debate about whether treating people that way is even a morally good thing (and that is at the hear of Mr. Harris' efforts).

In a broad sense, Mr. Harris accepts that morality likely does not have a knife edge along which one must daintily and carefully walk.  He suggests that the landscape of morality may well have multiple local optimizations and numerous optimizations in general (although, I think, if really pushed...Mr. Harris would, himself, argue that there is probably only one true optimization, but that it might be hard to define).  It is interesting to me, as well, that Mr. Harris completely skirts the question of whether anyone would be inclined to follow a truly moral path even if it was presented all nicely packaged.  All of that is well and good--one man cannot cover everything--and I see no reason why this should tend to take away from the quality of his work.  It just seems like a big enough issue that it would be worth a tiny fraction of the space that was used to justify scientific interest in this field at all.

It is my feeling that there are many issues that we have felt have been "decided" (the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it come to mind) which have found themselves subject to analysis from science that few anticipated when that analysis started.  Having seen science attempt to move into and (in my opinion flounder) in both psychology and sociology, there is no reason to stop the analysis.  There have been many good pieces of evidence and tools developed to both deal with and help understand these very difficult topics which is quite surprising.  Who knows whether more analysis will help or not?  I'm fairly certain it will, but it is unlikely that more analysis will hurt.  I think that there is room for science to play in the morality pool and I look forward to what can be discovered.

It is worth noting, however, that Mr. Harris takes a huge swipe at religion while talking about morality.  Personally, I think his position would be stronger if he simply pointed out the areas where science can and does help, but perhaps we aren't that far along just yet.  If Mr. Harris honestly believes that people who accept religion are simply glassy-eyed fanatics, then his arguments will literally fall on deaf ears.  By suggesting that science cannot play in a pool with religion (whether it truly can or not is irrelevant), Mr. Harris unnecessarily alienates much of his audience.  He would say that to do otherwise is to pander to a sham.

I think that part of the study of morality is to understand how to share the discoveries of what will lead to a truly moral life with others.  Hurling insults (whether justified or not) doesn't help.  My personal opinion is that if he simply stays silent on religion (except when asked about his personal religion) his research will have much greater impact.  It may well lead many away from religion (as seems to be his desire) simply by offering a moral option that has more "going for it."  To the extent that happens, Mr. Harris would have met his own personal goal of proselytizing for atheism.  I'm not saying, however, that he should defer to religion or even find a way to include religion (if he feels it has no role, then he should simply ignore it as, it has no role).

Having said all of that, his arguments against religion in general are persuasive and compelling.  I just would prefer he write an anti-religious text and put those there.  Then he can explain his thinking on morals with a cleaner slate.  Copernicus didn't prove the motion of the heavenly bodies while taking a huge swipe at religion (doing so would surely have been fatal), but his position is now broadly adopted the world over.  Truth and simplicity have a way of winning the battle even over religion (assuming such a battle needs to be fought, let religion fight it).

Hillbilly Elegy, JD Vance

Hillbilly Elegy:  A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J. D. Vance was recommended to me by my cousin Michelle and my brother.  Reading this book is an attempt to understand the forces that put Trump in office.

Started: 1/24/2017

Completed: 2/8/2017

Recommendation: well written, good read

Recommended By: cousin Michelle and my brother.

Review:

I feel like I intellectually understand one hillbilly family.  I am unclear exactly how "typical" this family is and I do not feel like I understand what encouraged them to put a billionaire in office.  There is oddly a strong rejection of both the "elites" and the "rich."  There is no doubt that Trump's "rough language," comfort with chaos, and projection of loyalty would appeal to this family.  There is equally no doubt that the family feels abandoned by the working man's party.  As with many proud and strong Americans it also seems clear that this family has no interest in handouts as long as they can be avoided and strongly values both privacy and personal property.  Having established all of this, it isn't clear that any of them voted and, if they did, for whom they voted (although I suspect Trump or the acclaim associated with the book would be very misplaced).

I think it is unfair to ask a single book to explain the last election cycle and so do not expect that of this book.  I think it is fair to add this book to the ungainly tower of analysis that will attempt to understand what happened in terms that will result in a "pivot" or collection of actions that will somehow assuage the pent-up anger that clearly runs through the community described in the book.  The author took a shot at that at the end of the book and he did not seem thrilled with his own ideas.

One thing this book gives:  an appreciation for how deep seated the problems are and how the existing problems are "doubling down" and creating more monstrous problems of their own.  There is no "quick fix" even if it would be well received for this family or its community and it is clear that Trump doesn't have a snowflake's chance of solving it.  It took generations for this community to sour and we haven't even begun to try and help them recover.  It will be generations more before they will be ready to offer any kind of coherent support for any political party.

Like an addict cloying at anything that looks like a fix, this family will surely grasp at anything that looks good without giving anything the kind of consideration that such choices require.  They simply do not have the luxury of time in the midst of their fight for identity and survival.