Book Review: The Long Hangover

[osprey_archer]

I liked Shaun Walker’s The Long Hangover: Putin’s New Russia and the Ghosts of the Past, but in a mild sort of way: I finished it over a week ago and it’s already fading out of my mind.

Two things that stuck with me. First, there’s a part where Walker is talking about Chechnya, and comments in amazement on the number of Chechens who serve in the Russian armed forced - even though Stalin deported the entire Chechen nation during World War II, even though Russia has leveled Grozny twice since the end of the Soviet Union.

When you put it that way it does sound surprising. But then, Native Americans serve in the US military in high numbers (I just learned this in Onigamiising), despite having a similarly harrowing history with that institution - and it struck me that perhaps these things seems baffling only if you look at them from a certain angle, if you assume that joining the military is a reflection of burning patriotism or at least some enthusiasm for a country, when really sometimes it’s just a job, an opportunity, maybe the only opportunity for someone living in a marginalized community.

No one thinks you have to have a burning love of McDonalds to start flipping burgers, after all.

The other thing that struck me is the total failure of empathy in the West vis-a-vis the collapse of the Soviet Union. My impression is that the American assumption was that everyone in the USSR would react about the same way as, say, Poland, where the Soviets were viewed as an invading power and their withdrawal caused celebration.

But outside of eastern Europe (which only came into the Soviet sphere post-World War II in any case), most people didn’t see it that way: they saw their own government and way of life collapsing, national purpose and identity crushed, with nothing to replace it but a kleptocratic oligarchy, and meanwhile the West looked on in bafflement and said “You’ve got democracy now! Why aren’t you rejoicing?”

Comments

[asakiyume]

I can't help seeing the West's failure of empathy in terms of something my oldest said, something I keep sharing with people (so I apologize if I've already told you; I have trouble keeping track of where and to whom I've said what): that people are a lot more willing to admit to failings in themselves than they are to see good in people whom they think of as enemies. In other words, when contemplating the phrase "the line between good and evil runs through the human heart," they're able to get behind seeing the evil in their own hearts more easily than seeing good in their enemies'.

I wonder if it's a similar thing with Americans and the Soviet Union. To be empathetic means acknowledging that there were good things to mourn when the Soviet Union dissolved.

Regarding the flaw in thinking the only reason people would join the army is burning patriotism, the ninja girl has said similar about teaching. She's been teaching in Japanese schools for three years now and is ready to do something different, and one thing she remarked on is that everyone seems to think that she must be drawn to teaching because of burning devotion to the discipline and love of children, and while she's enjoyed the job more or less, she just doesn't feel those things AT ALL. And she said, she'd either like to do something she **does** have a burning desire to do (but this may be hard, because jobs aren't constructed to encompass her interests that way), or else something where no one is going to expect her to have that level of ardor for the work.

[osprey_archer]

I don't think you've shared that one with me before! And I do think there's a lot of truth in it - I do feel this visceral NO to the idea that someone like Trump has good in him, although presumably there's a good quality in there somewhere.

At least with the army, I don't think most actual soldiers think burning patriotism is a requirement: that seems to be more of an outside view. Whereas my impression is that a lot of teachers do feel that teaching is a vocation and, perhaps, that their colleagues who don't feel as much burning passion are doing it wrong... and I do think that if someone genuinely hates kids, then teaching isn't for them, but at the same time it's not necessary to love teaching with EVERY FIBER OF YOUR HEART to do it competently.

I also think this PASSION! narrative gets used to sucker teachers into doing more and more extra work for less money. Surely fulfilling your vocation for the love of the children must be more than enough recompense!

[asakiyume]

I agree about the passion narrative being used to get teachers to do more for less. In its extreme formulation, the reasoning is "This is work you love so of course you'll do it for free, right?"

That line of discourse makes me so mad. We live in a society where people have to earn money to live. If you're going to imply that people who love something ought to be willing to do it for free, you're essentially saying that people should only be paid if they hate their work: that money is compensation for doing something awful. But that's not how it works. Money is compensation for someone's training, professionalism, ability, and time.

People do do things for free all the time--including teach (Scout leaders, 4-H leaders, classroom volunteers, grandparents passing on things to grandkids, etc.), but professional teachers agree to be at the school every day without fail (barring sickness, etc.), to teach a given curriculum, not all parts of which they love, to deal with parents and colleagues and students in need, etc. That requires more than just whim or generosity of the heart or a few hours here and there.

(the ninja girl does like kids, a lot--she just doesn't have that BURNING PASSION thing)

[osprey_archer]

I wonder if teaching gets hit with this extra-hard because it's a female-dominated profession. Women are supposed to work for love! It's unseemly of them to demand too much - anything, really, but especially money.

Although I think there's a similar dynamic in say the tech industry, or at animation studios, where people are supposed to work huge numbers of hours and it's not considered too onerous because, after all, the work is so cool! Who wouldn't want to do it for sixty hours a week??? (What sensible person wants to do any single thing for sixty hours a week? I love reading but sixty hours of it would get onerous.) But I think there's a machismo element there that you don't see as much for teaching - so the effect is the same, working more hours for less pay, but the rationale is slightly different.