Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America - Barbara Ehrenreich
I had been wanting to read this book for some time. I had occasionally paged through it in bookstores, and thought I would find it sympathetic - but I just didn't want to buy it. (Unsurprisingly, working a low-wage job myself I didn't want to spend money on a book about low-wage jobs) . So I finally got around to ordering it from the library last year.
I had been wanting to read this book for some time. I had occasionally paged through it in bookstores, and thought I would find it sympathetic - but I just didn't want to buy it. (Unsurprisingly, working a low-wage job myself I didn't want to spend money on a book about low-wage jobs) . So I finally got around to ordering it from the library last year.
I'd never heard of Ehrenreich before, but from hints within the book I gather she must be a fairly well-paid writer. She identifies herself as a journalist. Intending to learn firsthand how the American working class survives on its meager pay, Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-wage jobs in locations across the country. She tries waitressing, hotel housekeeping, housecleaning, washing dishes in a nursing home, and working in a big-box retail store.
From the start, Nickel and Dimed let me down. I had expected to relate to the work she took on, having worked low-wage jobs myself for several years. In that I was not disappointed - some of Ehrenreich's insights validated my experiences in retail work. I was also intrigued by her descriptions of the different types of jobs - for instance, with the housecleaning company, the illusion of cleanliness to the homeowner takes precedence over the physical reality, if the writer is to be believed.
Unfortunately, more than I enjoyed either of these aspects, I was continually offended by Ehrenreich's attitude. In short, I felt she was presumptuous and condescending.
Partway through my reading, I realized that she was not writing for a general audience, but for a very narrow group of her own peers. That may explain why she tossed around "fifty cent" words like postprandial, glossolalia, soteriological, aphasic, and hortatory, because otherwise I can't see the need for such a showy vocabulary, considering the subject matter. Of course I can use a dictionary like anyone else, but it's annoying when I get the idea that she was only using such terms to point out her thorough education. At one point in the book she begins fretting about "the anxieties of [her] social class," of "educated middle-class professionals." She seems smug whenever she can make a sophisticated cultural reference (showing that she knows the difference between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, for example, when her co-workers may not). She is constantly reminding herself in small ways that she isn't one of these people. She can go back to her real life; she has higher knowledge; she has different perspectives.
Partway through my reading, I realized that she was not writing for a general audience, but for a very narrow group of her own peers. That may explain why she tossed around "fifty cent" words like postprandial, glossolalia, soteriological, aphasic, and hortatory, because otherwise I can't see the need for such a showy vocabulary, considering the subject matter. Of course I can use a dictionary like anyone else, but it's annoying when I get the idea that she was only using such terms to point out her thorough education. At one point in the book she begins fretting about "the anxieties of [her] social class," of "educated middle-class professionals." She seems smug whenever she can make a sophisticated cultural reference (showing that she knows the difference between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, for example, when her co-workers may not). She is constantly reminding herself in small ways that she isn't one of these people. She can go back to her real life; she has higher knowledge; she has different perspectives.
Above all, it's a game to Ehrenreich - she isn't really living in a low-wage-earner's world. She admits as much, but in that case the whole experiment is practically pointless! Ehrenreich has the starting advantage of a cash reserve to set herself up in an apartment and supplies, and a reserve of $200 cash for emergencies. She refuses to really go hungry because she will use her ATM card if it looks like her next meal is doubtful. She goes home periodically "to catch up on email and for conjugal visits" (but "pays" a money jar for meals she eats there). When she gets a rash from the latex gloves used in her cleaning job, she finds it "too much" to stay "in character," and asks her regular doctor for advice - and a prescription, which she gets the doctor to issue sight unseen. And she can afford to just leave when a particularly stressful shift turns out to be too much for her; she can afford to agitate for work stoppages and unionization at other jobs. In one segment she even tries to make her co-workers eat healthier foods on their lunch breaks. To me, that's not an investigation; that's interference and lack of respect.
Finally, she only stayed at each job for a month. Not nearly long enough to really feel how a person can get worn down. A month! That's nothing. She should try it for six months, a year, see how she feels about it then. She tried working two jobs at the same time (something I've discovered many of my current co-workers do), but that only lasted for two days - and then she quit one of the jobs because she got tired of being yelled at for breaking rules. You know, when people truly have to worry about keeping a job, they aren't so apt to break rules all the time!
Further, she is actually disappointed that a more comfortable efficiency apartment a bit farther away from her first job turns out to be the more affordable dwelling, as it doesn't have the same authentic poverty aesthetic as the local trailer park she would have preferred. When she does finally get to move into a trailer park with an unsavory reputation, she is "hoping for some vibrant multicultural street life" but instead of the drug deals and violent crimes she expects, she only gets the "desolation" of what she describes as "not people but canned labor" going to their jobs at the nearby convenience store and hotel. Even the glamor of poverty turns out to be a false preconception.
Further, she is actually disappointed that a more comfortable efficiency apartment a bit farther away from her first job turns out to be the more affordable dwelling, as it doesn't have the same authentic poverty aesthetic as the local trailer park she would have preferred. When she does finally get to move into a trailer park with an unsavory reputation, she is "hoping for some vibrant multicultural street life" but instead of the drug deals and violent crimes she expects, she only gets the "desolation" of what she describes as "not people but canned labor" going to their jobs at the nearby convenience store and hotel. Even the glamor of poverty turns out to be a false preconception.
With these incidents I realized that she was not truly making an investigation - she was searching for proof to back up what she already believed. This was more than evident in the way she chose to conduct the experiment. If she really wanted to know how people lived on low wages, why didn't she take a large sample and interview many people? Her own experience, even if authentic, could not possibly represent a whole population.
I especially take issue with her research methods - or in this case, the lack thereof. For a person who claims to be making a scientific investigation, Ehrenreich certainly assumes a lot out of her own head. Her observations are rife with phrases like I suspect, I imagine, for all I know, perhaps, probably, presumeably, no doubt, of course, it's not for me to ask, I don't have to ask, my guess is, I think what she means is, and so on. She assumes quite a bit, without bothering to ask or check - presumes that nonwhites are preferred for hotel housekeeping jobs, assumes that smokers enjoy nourishing one thing they can call their own (their inevitable tumors), suspects that the maids' uniform pants lack back pockets in order to discourage theft of small items from the homeowners, assumes that drug testing appeals to employers specifically for its demeaning effect. She also second-guesses people's motives for not calling her back, not hiring her, etc. And she tones back her customary profanity, feeling it would be out of place in her new sphere - yet another assumption. Maybe she was worried about blowing her cover, but it seems to me that making up her own reasons for everything defeats the purpose of doing such an in-depth experiment. I could have overlooked it once or twice but the trend was excessive.
Ehrenreich also seems distractingly prejudiced against religion, especially Christianity - a point I felt had no bearing on the story whatsoever, yet she insists that "people wearing crosses or WWJD? buttons" give her dirty looks "as a general rule," and then attends a church revival service purely for entertainment, while establishing that she is an atheist herself. If nothing else these observations could only hurt her mission - as proof of an irrepressible bias, and a deviation from the stated purpose of her book.
She's also very concerned with minorities - practically obsessed with seeking out people of color, disappointed that "everyone else is a tragic-looking hillbilly type." I stopped reading for a long time when she asserted that, among the dissatisfied customers waiting in a restaurant, "The black couple looks ready to summon the NAACP" I don't know how she could have told that just from the way they looked; maybe they were just hungry and tired of waiting for their food while a snobby academic mused on the significance of her sacrifice. I guess it was supposed to be a joke.
The point that really tipped me over the edge was her completely unfounded speculation that the maid service required its employees to scrub floors on hands and knees because the "anal accessibility" of this servile posture appealed to the type of homeowners who liked the idea of a maid to do their cleaning. Now, I don't know if this woman had never tried to wash a floor before or what, but sometimes you do need to get down close to the surface so you can see what you're doing... maybe that was the company's way of insuring the floors were thoroughly clean. Whatever the reasoning, I can't really believe that they wanted to woo their clients with a vision of anal sex!
I especially take issue with her research methods - or in this case, the lack thereof. For a person who claims to be making a scientific investigation, Ehrenreich certainly assumes a lot out of her own head. Her observations are rife with phrases like I suspect, I imagine, for all I know, perhaps, probably, presumeably, no doubt, of course, it's not for me to ask, I don't have to ask, my guess is, I think what she means is, and so on. She assumes quite a bit, without bothering to ask or check - presumes that nonwhites are preferred for hotel housekeeping jobs, assumes that smokers enjoy nourishing one thing they can call their own (their inevitable tumors), suspects that the maids' uniform pants lack back pockets in order to discourage theft of small items from the homeowners, assumes that drug testing appeals to employers specifically for its demeaning effect. She also second-guesses people's motives for not calling her back, not hiring her, etc. And she tones back her customary profanity, feeling it would be out of place in her new sphere - yet another assumption. Maybe she was worried about blowing her cover, but it seems to me that making up her own reasons for everything defeats the purpose of doing such an in-depth experiment. I could have overlooked it once or twice but the trend was excessive.
Ehrenreich also seems distractingly prejudiced against religion, especially Christianity - a point I felt had no bearing on the story whatsoever, yet she insists that "people wearing crosses or WWJD? buttons" give her dirty looks "as a general rule," and then attends a church revival service purely for entertainment, while establishing that she is an atheist herself. If nothing else these observations could only hurt her mission - as proof of an irrepressible bias, and a deviation from the stated purpose of her book.
She's also very concerned with minorities - practically obsessed with seeking out people of color, disappointed that "everyone else is a tragic-looking hillbilly type." I stopped reading for a long time when she asserted that, among the dissatisfied customers waiting in a restaurant, "The black couple looks ready to summon the NAACP" I don't know how she could have told that just from the way they looked; maybe they were just hungry and tired of waiting for their food while a snobby academic mused on the significance of her sacrifice. I guess it was supposed to be a joke.
The point that really tipped me over the edge was her completely unfounded speculation that the maid service required its employees to scrub floors on hands and knees because the "anal accessibility" of this servile posture appealed to the type of homeowners who liked the idea of a maid to do their cleaning. Now, I don't know if this woman had never tried to wash a floor before or what, but sometimes you do need to get down close to the surface so you can see what you're doing... maybe that was the company's way of insuring the floors were thoroughly clean. Whatever the reasoning, I can't really believe that they wanted to woo their clients with a vision of anal sex!
Overall, Ehrenreich seems to view low-wage workers as some pitiable foreign species. She's incredulous that a "place ... described as so morbidly dysfunctional could amount to a real and compelling human community." She discovers that applying for low-wage jobs is "humbling" because employers are not interested in your personality or life experience - yet she is surprised that she starts to "care" about her job, and tries to do it well. Did she think lower wage workers had no personal pride in their work?
Generally, I admire what Ehrenreich was trying to do, but I don't think she succeeded in her experiment. If anything, Nickel and Dimed shows how grossly out of touch and self-important a person can be.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"That's not your marble bleeding, I want to tell her, it's the world-wide working class" (90)
146 - musing on friends who have lengthened their names to "gentrified" versions while she shortens hers for convenience to Barb on her name tag
Thinks she's regressed to a childlike state of "Barb" who is not as smart and is more of a bitch-169
No comments:
Post a Comment