To finish off my blog, I would like to say this whole process of choosing a person to study and talk to, asking them questions, and comparing my experiences to Strangers in Their Own Land has taught me so many incredible things. It not only has altered my way of thinking, but also the way I see others as well. The biggest thing I have learned from this experience is not to judge others based on their opinions. Before conducting this field study, I had the mindset that anyone who thinks gay marriage, global warming, sexism, and other politcal topics such as those, were not a big deal, were cold hearted, misogonistic, A-holes. But now I have a completely different outlook on the whole topic. I have learned that yes, people can form ideas for themselves, but also growing up being taught completely different things than this new era also has a huge impact on one’s political views and opinions. For example, my interviewee was taught that homosexuality is a sin, immigrants should not come to America, and woman should be homewives, but as she grew and had experiences of her own, her opinions on some of these matters changed. Now, she believes that women are powerful and can do anything they want, but still believes homosexuality is a sin. This, of course, is also partly because she is a Catholic, but also was taught different views than others of this generation. For these reasons, I would say that my empathy walls have 1000% changed towards others with different opinions than I.

While conducting this field study, I did have thoughts of questioning my own values and beliefs. I love and trust my interviewee so of course I took what she was saying into consideration, but at the end of the day, I believe we choose our own fate. We have the privilege of forming our own opinions on political matters. One example I can think of is when my interviewee stated that she believes Mexicans are taking over our jobs in the United States. I have a different opinion than her on this matter, but after she stated some facts about how many illegal immigrants are getting jobs while other Americans are struggling to find jobs, I found myself questioning whether or not she was right. I thought long and hard about this issue and finally came to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong opinion, there is just an opinion. And in my opinion, immigrants are a HUGE economic thrust and help America and it’s society be better, so the statement “ immigrants are bad for America and its people’ just simply does not resonate with me. If I were to pass on one message from this field study, it would be to learn about someone and their experiences before coming to a conclusion about that same person.

This blog assignment is focused more on my interviewee rather than the book Strangers in Their Own Land. As talked about in previous blogs, the person I have chosen to interview is an older woman. This being said, she was raised with different morals and taught different aspects of life while she grew up, and through the first decades of her life, than I. At the time she was raised, controversial arguments that are talked about now were not even a second thought. These ‘controversial arguments’’ include political issues such as gay marriage, immigration, transgender, bisexuality, and so on. My interviewee was raised on the west coast and was taught that homosexuality is a sin, that all immigrants are bad, that the caucasion race is superior to other races, and so on. Obviously different than what I, and probably you were raised being taught. Now, as she grew, times changed, and she had experiences for herself, of course her views on some of these political aspects were changed based on her opinion, but some aspects she was taught never left. As she explains in an interview I conducted with her, “It is sort of like being taught to set a table, or take your shoes off at the door. Eventually, it just becomes second thought [referring to her opinions that she was taught].” Of course now we would not compare gay marriage and setting a table as even in the same relm of argumentation, but the point she was trying to get across does make sense to me.

You, as a child, were most likely taught basic rules growing up such as don’t put your elbows on the dinner table, don’t slurp your soup, take your shoes off at the door, wash your plates and when you are done, and so forth. The same goes for my interviewee, instead she was taught that women should not speak about political issues, women should do the cooking and cleaning, homosexuality is sinful, immigrants take our jobs, and so on.

What I have learned from the interviews I conducted and just talking to my interviewee is that someone’s political viewpoint does not define them as a person. My interviewee is a wonderful person, and I knew that before I conducted this entire process, but now after researching her and learning more about her, it all makes sense.

There were many chapters to choose from in the book Strangers From Their Own Land, but I chose to go more in depth on chapter 12 of the book entitled “The Cowboy: Stoicism.” I chose to read this chapter because the name of the titled caught me eye.  Once again, the author of this book, anthropologist Arlie Russell’s goal is to compare and study difference of opinions in different areas. The setting for this chapter is primarily around a dining table. As Russel dines, she sits at the ‘guys’ table where she watches an interaction between two males; Donny McCorquodale and Mike Tritico. The two speak about many controversial topics such as pollution, and the EDC leak as to who should be president. Although the two are good friends, the discussion becomes rather hostile at some point, being described as a ‘showdown’ in the book. Important topics were talked about in this chapter, but one part of this chapter that caught my attention was the discussion of pollution. Hochschild notes that the debate between Donny and Mike was reflecting Louisiana’s fears of pollution. More specifically when the quote “white males stood out from all other groups as being less likely to see risk” (referring to pollution) I can definitely see that in today’s society.

Firstly, something that caught my attention in this chapter was the onion on the dining table during the luncheon. I was left wondering, why was there an onion? I soon realized that the onion serves the purpose of demonstrating balance between a community and politics. Secondly, the fact that there was a ‘guys’ table and a ‘girls’ table in this chapter was compelling to me. It was compelling because I was used to that idea as a child (kids tables vs adult tables) but never gender segregation like that. Lastly, I was compelled by the fact that those who wear gas masks to protect themselves while working with chemicals (sulfuric acid in this case) are considered ‘corporate sissys’ by those who have obvious damage to their teeth and body from this chemical. This is a concerning stereotype that caring about your body and health makes you weak and I think that stereotype needs to go down the drain right now.

One part of the chapter I would like to focus on is the aspect of Donny and Mike arguing. Although their argument turned rather vile, good points were discussed and issues were backed up with not only opinion, but facts as well. I would not like to carry out this way of discussion with the person I have chosen to spend time learning about because we are both rather calm people, but I can respect the way that even under frustration, both do not lose their sense of thought to back up their arguments. I also think this aspect of the book will help me understand the person I have chosen to study because it will give me inspiration to keep calm during debates we do not necessarily agree on.

Works Cited:  Hochschild, Arlie Russell. Strangers in Their Own Land. New York; London: New Press, 2016.

My subject for this field study was an older person born in 1940. Growing up, this person had many siblings that she had to share a small space with on the countryside of Washington. This person is very important in my life and I look up to her very much, the only thing is we disagree on our political views, making her the perfect subject for this study. For a few years now, I have thought that people who disagree with my political standpoint (democrat) are on the meaner, cold hearted side, but this study proved me very wrong.

Growing up in the 1940s-1950s, America was a completely different place. Gay marriage and homosexuality in general were not as popular as it is today, African Americans were still treated poorly, and so on. Mu subject did a great job explaining this part to me. My subject grew up being taught- that homosexuality is wrong, women should be housewives, there are only two genders, immigration is bad, etc… and this is the main reason for her political views today. My subject is the most sweet, thoughtful person I have ever met in my life but does not agree with my political views because we grew up being taught different things.

Today, I think people should be who/what they want without judgment, i believe people have a right to their own body and their own preference of how they want to look/act. I also believe that immigrants who come from Mexico are a big part of our economy and we depend on them a lot more than we think. My subject disagrees on almost all of these opinions of mine, not because she is a mean person, but because she grew up being taught different opinions than I was taught growing up. And this, in my opinion, was a big lightbulb moment for me. People have different political views not because they are close/open minded or because they are sheltered and rude, they have different political views because everyone was taught different things growing up. What one thing taught as ‘wrong’ to one person could have been taught as ‘right’ for another. I will no longer judge someone off of their political views ever again, because that person could be so sweet, so kind and caring, but was taught different standpoints than I was growing up which makes our political views different. Why miss out on new friends because of their political views?

Hello again blog! I am back with another assignment post. Please reading and give me your thoughts and suggestions!

Some ethics of fieldwork in anthropology i plan on using are Accountability, Reporting  and Public Outreach, Professionalism, Protection of the Identities, Reputations, and Integrity, and Training and Resources. These ethics are extremely important when it comes to conducting a fieldwork study as I am going to do. One aspect that is important when doing a field study is keeping the identify of the interview-y private. I will be interviewing someone who lives in the northwest who I am close with and feel comfortable having a conversation with.

For this part of the assignment I have chosen to read and review chapter 4 of Strangers in Their Own Land. Some main ideas from this chapter include Hochschild attending a campaign event thrown by Republicans, Hochschild also encounters some empathy feelings when considering which issues powerful people feel like talking about. Another important thing that occurred in this chapter was that Boustany and  Landry made very similar speeches about the economic benefits of oil. This sparks some questions in Hochschild’s mind towards the concept of what both speakers failed the mention in their speeches. Lastly, and maybe the most important point of this chapter/my interview, is when Hochschild and Honore visit the town of Gonzales which is very near to an extremely polluted industrial strip. Here Honore tells Hochschild that Louisiana imports toxic waste and dumps it there. This is one of the most important points to me because this is something very real that is happening in parts of the world today and needs to be talked about more than it is at this moment in time,

The first question that i plan on asking the person that I am interviewing is “how much do you know and support/do not support toxic dumping around the world?” This question originates from one of the main points in Chapter 4 of the book and also is relevant to different political views. The second question I plan on asking is “do you think politicians work on problems that will help the world as a whole or help the United States make more money/gain more power?” This question is related to the point in the chapter where Hochschild was having thoughts about what politicians are leaving out in their discussions. Lastly i would like to ask “do you think pollution is a big problem in the United States/around the world?” I would like to ask this question because it is also related to difference in political views as well as a main factor in chapter 4.

Citation: Hochschild, Arlie Russell. Strangers in Their Own Land. New York; London: New Press, 2016.

Thanks for reading and talk to you on my next post!

Hi blog! My name is Hannah Pickett. I am 17 years old and live on a small island called Vashon. I have never made a blog before so excuse me if I am doing it wrong. I really do not know how to work this thing hahaha. The purpose of this blog post is to find someone who is politically different than me and tell that person’s story. For this project I have chosen someone close to me who has opposite political views than I but will remain ANONYMOUS.

My inspiration for this blog is from Arlie Hochschild’s book Strangers in Their Own Land. In this book she has set out to do the same as I in regards to finding someone different to compare thoughts to. The first example I will be comparing between my blog and Hochschild’s piece is how they both start. For example the book starts with describing what she grew up around, and I will start by describing how I grew up around the person I will be interviewing. For my second example, in the book, Hochschild states that there are two political parties that seem like they are being divided more and more, I agree with this and can relate this back to my own political views within my family. For my third and fourth example I would like to focus on the quoted “Wrapped around these puzzles was a bigger one: how can a system both create pain and deflect blame for that pain” (page 10, Hochschild) and “reminders of the racial divide were everywhere” (page 20, Hochschild). I think both of these points relate to one another and are important in deciding your own political view. Lastly, I would like to use the example of when Hochschild talks about whether a political party member would be willing to let their child date someone from the other party. She states that “… Not more than 5% of either party answered “yes” but in 2010 33% of democrats and 40% of republicans answered ‘yes.” I found these facts very interesting and can not wait to conduct my own study!

Citation: Hochschild, Arlie Russell. Strangers in Their Own Land. New York; London: New Press, 2016.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton