Hillbilly Elegy
Deconstructing J. D. Vance’s Views on Government Intervention, Merit, Outlaws, and Slackers
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12450413 |
|---|---|
| Authors | K Oldfield (0000-0002-5753-6469, University of Illinois at Springfield, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 159-172 |
| Publication date | 2018-04-03 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Administrative Theory & Praxis (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1084-1806 • E-ISSN: 1949-0461 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10841806.2018.1454242 |
| OpenAlex | W2887505138 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 13 |
J. D. Vance’s 2016 autobiographical bestseller Hillbilly Elegy has gained considerable popularity and favorable reviews. Despite its public acclaim, a close reading of Elegy shows it is plagued with public policy inconsistencies and self-contradictory political interpretations. This article has three parts. First, it provides background information for reinterpreting Vance’s writings. Part Two samples government-sponsored benefits that aided Vance’s impressive achievements, directly or indirectly, and in ways, he seems to ignore or downplay, a common problem among Americans. This section also critiques Vance’s views on meritorious selection and the contradictory standards he uses to judge others’ behaviors based on their socioeconomic status. It demonstrates the classism inherent in Elegy. The Conclusion offers final thoughts on deconstructing Vance’s writings to gain a deeper appreciation for government’s role in redistributing wealth and opportunities, both upward and downward. This section shows why Elegy belongs in the “if-only-the-author-had-written-a-different-book” genre of social criticism
Art · Criticism · Elegy · Government (linguistics · Linguistics · Literature · Poetry · Political science · Politics · Popularity · Reading (process · Sociology · American Political and Social Dynamics · Law · Nuclear Issues and Defense · Philosophy · Socio-political and Technological Issues
| Citations per year | 0.2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2021 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |