This essay argues that elites and our nation more broadly have embraced Hillbilly Elegy and given Vance a national platform because, on some level, he confirms a story elites—and arguably Americans more broadly—tell... [ view full abstract ]
This essay argues that elites and our nation more broadly have embraced Hillbilly Elegy and given Vance a national platform because, on some level, he confirms a story elites—and arguably Americans more broadly—tell ourselves, one we want to believe is true. As Vance acknowledges, he is the American Dream personified. His tale—as he curates it—is one of industry and (apparent) meritocracy, a tale that affirms our nation’s core values and aspirations.
What Vance does not talk about is his privilege—male, white-ish (acknowledging that Appalachians are often at the fringe of whiteness) and urban-ish—or at least not rural. He also does not talk about the role of the state as a positive force that facilitated his upward trajectory to the Ivy League and beyond. What also goes unacknowledged is that Vance is actually an outlier, the exception to the rule. Upward mobility in the United States has been declining for decades; many previously “working class” are now facing downward mobility, along with attendant despair. But Vance attributes the diminishing fortunes of the white working class to their personal failings, while not acknowledging how their livelihoods are shaped by the political economy of regions and by opportunity structures engineered by government.
While the widespread fascination with Vance and his story in national public discourse—as well as the staying power of both—is a function of many phenomena, this essay highlights three that shed light on race, race relations, and racial politics in 21st century America. First, the chattering classes “shock and awe” response to Hillbilly Elegy—(white) people actually live like that?—demonstrates apparent widespread ignorance of white socioeconomic disadvantage and the dysfunction it frequently spawns. One reason for such ignorance is that the public face of poverty in America is almost exclusively black or brown, though the media have renewed attention to white socioeconomic disadvantage in the aftermath of the 2016 election. Second, the widespread praise of Hillbilly Elegy suggests that elites across the political spectrum are willing to make scapegoats of poor whites. Progressive folks would vigorously protest Vance’s tough-love stance if he were writing about poor people of color, calling them lazy and criticizing them for “bad choices.” Most progressives seem unfazed, however, that Vance’s assessments and policy proposals throw low-income whites under the proverbial bus. Third, and closely related to the second revelation about race, Vance’s tale confirms the way in which white elites, including those on the left, see themselves: as products of a meritocracy which levels the playing field for all — or at least for those with white skin. Hillbilly Elegy also confirms the way elite and middle class whites typically see low-income, low-education whites (when they/we see them): as defilements of whiteness.
