Ordinarily, I would post a link to what follows on my Tumblr, and go from there. However, with the possibility to have access to thousands of pairs of eyes, as opposed to a few hundred, and with the general understanding that there are a few commonalities in worldview and value systems among those who self-label as liberals/progressives and those of us who may be considerably further left, the issues brought up in the following post should seem worth all of our consideration. Silva’s book is, based on the description below, now on my short list for my next scheduled book buy. And now, Read Coming Up Short by Jennifer Silva:
Jennifer M. Silva’s Coming Up Short: Working-Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty (Oxford University Press, 2013) contributes to our understanding of the impact of forty years of neoliberalism on poor and working people in the US, the extreme perniciousness of the individual form, and the erosion of solidarity. Silva writes: “experiences of powerlessness, confusion, and betrayal within the labor market, institutions such as education and the government, and the family teach young working-class men and women that they are completely alone, responsible for their own fates and dependent on outside help at their peril. They are learning the hard way that being an adult means trusting no one by yourself.”
Silva frames her book in terms of adulthood: what are the markers of adulthood for the post-industrial working class? This is an important question: since 2009, about half of people between the ages of 18-24 live with their parents. Ever-increasing numbers of working people are postponing or forgoing marriage. Ever-more are pushed into “flexibile” work-lives such that they move in and out of the paid work-force under conditions increasingly disadvantageous to labor. The markers of successful adulthood have thus changed since the 50s and 60s when adult life was characterized by a set of basic, achievable steps: finish high school, get a job, get married, get a house, have kids. Contemporary capitalism has pushed even these basic milestones out of the reach of most working-class people. So, how do they narrate their lives? Silva argues that they focus on themselves, telling a story of personal triumph over adversity. They position themselves as isolated and alone, betrayed and abandoned by all the institutions around them. Absorbing a narrative that integrates neoliberal individualism with therapeutic self-discovery and self-help (“no one can help me but me”), they make the self the primary locus of struggle and achievement. Failure is no one’s fault but your own. Success is successful grappling with one’s inner life, the trauma of neglect and abuse, and the ability to overcome that by working on oneself. The failure of others is thus their own fault. As one informant said, the biggest obstacle she faces is her own self.
The book comes from interviews with a hundred young working-class people in Massachusetts and Virginia from 2008-2010. Silva’s analysis is attentive to race, gender, and sexual orientation, astutely observing “that without a broad, shared vision of economic justic, race, class, and gender have become sites of resentment and division rather than a coalition among the working class.” Interview subjects (“informants”) were men and women between 24 and 34. Most work in the service sector. About a third live with their parents or other older family member. Not quite half have high school degrees; a little over a quarter have some college. Most have significant debt. Most have trouble locating or keeping a job capable of sustaining them (paying rent, expenses, debt).
Silva outlines an emerging working-class adult self that has “low expectations of work, wariness toward romantic commitment, widespread distrust of social institutions, profound isolation from others, and an overriding focus on their emotions and psychic health.” They don’t think about their lives in collective terms. They think about them in terms of recovery from painful personal pasts. Absent work as a source of self-respect and self-worth, they “remake dignity and meaning out of emotional self-management and willful psychic transformation.”
The primary characteristics of the emerging working-class adult self are rugged individualism and distrust. People are reluctant to pour time, emotion, and energy into relationships that are risky. Although Silva emphasizes the impact on romantic relationships, we can extend this to a broader unwillingness to attach oneself to groups and causes. An inability to commit is an effect of economic insecurity that makes political organization as challenging and precarious as romantic association — it’s hard to know whether or not it’s worth it; for many, past experience suggests that it won’t be, that they most likely outcome is betrayal. Silva notes the foundational belief in self-reliance among African Americans in her study as they narrate their experiences in terms of their own individual experiences rather than in terms of the structural impact of racism. Solidarity, social trust, and community engagment plumment as the primary worldview conceives rights in terms of “‘I’s’ rather than ‘we’s’, with economic justice dropped out of their collective vocabulary.”
Neoliberalism configures the working class self. Oprah, self-help books, therapy world — these provide tools for people faced with pressures of flexibilization to cope with frequent change. Silva effectively illuminates the material conditions underlying contemporary culture’s preoccupation with making and remaking one’s individual identity. She writes, “The need to continuously recreate one’s identity–whether after a failed attempt at college or an unanticipated divorce or a sudden career change–can be an anxiety-producing endeavor.” Therapy offers a culture resource for ascribinging meaning to one’s life in a world in flux. The individual self is both constant and maleable, a site for both continuity and change, made possible through a therapy culture that locates problems in individual pathology, inserts these pathologies into a specific individual past, and makes bearing witness to one’s own suffering into a ground for a transformation confined to the self. “The sources of meaning and dignity–hard work, social solidarity, family–found in previous studies of the industrial working class had been nearly eclipsed by an all-encompassing culture of emotional self-management.” The way working class people deal with upheaval, recession, and unemployment is by fostering flexibility within themselves, making themselves into adaptable beings detached from the outer world.
In a powerful and disturbing chapter on the hardening of working class individualism, Silva describes interview subjects’ defense of big business and hostility toward affirmative action. The emotion underlying their neoliberal subjectivity is betrayal. These working class people feel the market to be impersonal, a matter of risk and chance. When government intervenes, it does so in ways that rig the game so that they can’t compete. Furthermore, since so many have had to struggle on their own, by themselves, in contexts of poverty and diminishing opportunity, they take the fact of their survival as itself the morally significant fact: making it on one’s own is what bestows dignity. Socialists like Obama thus take away their last best thing, the special something that is all they have left (this is my language), namely, the dignity they have precisely because they are completely self-reliant. Indeed, Silva’s account suggests that solidarity is a problem because to embrace it would be to acknowledge one’s insufficiency as an individual, one’s inability to survive alone. Hence, working people are hostile to those below them on the food chain who need help from others because this hostility enables them to project neediness onto others thereby enabling themselves to shore up a fragile and impossible individuality.
Silva argues that young working-class people have learned that they can’t rely on anyone. They try to numb their sense of betrayal by affirming the worst cultural scripts of individualism, personal responsibility, and self-reliance, hardening themselves to the world around them and thus becoming precisely the subjects neoliberalism needs insofar as they are hostile to various forms of government intervention, particularly affirmative action. It might be, then, that the sorts of critical exposes we on the left write and circulate, the stories of governmental corruption and the university failure, aren’t helping our cause at all. Instead, they are affirming what the working class already knows to be true: they are being betrayed.
Silva’s insight into the link between neoliberalism and individualism points to both the challenge for communist organizing and the possibility of a way forward:
autonomy should be understood a a by-product of an uncertain, competitive, and precarious labor market that forces individuals to navigate their life trajectories on their own in order to survive. That is, the more our futures seem uncertain and unknowable, and the more individualistic we are forced to become, the greater our need to find and express our authentic selves. Paradoxically, the more we are required to construct ourselves as individuals, to write our own biographies, the more we realize our utter inability to control the trajectories of our lives.
This ‘utter inability’ is a key locus of communist organizing. We have to realize together strength in numbers. And, we have to be able to be for each other not an audience for performances of authentic individuality but a solidary collective where meaning comes from common struggle. If people feel isolated, we have to build connections that prove they are not.
Thanks for reading.
Interesting but seems like a narrow demographic — born no earlier than 1984 and no later than 1992. Sort of in the middle of when the working class, who would be their parents, began being hammered economically. Not saying that her research is incorrect, and do note that it may have been less difficult economically for young adults two decades ago, but the story is larger or more complex than economics.
Heh — that “get a house” step was not so easily achievable in California by the early 1970’s and not just for those considered working class.
What is different for these young adults, and probably their parents as well, “Most have significant debt.” I didn’t take on a car loan until I was twenty-eight – 20% down, three year term, and the purchase price was one-fourth my annual income.
However, the starker differences may be the the social arena. Kids weren’t sexualized at thirteen in advertising, movies, etc. Kids didn’t get “high.” IOW, kids weren’t pseudo adults doing the easy and/or perceived fun stuff of adulthood while dependent on their parents to house, feed, clothe them. Kids did kid stuff with other kids in groups and most of it with money they’d earned. We had fewer illusions about what it meant to be an adult, not much stuff, and no debt. Of course being raised by parents that experienced first hand growing up during the Great Depression dampened our natural egocentric impulses.
Should add that I feel really sorry for these young men and women. The jobs that at one time they would have had the education/training for, been good at, and would have given them a measure of realistic self-esteem based on competency and hard work no longer exist in sufficient numbers. They’ve been reared in a virtual world of status symbols and success that seems based on individual status and not the result of the collective efforts of family, schools, and communities that ground and propel an individual’s efforts.
To add to my prior comment, their childhoods have been both too short and too long. Their development stages have been mixed up. Growing up too fast in some areas and too slow in others. Cognitively they sound more like fourteen or fifteen year olds, and without the social structures in place from which to mature from there, further maturation will be difficult.
I’ll have to get a hold of her book to get a better idea of the specifics of the sampling methodology – curious about the rationale for the limitations on location, and such. I am guessing Silva was wanting to focus strictly on working class Millennials and then compare to some known population parameters from previous generations. That’s only a guess though, and should be taken with the usual grains of salt.
California was certainly extremely expensive even three to four decades ago. My folks had to move us into some real dive locations in order to be homeowners back in the late 1970s in the northern portion of the state, and they were far from alone. It is a bit unique in many ways.
Culturally a lot has changed. I may not have time for a few days to really go into the detail that I think would be helpful, but I come back again and again to the thought that threads from Michael Parenti’s “The Culture Struggle,” David Harvey’s “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” possibly Silva’s book, and a few others (Possibly some of Frederic Jameson’s work and so on) would provide some clues to understanding how our current cohort of young adults got here.
Okay – I have a bunch of fires to put out at my day job. So, I’ll check here a bit later this evening. Good commentary so far.
Not too much mystery about how we got here. More like it wasn’t a place we intended to go but happily took the rode that led to some version of where we are.
Part of what I got from reading through some of David Harvey’s work was just how easily the mindset of the various countercultures from the 1960s and 1970s meshed with the ideological positions of neoliberal capitalism, and how easily the language of freedom, choice, and so on could be coopted by the various forces that would then go on to successfully (so far) transfer wealth back to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent. Yeah, there was a reaction to the conformism of the Postwar era, and among leftists a reaction to anything that reeked of the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. The DIY ethic that was so quaint with the hippies and “edgy” with my particular counterculture (punks) wasn’t that far off from the “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” individualism of modern conservatism. It was most readily apparent among those who embraced anarchist and autonomist positions (at one point I was pretty conversant on such matters even if I was really more of a Bolshie), and some straight-edgers could have fit in with the Pat Buchanan crowd if they merely changed their rhetoric.
What would transpire was certainly not immediately obvious as someone who was just hitting adulthood in the early 1980s, but glaringly so by 1990. I graduated high school thinking that I could still get a factory job if I wanted, and graduated from college realizing that it was a good thing I didn’t try for a factory job – those jobs, and the unions (with their language of solidarity) were but a memory. What was left were institutions that for those not in the middle class would be more befitting that of a failed or failing state.
I do notice that being a teen or young adult today is a much different proposition – having a few of them live with me now gives me a firsthand insight into the phenomena you mention (and on which undoubtedly much data is probably already available). Our young ones have pressures placed upon them that would have been unimaginable to someone from my age cohort. Something tells me that if Silva is hitting the right marks with her study, the next vanguard will not be a working class one, but largely from the middle classes. Not sure what to think about that, other than to suspect history may repeat (or at least rhyme).
I’m sure to be continued….
1960s-1970s “counterculture” of DIY, back to the land, natural foods, etc. didn’t come out of nowhere. Cooking and sewing were still semi-necessities for girls to learn. My mother, fortunately, took an interest in nutrition when I was very young and that combined with the need to be very thrifty meant that we ate just like Michael Pollen advocates. We were the exception; most of my contemporaries were raised on Wonder Bread, etc. OTOH, I possibly consumed tons of DDT with all those vegetables.
Today’s DIY seems to me more like if I and my peers had engaged in tatting and knitting socks.
I don’t want to get too bogged down, but I do want to note that back when I was part of a punk counterculture (caught the hardcore scene on the West Coast right as it peaked and began to wane), there was a sense among many of my peers that the previous generation’s counterculture had failed – almost want to say a sense of betrayal. If you really wanted to insult a punk back then, just call him or her a hippie. The funny thing was, both countercultures had very similar DIY ethics, and similar complaints about the established order of their specific eras – even if the surface appearances were rather different. In a way, i suppose I still see the world a bit through those lenses.
That aside, my main concern is still one that Silva is attempting to understand and address: how to reach those who feel completely and utterly betrayed by society and its institutions, in order to harness that anger and betrayal into some sort of meaningful change? What obstacles do we face? How do we reassert a language of solidarity, of connectedness, that has been largely lost in the last few decades? What lessons can we take from the last few years (e.g., the Occupy movement) moving forward? Can the next generation of activists figure out how to move forward without the benefit of mentors (since there has now been a significant gap in years since the last major leftist movements)?
I wish I felt like I had some solid answers. I don’t really. I do know that to the extent that my cohort of activists dropped the ball back in the 1980s and 1990s, there will be much for us to account for, before all is said and done. I do know that Silva at least offers a window into where the young working class adults may have been in the years prior to Occupy. And I do know that there is some tentative evidence that today’s young adults may be more willing to question some of the prevailing practices and assumptions of contemporary American life (including the emphasis on rugged individualism). Still, if a young person came to me today and asked my advice on anything to do with leftist activism (assuming they’d trust someone of my generation), I don’t know what to say beyond “don’t do what we did – don’t decouple social and economic inequality, don’t lose sight of the need for strength in numbers, etc.”
So it goes.
Don’t think we can understand the difficulties and challenges young adults in the US face with an ahistorical analysis. Your questions and questioning are completely relevant IMHO.
While I agree with “…both countercultures had …similar complaints about the established order of their specific eras” because that is an element of being young, can you describe the DIY component of the punk counterculture because it wasn’t visible enough for busy adults like me to see in real time.
You seem to have nailed it here (and will :
“Counterculture” (one of Newt’s favorite words) may only be positive and progressive when it’s not a conscious posture. When it is, it assumes a more narcissistic/egocentric position as opposed to a collective one. Thus, the generation doesn’t pick up where the prior one left off and continue moving the ball forward. — stay with me a moment —
While there are always individuals and groups that are through lines to prior and future social and economic groups and successes, and no generation is homogenous and has clearly defined birth boundary dates (education and technology may also have shortened the time period for some generations and lengthened it for others), each does take on a certain collective character.
There was what Browkaw calls the “greatest generation” — born before 1927 — and what followed that one? The one that for the first time in US history didn’t produce a single US President. That thumbed their noses at most of what the generation, or two, before it had struggled to achieve while happily enjoying the fruits of those struggles. Exceedingly bland, conventional, and regressive on the surface and covertly indulging in unhealthy habits. Richard Nixon was their Ego and Elvis their Id. (If they had/have a super-ego it would be like a mash-up of Cardinal Spellman and Billy Graham.)
They supported war not unions. The status quo of racism, sexism, and homophobia. They questioned nothing. Their “counterculture” was to reject the best of what preceded and followed them. Had it been left up to them, there would have been an active McCarthy era in addition to the Cold War, Vietnam War, refusal to obey Brown vs. Board of Ed, sexual and racial discrimination by the mid-1960s.
Leaving too many battles for one generation to take on and succeed at. Not so different from a century earlier when a generation was handed slavery, female disenfranchisement, and income/wealth inequality. The first that only at great cost was formally ended but allowed to informally live on. The latter two were actively repressed and suppressed for decades. (Lincoln straddled the line between two of them: slavery and capitalism v. socialism, and came out better on the former than the latter.)
Abolitionists were as likely to have been infuriated by Jim Crow as I am about the chipping away at the reproductive freedom my generation of women thought we had achieved decades ago. Decades on, women have only gained a few pennies on that male/female income inequality. And the wars — good god — it’s like this country has collective amnesia wrt to wars of aggression and militarism. The Church Committee opened a window into domestic spying and government repression, and we thought that signaled a new day for more open government. Hah!
This is indeed one learning info for me.
_____
To waken interest and kindle enthusiasm is the sure way to teach easily and successfully.
http://toplandscapingservice.com/massachusetts/landscaping-and-lawn-care-in-springfield-ma
The men and women Silva interviewed could easily have experienced growing up in family situations like what Bill Moyers and Frontline presented in Two American Families. Truly heartbreaking to watch.