I never knew him personally, but I felt his
loss nonetheless. I discovered Joe’s
writing sometime early in the reign of Bush the Second. I was immediately drawn to his straightforward,
often blunt commentary on the death of the American dream and the power of
hierarchy in our supposedly classless society.
For my money, Joe Bageant was hands down the pithiest observer of
America’s debased mores during the ‘aughts.
A son of rural northern Virginia, Bageant
dropped out of high school to enlist in the Navy. Building a career as a journalist and editor,
he only began writing political commentary during his last decade of life after
returning to his hometown. His first
book, Deer Hunting with Jesus, was a sharply-focused
snapshot of blue collar America that looked beyond the hackneyed trailer park-country
music-NASCAR fan trope. His subsequent
effort, Rainbow Pie, described his
childhood. Probably only Jim Goad has
done a better job as chronicler of folks from the other side of the tracks.
Bageant did have his flaws. He tended to idealize his redneck neighbors
while downplaying darker elements of their lives. Sometimes he overreached in his efforts to
humanize his subjects. One example was
his essay, “Mash Note for the ‘Girl with the Leash,’” about convicted
Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England, averring “she never had a chance.” (For her part England has shown a decided
lack of contrition, saying in a recent interview her victims got “the better end of the deal.”) On the whole,
though, Bageant drew his characters with nuanced lines, allowing them to rise
above the stereotypes.
Also, the recurring point in his writing—our
country is not and never was a true meritocracy—was wholly valid and cannot be
emphasized enough. The Matthew Effect is
very real, and there’s a small but visible segment of the population who were
born on third base believing they’ve hit a triple. Meanwhile, the rest of us just hope for a turn
at bat. The fundamental truth is that one’s
origins profoundly affect one’s life chances.
And life chances matter, not least in terms of material success. Some of us overcome adverse circumstances,
many of us do not. The negative traits
we popularly associate with the poor are partly a response to immiseration, of
being stuck in a corner you can never seem to get out of.
Understanding is not excusing, however. Bageant reminded us often that the American working
class has been committing slow suicide.
The dirty secret of the Republican Party’s triumph was that it appealed to
working class whites’ prejudices to get them to vote against their own
interests. By pandering to blue collar biases
conservative policymakers have been able to mask the broader implications of
their goals, which is to harness the forces unleashed by deregulation and
globalization to create an appropriately servile underclass. Social marginalization is the sine qua non of the process: In this
narrative the poor suffer from a fundamental flaw, undisciplined offenders against
the Protestant work ethic. (Charles
Murray’s latest polemic is just one of many volleys fired in the propaganda
war on the disadvantaged, with the twist that this time Murray is now blaming poor whites
rather than blacks for their lack of economic success.)
Joe Bageant knew, as did Pierre Bourdieu,
that economic capital correlates with social capital. Opinion makers in our culture (as in all
cultures) tend to reify their beliefs, obviating any relativism of taste and
social positioning. Joe also knew that dominance
on the narrative field reflects the real dominance in socioeconomic relations. It’s for this reason, among many others, that
we should remember his work.
Rest in peace, Joe.
© 2012 The Unassuming Scholar
No comments:
Post a Comment