What do you think?
Rate this book
Elsewhere, U.S.A.: How We Got from the Company Man, Family Dinners, and the Affluent Society to the Home Office, BlackBerry Moms, and Economic Anxiety
Over the past three decades, our daily lives have changed slowly but dramatically. Boundaries between leisure and work, public space and private space, and home and office have blurred and become permeable. In Elsewhere, U.S.A., acclaimed sociologist Dalton Conley connects our day-to-day experiences with occasionally overlooked sociological changes, from women’s increasing participation in the labor force to rising economic inequality among successful professionals. In doing so, he provides us with an X-ray view of our new social reality.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published December 27, 2008
14 people are currently reading
428 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
February 8, 2011
Conley sets forth to explain a cultural phenomenon in the US in which people are increasingly disconnected, despite all the advances in communications technology. At least, I thought that’s what this was going to be about. Actually, it feels more like some kind of disorganized rip-off of “Freakonomics,” only not as well written. Conley often attempts to make an objective statement, only to follow it with one that leans heavily left or right (making BOTH left- and right-leaning comments does not make you objective, just indecisively biased). In general, it is very disorganized and meandering, and the arguments don’t seem very well argued. I feel like I can’t even write this review very well because it was all so vague. But here’s what I CAN single out: my main complaint is that the book is so heavily focused on the culture of the top 1% of income earners in the country. What’s the value of that? Plenty of middle-class families in this country can relate to “home office, blackberry moms, and economic anxiety,” so why are we reading about investment bankers living in million-dollar condos in Manhattan, with their existential angst over hiring a nanny, cleaning service, and pet sitter? The book starts out with a description of a typical suburban, middle-class family of the 50s, but it doesn’t ever really describe its modern equivalent for a point of comparison, and things just fall apart from there. It doesn’t even spout some kind of twaddle about how culture “trickles down,” it just displays a blatant classist (and to me, very east-coast centric) bias. Secondly, I seriously doubt Conley’s claims that economic anxiety (as in, fear of losing our jobs, careers, economic stability, etc.) is “all in our heads.” Again, that may be true of really rich people, but those of more humble means are in proportionally worse shape when faced with job loss, largely because they also tend to carry a lot of debt (something that was barely mentioned in the section[s] about economic anxiety). Plus, the statistics he cites about average job tenure are several years old and skewed toward people nearing retirement. Today, hopping from job to job is pretty much the norm, especially for the under-35 set. This book was published in 2009, and the economic collapse is mentioned a couple of times, so there’s no reason for this to be so out of date.
Yet with all these things bugging me, I still finished the book. This is because when Conley isn’t pretending to be Steven Levitt, his actual sociological analysis can be kind of interesting. For instance, he describes our “serial monogamy” culture (referring to divorce and second, third, etc. marriages) to be functionally equivalent to the polygamist/polyandrous cultures we tend to scorn, when you factor in alimony and child support. The chapter about crime and punishment (a different take from Levitt’s on why crime rates have gone down) is also rather interesting. Unfortunately, these two chapters don’t relate much to the central thesis of the book (which is still unclear to me) so I had to digest them more like separate articles than chapters in a book. All in all, I think what this book really needed was a good developmental editor. Better luck next time.
Yet with all these things bugging me, I still finished the book. This is because when Conley isn’t pretending to be Steven Levitt, his actual sociological analysis can be kind of interesting. For instance, he describes our “serial monogamy” culture (referring to divorce and second, third, etc. marriages) to be functionally equivalent to the polygamist/polyandrous cultures we tend to scorn, when you factor in alimony and child support. The chapter about crime and punishment (a different take from Levitt’s on why crime rates have gone down) is also rather interesting. Unfortunately, these two chapters don’t relate much to the central thesis of the book (which is still unclear to me) so I had to digest them more like separate articles than chapters in a book. All in all, I think what this book really needed was a good developmental editor. Better luck next time.
November 27, 2018
Closer to 3.5 stars for an interesting social commentary. The book is almost a decade old, but it seems like we're still in the same situation.
January 3, 2026
Elsewhere, U.S.A. by Dalton Conley is an ambitious exploration of American life, class, and place, blending sociology, travel, and personal observation. The book opens strongly, with the first chapter or two offering sharp insights and an engaging premise that draws the reader in. Conley’s eye for detail and his ability to connect geography with social patterns are immediately apparent, and early on it feels like the book is setting up a fresh and compelling way to look at the country.
As the book continues, however, the momentum begins to fade. Many of the themes and observations introduced early on are revisited repeatedly, often without adding enough new perspective to keep the narrative feeling dynamic. While Conley’s arguments are thoughtful and clearly grounded in research and experience, the repetition can make later sections feel less engaging than the promising opening.
Overall, Elsewhere, U.S.A. is a solid and thought-provoking book, particularly for readers interested in sociology and the ways place shapes identity and opportunity. Even though it wasn’t a favorite read and ultimately earns a 3-out-of-5 rating, it still has value, especially for those who appreciate reflective, idea-driven nonfiction and don’t mind a slower, more repetitive pace.
As the book continues, however, the momentum begins to fade. Many of the themes and observations introduced early on are revisited repeatedly, often without adding enough new perspective to keep the narrative feeling dynamic. While Conley’s arguments are thoughtful and clearly grounded in research and experience, the repetition can make later sections feel less engaging than the promising opening.
Overall, Elsewhere, U.S.A. is a solid and thought-provoking book, particularly for readers interested in sociology and the ways place shapes identity and opportunity. Even though it wasn’t a favorite read and ultimately earns a 3-out-of-5 rating, it still has value, especially for those who appreciate reflective, idea-driven nonfiction and don’t mind a slower, more repetitive pace.
December 4, 2009
As much economic treatise and discussion of new technology as the sociological study it purports to be but an still a mostly interesting synopsis of how American (largely) society “progressed” from 1959’s loyal, focused, striving Organization Man to 2009’s disloyal, distracted (the Elsewhere in the title refers to the constant mental splitting of attention) and far more driven corporate man and woman. Late in the book Conley says he largely tried to avoid predictions and judgments but clearly the person he is describing comes across as distracted, self-absorbed and struggling to mold sense from complexity. The family and work dynamics described do sound like an accurate depiction but mostly of the upper middle class America of nannies, big houses, business travel and corporate striving.
My major annoyance with the book is frequency of using the old management consultant trick of making up new terms as combinations or plays on old terms. People are now “intraviduals” or collections of multiple selves, time can no longer be divided into work and leisure hence the idea of “Weisure”, and people are encouraged to consume as an investment (think of a home equity loan) which terms “covestment.” There are a number more examples to the point that trying to keep track of terms gets to be trying after a while. I can’t say I have heard of any of these ideas gaining traction outside the book.
The avoidance of prediction is a smart strategy but it does limit the book to just sociological, economic, and technological review. How will a major economic slowdown affect Elsewhere, USA? Will there be less reason to have to divide time and attention when there is less that needs to be focused on or when the company keeps the Blackberry (“BlackberryNation” would have been a better title) after the downsizing? Will the children that Conley refers to grow up with an inability to focus even when necessary? Will there be a counter-trend of de-laying of multiple selves to a more integrated whole? Maybe it is already time for a sequel.
My major annoyance with the book is frequency of using the old management consultant trick of making up new terms as combinations or plays on old terms. People are now “intraviduals” or collections of multiple selves, time can no longer be divided into work and leisure hence the idea of “Weisure”, and people are encouraged to consume as an investment (think of a home equity loan) which terms “covestment.” There are a number more examples to the point that trying to keep track of terms gets to be trying after a while. I can’t say I have heard of any of these ideas gaining traction outside the book.
The avoidance of prediction is a smart strategy but it does limit the book to just sociological, economic, and technological review. How will a major economic slowdown affect Elsewhere, USA? Will there be less reason to have to divide time and attention when there is less that needs to be focused on or when the company keeps the Blackberry (“BlackberryNation” would have been a better title) after the downsizing? Will the children that Conley refers to grow up with an inability to focus even when necessary? Will there be a counter-trend of de-laying of multiple selves to a more integrated whole? Maybe it is already time for a sequel.
May 15, 2009
Along the lines of Freakonomics and The Tipping Point, but much more intellectual (and probably not quite as entertaining), I still thoroughly enjoyed Conley's social commentary on where we've been and what we're becoming. Most of his discussion is just that, commentary, so if you're looking for lots of statistics on what he posits, you won't find it here. Still, though, I did like his thoughts, and the socio-economic perspective. Hard to recommend, as his writing is a bit on the dry side. But if you liked Freakonomics and/or The Tipping Point, you would probably enjoy this one.
December 19, 2018
I love the vinettes in this book and related to much of it, but it was mostly that--just slapped together stories of the modern world and how that differs from back in the day. We are busy, kids are over-scheduled, we're over-worked and inequality. The "How we got" here is missing. And the data. Or any analysis. I like Conley a lot and he's a great writer and observer, but it felt like the meat was missing.
February 27, 2009
I was expecting Elsewhere, U.S.A. to be a diatribe railing against the modern world's tendency towards cell phones, virtual networking, and the shift away from "traditional" family mealtimes and the like. Instead, it was an even-handed look at the forces that have caused this shift and what it means for our country. Well-written and interesting.
May 11, 2009
Conley is obviously a superstar and a great writer, but this book - at times - felt like a well-written analysis of research over the past fifty years without any unifying narrative holding the book together. I never got a crystal clear sense of what Elsewhere, USA is. He made serveral great points, though I think he missed out linking them to a central thesis.
October 9, 2011
Hear ye, you wordsmiths of the web, you purveyors of pages, you iterators of information: Welcome to Elsewhere, U.S.A., a state of mind in which you are constantly moving; You are slinging nothing but ideas and giving up your leisure time to do it; You are working from home but are always available to the company via your Blackberry (which you are using to schedule your babysitters and manage your children); You hold the fear of the layoff or of lost earnings if you dare close your laptop long enough to have a McMeal with your family; You love your loft space or your recently-converted suburban bedroom/home office, until, of course, you get a look at your neighbors’, after which you shall work more feverishly than ever to stave off the envy and hopefully get that promotion or new account that will allow you, too, to put in the latest in soundproofing technology and remote-control window shades. Your very personality is being pulled apart by millions of messages. Welcome to Elsewhere, that constant state of motion and distraction that takes you anywhere and everywhere but here.
Dalton Conley, NYU sociologist, sounds the welcoming bell to you and me, the Weberati. We can do our jobs from anywhere with a decent internet connection. We work in information and produce ideas for a living. If we work for a manufacturer of actual physical products, we work far from the production line, most likely never experiencing a factory even on a training tour. We are today’s middle-class, white-collar worker. We work from home, we take our laptop on vacation, and we answer emails on our iPhones during the time-outs of our kid’s basketball game. We have this idea that if we just “get one more thing done” before bed, that our hours are well-spent, that our everlasting souls will be cleaned by hard work and that God will shower us with prosperity.
This latest book from prolific writer and academic researcher Conley traces the history behind the combination of work and leisure (“weisure”). Conley starts out the book unflinchingly nostalgic for the good ol’ days, when loyal IBM-ers were admired for their willingness to sing company songs and wear ties, as long as they had their nights and weekends free to play bridge and golf. Conley waxes on a bit about how leisure time was actually once meant for relaxation, instead of the multi-tasking work space it is today (I personally found this nostalgia to be a bit contrite, as Conley and I are both members of Generation X and only experienced those so-called halcyon days via our parents’ memories.)
Leisure and work are becoming mixed, says Conley, as companies like Google increasingly become one-stop shops for their employees. There is on-site laundry, showers, meals (which are free at Google, something Conley was amazed by), doctors, nurses, tax accountants and sometimes daycare. Practically any service the company can help you outsource will be available to you so you can spend more time working. You can “work from home” to spend more time with your kids, but your kids say you won’t look up from the laptop, and your co-workers can hear Rock Band II in the background of your conference call. Meanwhile, you notice your neighbor that holds the same job you do but for another company, has a new Mercedes in her driveway and you wonder how she earns twice your salary. You work harder and longer, ticking away any hours you aren’t working as lost income. You get so used to this state of always looking at the next thing you must do/have/say/be, you never look inward. You get splintered into many different roles, shattering your one individual into what Conley calls an “intravidual.” Nostalgia aside, Dalton has a point.
Still, even though I know Conley was addressing me and my fellow techie folk, I couldn’t help but be a bit offended by the characterization. The term “Blackberry Mom,” [cover/title, pg 1:] is as offensive and marginalizing as “Soccer Mom,” and it should’ve tipped me off on the tone of the book. If you are in my Weberati crowd, you will probably be offended on page 56 when Conley calls open-source software “communism” without noting how open-source actually spurred innovation in the private sector. You’ll also probably (well, hopefully) be offended on page 73 when he treats the modern norm of working women and their influence on the workplace with this line: “You can take the woman out of the kitchen but you can’t take the kitchen out of the woman.” That’s really the only media bait in the book, though.
The book reads like a textbook, but the it deserves the effort just on the amount of information it contains. The Appendix alone, with its collection of intriguingly titled articles, is a fair exchange for the purchase price. Unfortunately, Dalton takes a while to get to his main point. The long introduction lays down loads of social history to set up the story. The first 62 pages lay thick groundwork for his theory of what is happening with the state of the working person today. He goes through American social history, namely the social changes brought on by the industrial revolution, and emphasizes the occasional example to demonstrate how our work/life balance and our politics have changed, like the dwindling participation in unions over the last 50 years.
The author’s purpose of the book isn’t found until page 63:
“WHERE WE ARE AT
So, we have gone from a country with high ceilings and fans to low ceilings and air-conditioning; we have gone from an economy where many workers serviced one machine to one in which each American has dozens of machines working for them over the course of a given day; we have gone from being a nation of wandering renters to ever more tooted homeowners; we have gone from a country that experienced race riots in the 1960s–during a period of economic growth spread relatively equally across income deciles–to a country of almost Third World levels of economic inequality, where solid majorities vote to repeal the estate tax. We used to enjoy our free time and left the Europeans to work more than us; now we have more kids to take care of than they do, even as we work significantly more hours.*
No one single factor–not air-conditioning or computers; not female labor force participation; not tax policy alone or immigration–has caused these dramatic shifts. In fact, it is probably a futile exercise to ask how much tax policy drove the development of computers, how much computers drive income inequality, and how much income inequality drives commuting distances. Better to take a deep breath and unfocus the eyes to try to take in the entire mosaic that makes up the social landscape of today.
*Americans work an average of 25.1 hours per week (averaged across all working-age persons) in contrast to Germans, for instance, who average 18.6 hours, We work over 6 more weeks than the French per year. See Alberto ALessina, Edward L. Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, ‘Work and Leisure in the U.S. And Europe: Why So Different?’ Working Paper no 11278, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.”
I wish those two paragraphs and the citation were on page 1; they would’ve helped me parse out Conley’s academic prose. Although I appreciate the book being chock-full of information, as I read I kept wondering when he’d reveal his point.
Conley does get to his point, eventually, but at times his logic seemed a bit dubious. I was taken aback on page 56 when Conley cited a 2005 study, using the results as a base for his claim that most people still work for the same company for over 20 years. This may be true for the Baby Boomers, but not for any of us under 40 right now. I’m in my 30’s and I don’t know anyone who has worked for any 1 company in their careers, not even my friends who are medical doctors. We are consistently told by career advisors that after 5 years we should be looking for another opportunity, lest we appear habitual, lazy, and unwilling to learn. We believe that the retirement age will be raised to 75, there will be no social security pensions, and we will have worked at so many different companies and had so many varied careers that we will have lost count. Looking at Conley’s one-company-for-20-years claim in detail, the facts become clear. The study, cited from Working Paper #11878 from the National Bureau of Economic Research (where Conley holds a Research Associate position), looked at retirement age workers (ages 58-62) in 1969, and found that they had worked, on average, for one company for 21.9 years. The study then compared their 58-62 years old counterparts in 2002, and found that they had worked, on average, for one company for 21.4 years. Conley claims that despite our hectic schedules and our 24/7 mobile offices, we’re still all working for the same company, just like the IBM Man in 1950. When we, the GenXers, get to be 58-62, my guess is that number will drop from 21.4 to about 10.6. I’d like to see a similar study of people who are 42 years of age right now and see how many different places they’ve worked. Then I’d like to see the same data on people aged 32 today. 21.4 years at one company is a pipe dream for the average Generation Xer. Conley’s choice to cite this study to support his everything-old-is-new-again-but-we-work-more-than-the-IBMer-of-1950 was misleading at best. This slight massaging of statistics is common practice for academics, economists and media members alike, so it’s difficult to make a case against Conley for doing it. There are infinite ways of massaging statistics and relegating the details of data to footnotes in order to support your point, so when numbers are involved, caveat emptor.
Despite the nostalgia and the numbers games, Elsewhere U.S.A. and Professor Conley earn respect. Conley’s points about materialism and the ever-increasing gap between the classes are a sharp slap upside our credit-busting heads. Conley is, plain and simple, one of us, and he keeps us well informed of the changes in our lives that we are too busy to notice. Although Conley avoids Twitter, he knows the scene. He references some books that are well-known in the social media circles I run in (e.g., Anderson’s The Long Tail) and knows the pressures we face in an outsourcing, all-consuming workplace. He’s just as guilty as the rest of us, but he’s a sane voice in the fog of our all-too-modern, fast-motion lives.
Please listen to my interview with Dalton Conley about Elsewhere, U.S.A., where we discuss what he discovered about himself on his solo trip in Europe as a young man, how we are all becoming splintered into a thousand tiny pieces, and what these changing norms mean for all of us. Podcast can be found at: http://www.purplecar.net/2009/07/19/e...
Dalton Conley, NYU sociologist, sounds the welcoming bell to you and me, the Weberati. We can do our jobs from anywhere with a decent internet connection. We work in information and produce ideas for a living. If we work for a manufacturer of actual physical products, we work far from the production line, most likely never experiencing a factory even on a training tour. We are today’s middle-class, white-collar worker. We work from home, we take our laptop on vacation, and we answer emails on our iPhones during the time-outs of our kid’s basketball game. We have this idea that if we just “get one more thing done” before bed, that our hours are well-spent, that our everlasting souls will be cleaned by hard work and that God will shower us with prosperity.
This latest book from prolific writer and academic researcher Conley traces the history behind the combination of work and leisure (“weisure”). Conley starts out the book unflinchingly nostalgic for the good ol’ days, when loyal IBM-ers were admired for their willingness to sing company songs and wear ties, as long as they had their nights and weekends free to play bridge and golf. Conley waxes on a bit about how leisure time was actually once meant for relaxation, instead of the multi-tasking work space it is today (I personally found this nostalgia to be a bit contrite, as Conley and I are both members of Generation X and only experienced those so-called halcyon days via our parents’ memories.)
Leisure and work are becoming mixed, says Conley, as companies like Google increasingly become one-stop shops for their employees. There is on-site laundry, showers, meals (which are free at Google, something Conley was amazed by), doctors, nurses, tax accountants and sometimes daycare. Practically any service the company can help you outsource will be available to you so you can spend more time working. You can “work from home” to spend more time with your kids, but your kids say you won’t look up from the laptop, and your co-workers can hear Rock Band II in the background of your conference call. Meanwhile, you notice your neighbor that holds the same job you do but for another company, has a new Mercedes in her driveway and you wonder how she earns twice your salary. You work harder and longer, ticking away any hours you aren’t working as lost income. You get so used to this state of always looking at the next thing you must do/have/say/be, you never look inward. You get splintered into many different roles, shattering your one individual into what Conley calls an “intravidual.” Nostalgia aside, Dalton has a point.
Still, even though I know Conley was addressing me and my fellow techie folk, I couldn’t help but be a bit offended by the characterization. The term “Blackberry Mom,” [cover/title, pg 1:] is as offensive and marginalizing as “Soccer Mom,” and it should’ve tipped me off on the tone of the book. If you are in my Weberati crowd, you will probably be offended on page 56 when Conley calls open-source software “communism” without noting how open-source actually spurred innovation in the private sector. You’ll also probably (well, hopefully) be offended on page 73 when he treats the modern norm of working women and their influence on the workplace with this line: “You can take the woman out of the kitchen but you can’t take the kitchen out of the woman.” That’s really the only media bait in the book, though.
The book reads like a textbook, but the it deserves the effort just on the amount of information it contains. The Appendix alone, with its collection of intriguingly titled articles, is a fair exchange for the purchase price. Unfortunately, Dalton takes a while to get to his main point. The long introduction lays down loads of social history to set up the story. The first 62 pages lay thick groundwork for his theory of what is happening with the state of the working person today. He goes through American social history, namely the social changes brought on by the industrial revolution, and emphasizes the occasional example to demonstrate how our work/life balance and our politics have changed, like the dwindling participation in unions over the last 50 years.
The author’s purpose of the book isn’t found until page 63:
“WHERE WE ARE AT
So, we have gone from a country with high ceilings and fans to low ceilings and air-conditioning; we have gone from an economy where many workers serviced one machine to one in which each American has dozens of machines working for them over the course of a given day; we have gone from being a nation of wandering renters to ever more tooted homeowners; we have gone from a country that experienced race riots in the 1960s–during a period of economic growth spread relatively equally across income deciles–to a country of almost Third World levels of economic inequality, where solid majorities vote to repeal the estate tax. We used to enjoy our free time and left the Europeans to work more than us; now we have more kids to take care of than they do, even as we work significantly more hours.*
No one single factor–not air-conditioning or computers; not female labor force participation; not tax policy alone or immigration–has caused these dramatic shifts. In fact, it is probably a futile exercise to ask how much tax policy drove the development of computers, how much computers drive income inequality, and how much income inequality drives commuting distances. Better to take a deep breath and unfocus the eyes to try to take in the entire mosaic that makes up the social landscape of today.
*Americans work an average of 25.1 hours per week (averaged across all working-age persons) in contrast to Germans, for instance, who average 18.6 hours, We work over 6 more weeks than the French per year. See Alberto ALessina, Edward L. Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, ‘Work and Leisure in the U.S. And Europe: Why So Different?’ Working Paper no 11278, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.”
I wish those two paragraphs and the citation were on page 1; they would’ve helped me parse out Conley’s academic prose. Although I appreciate the book being chock-full of information, as I read I kept wondering when he’d reveal his point.
Conley does get to his point, eventually, but at times his logic seemed a bit dubious. I was taken aback on page 56 when Conley cited a 2005 study, using the results as a base for his claim that most people still work for the same company for over 20 years. This may be true for the Baby Boomers, but not for any of us under 40 right now. I’m in my 30’s and I don’t know anyone who has worked for any 1 company in their careers, not even my friends who are medical doctors. We are consistently told by career advisors that after 5 years we should be looking for another opportunity, lest we appear habitual, lazy, and unwilling to learn. We believe that the retirement age will be raised to 75, there will be no social security pensions, and we will have worked at so many different companies and had so many varied careers that we will have lost count. Looking at Conley’s one-company-for-20-years claim in detail, the facts become clear. The study, cited from Working Paper #11878 from the National Bureau of Economic Research (where Conley holds a Research Associate position), looked at retirement age workers (ages 58-62) in 1969, and found that they had worked, on average, for one company for 21.9 years. The study then compared their 58-62 years old counterparts in 2002, and found that they had worked, on average, for one company for 21.4 years. Conley claims that despite our hectic schedules and our 24/7 mobile offices, we’re still all working for the same company, just like the IBM Man in 1950. When we, the GenXers, get to be 58-62, my guess is that number will drop from 21.4 to about 10.6. I’d like to see a similar study of people who are 42 years of age right now and see how many different places they’ve worked. Then I’d like to see the same data on people aged 32 today. 21.4 years at one company is a pipe dream for the average Generation Xer. Conley’s choice to cite this study to support his everything-old-is-new-again-but-we-work-more-than-the-IBMer-of-1950 was misleading at best. This slight massaging of statistics is common practice for academics, economists and media members alike, so it’s difficult to make a case against Conley for doing it. There are infinite ways of massaging statistics and relegating the details of data to footnotes in order to support your point, so when numbers are involved, caveat emptor.
Despite the nostalgia and the numbers games, Elsewhere U.S.A. and Professor Conley earn respect. Conley’s points about materialism and the ever-increasing gap between the classes are a sharp slap upside our credit-busting heads. Conley is, plain and simple, one of us, and he keeps us well informed of the changes in our lives that we are too busy to notice. Although Conley avoids Twitter, he knows the scene. He references some books that are well-known in the social media circles I run in (e.g., Anderson’s The Long Tail) and knows the pressures we face in an outsourcing, all-consuming workplace. He’s just as guilty as the rest of us, but he’s a sane voice in the fog of our all-too-modern, fast-motion lives.
Please listen to my interview with Dalton Conley about Elsewhere, U.S.A., where we discuss what he discovered about himself on his solo trip in Europe as a young man, how we are all becoming splintered into a thousand tiny pieces, and what these changing norms mean for all of us. Podcast can be found at: http://www.purplecar.net/2009/07/19/e...
March 13, 2019
Read for SOCI 110.
Honestly hated this. It has some interesting points, but I didn't like the writing and the constant comments blaming these new changes (and problems) on women entering the workforce? K. (At one point he said "you can take the woman out of the kitchen, but no the kitchen out of the woman" soooooo).
Honestly hated this. It has some interesting points, but I didn't like the writing and the constant comments blaming these new changes (and problems) on women entering the workforce? K. (At one point he said "you can take the woman out of the kitchen, but no the kitchen out of the woman" soooooo).
June 10, 2009
Elsewhere, U.S.A. initially comes off as a more comprehensive update to Georg Simmel’s The Metropolis and Mental Life where Mr. and Mrs. 2009’s exposure to the unwieldy onslaught of emails, soccer practices, and complex-professional demands tends to increasingly fragment any clear notion of the individual (or the inner, private self). Whereas I’ve always read Simmel’s 1903 ode in hindsight as far too hyperbolic, Conley’s text does an admirable job of presenting many of these issues in a comprehensive, easily digestible manner (as I haven’t read Simmel’s writings about money, pre-modern society, etc. my reading is certainly skewered by the brevity of Metropolis). Nonetheless there seems something of a generalization about Mr. and Mrs. 2009 (he frequently contrasts our current couple with their 1959 counterparts) that reminds me of the supposed populace cleverly defined by Stuff White People Like. In Lander’s case, the subjects are presumably “white folk,” but really they’re a mere segment of the non-Hispanic White population that falls within the 24-to-35 age range, has or is working for a graduate degree, and lives in a gentrifying urban neighborhood. Conley’s approach, of course, isn’t that myopic. There is much in this book that is relevant for everyone in the US today.
Possibly the most important aspect of this text is where he pinpoints the widening income gap as not only between rich and poor, but also – even more statistically glaring – between the merely well-off and the very rich. This disparity and the attendant technological accouterments tend to foster an aggressive populace that is always working. For any well-earned time off is no longer viewed as such but rather seen as additional money lost. Perhaps my unease is that I must consider this from the vantage point of my distorted segment of the population – that is, as an architect. Our modus operandi is to work insane hours so we can make less money, and attain zero job security (for you see, Lander’s peeps who enthuse about architecture while lounging in their “van der Rohe” never give me a damn call! But I digress…).
If I found myself a bit detached from some of the general themes, in utilizing details/examples the author had the uncanny knack of mentioning various things that I often complain about but seemingly escape the ire of others. His acknowledgement that money-procured organ and sex transactions are seemingly the only things considered taboo in our otherwise comprehensive capitalist society is spot on. But my favorite was his experience in 1989 of seeing an AmEx advertisement in a movie theater. When The Village was supposedly still “The Village,” many of the patrons booed, hissed, threw crap at the screen, and walked out. But, as the author is no doubt correct, they likely were satiated by free tickets to yet another movie fronted by crass advertising. Everyone just moved on with their lives. Around 1990 I saw my first ad before a movie – Levis Jeans – and I was equally perturbed. His mention made me ponder why I’ve only gone to about five movies in the intervening 19 years (usually dragged kicking and screaming to even those) and I realized that initially I (loudly) refused to pay box office rates to see a damn commercial. Eventually I had forgot about my defiant stand, and simply didn’t go as I was too busy beefing up my architecture portfolio in case any of Lander’s “White People” came-a-calling.
Possibly the most important aspect of this text is where he pinpoints the widening income gap as not only between rich and poor, but also – even more statistically glaring – between the merely well-off and the very rich. This disparity and the attendant technological accouterments tend to foster an aggressive populace that is always working. For any well-earned time off is no longer viewed as such but rather seen as additional money lost. Perhaps my unease is that I must consider this from the vantage point of my distorted segment of the population – that is, as an architect. Our modus operandi is to work insane hours so we can make less money, and attain zero job security (for you see, Lander’s peeps who enthuse about architecture while lounging in their “van der Rohe” never give me a damn call! But I digress…).
If I found myself a bit detached from some of the general themes, in utilizing details/examples the author had the uncanny knack of mentioning various things that I often complain about but seemingly escape the ire of others. His acknowledgement that money-procured organ and sex transactions are seemingly the only things considered taboo in our otherwise comprehensive capitalist society is spot on. But my favorite was his experience in 1989 of seeing an AmEx advertisement in a movie theater. When The Village was supposedly still “The Village,” many of the patrons booed, hissed, threw crap at the screen, and walked out. But, as the author is no doubt correct, they likely were satiated by free tickets to yet another movie fronted by crass advertising. Everyone just moved on with their lives. Around 1990 I saw my first ad before a movie – Levis Jeans – and I was equally perturbed. His mention made me ponder why I’ve only gone to about five movies in the intervening 19 years (usually dragged kicking and screaming to even those) and I realized that initially I (loudly) refused to pay box office rates to see a damn commercial. Eventually I had forgot about my defiant stand, and simply didn’t go as I was too busy beefing up my architecture portfolio in case any of Lander’s “White People” came-a-calling.
February 22, 2017
This book is packed with interesting bits of information about the road that took us as society from the old hydrocarbon version to the modern multitasking one. It merges several sociological views into a single fluid concept.
January 6, 2018
Although I am not quite halfway through with this book, there are a number of issues that are apparent so far. The social and economic status of the author is evident, and strongly influences the philosophy through which he evaluates American society. In one example used to illustrate the supposed "reversal" of the traditional social order, the author discusses a nanny "scolding" the parents/employers in their treatment of their children. This is an obviously privileged point of view, as the likely economic and social disparities in this situation are ignored.
Other shocking statements in the book include, "Poverty in a post-industrial economy is less about the ability to meet basic material needs and more about the lack of control over life choices and the personalized humiliation that the poor experience in the work lives," and the assertion that trickle-down economics has worked.
I would agree that there is an increasing overlap between the public/private domains. However, the supposed merging of work/leisure, boss/employee, and home/office, is not a universally applicable phenomenon. As someone who works from a home office, I can appreciate that these shifts are obviously existent, especially with technological advents, but the unemployed, those who work multiple jobs, those with obvious power differences at work, at many others to whom these do not apply.
The description of people hooked into the latest technology, traveling frequently, and able to employ nannies/masseuses/chefs/other personal service luxuries, makes it clear about whom this book is about. However, instead of limiting his analysis to a specific segment of society, Conley universalizes his discussion, making invisible the day-to-day struggles of many in our increasingly economically unequal society.
Other shocking statements in the book include, "Poverty in a post-industrial economy is less about the ability to meet basic material needs and more about the lack of control over life choices and the personalized humiliation that the poor experience in the work lives," and the assertion that trickle-down economics has worked.
I would agree that there is an increasing overlap between the public/private domains. However, the supposed merging of work/leisure, boss/employee, and home/office, is not a universally applicable phenomenon. As someone who works from a home office, I can appreciate that these shifts are obviously existent, especially with technological advents, but the unemployed, those who work multiple jobs, those with obvious power differences at work, at many others to whom these do not apply.
The description of people hooked into the latest technology, traveling frequently, and able to employ nannies/masseuses/chefs/other personal service luxuries, makes it clear about whom this book is about. However, instead of limiting his analysis to a specific segment of society, Conley universalizes his discussion, making invisible the day-to-day struggles of many in our increasingly economically unequal society.
September 13, 2010
This is the best book on socioeconomics that I’ve read this year and in my shortlist for best overall of 2009. If Soros addressed the current economic world at systemic and financial levels, Conley does so at the sociological and technological. The Internet, Blackberries, social networking, knowledge work replacing the creation of stuff, working at home, the upward spiral of education, earnings and status, equal earners, raising kids, how people can feel more fragmented despite greater connectedness…Conley identifies and puts into words what many may feel but are unable to characterize, where it's coming from, and how it all fits together.
Conley is an academic, but does not write here with cautious academic rigor. The work reads more like a free wheeling, cokehead rant from someone who isn’t actually full of shit. He peppers his positions with enough footnotes and every day facts to keep the credibility level high. All done with entertaining verve. Still, the pacing can be somewhat exhausting and tangential as he relentlessly strings one point to the next from start to finish.
Many of the points made will not be news, but their current relevance and the way they’re woven together is what makes this such an enjoyable and persuasive read. A factual jam session of social and economic observations with an especially lucid player. If you liked the way all the strings were woven together in The Wire to paint a complete and current social picture, you’ll dig this.
Conley is an academic, but does not write here with cautious academic rigor. The work reads more like a free wheeling, cokehead rant from someone who isn’t actually full of shit. He peppers his positions with enough footnotes and every day facts to keep the credibility level high. All done with entertaining verve. Still, the pacing can be somewhat exhausting and tangential as he relentlessly strings one point to the next from start to finish.
Many of the points made will not be news, but their current relevance and the way they’re woven together is what makes this such an enjoyable and persuasive read. A factual jam session of social and economic observations with an especially lucid player. If you liked the way all the strings were woven together in The Wire to paint a complete and current social picture, you’ll dig this.
April 28, 2009
I want to like this book--from the descriptions it seems that it describes my lifestyle pretty well. But 50 pages in, I'm not liking it much at all. Sorry, but using the word "paradigm" several times on the very first page is not a way to hook readers. Right now it's reading as a mildly interesting book appearing on a course syllabus, which I can only read a few pages at a time without falling asleep. The author IS a professor, which could be why it has that feel. It's short on actual examples of people's lives and long on complicated thoughts and sentences. The most interesting part so far is when he describes how is own wife ignores their child -- even when he has wet his bed and needs to be comforted by mom -- in order to keep working through all hours of the night. I keep waiting for him to mention his divorce but it appears that he doesn't think anything is wrong with his wife doing that because it's reflective of current societal norms. I'll give it one more chapter before it's reduced to "skim only" status. If it were from the library I'd probably be skimming already.
----
Update: Yep, it got reduced to skim-only! But I did finish it at least.
----
Update: Yep, it got reduced to skim-only! But I did finish it at least.
June 16, 2010
Elsewhere U.S.A. is a sociological inspection of recent trends in the worls of work, technology, and family and interpersonal life in the United States, particularly for people from upper and upper-middle classes.
Conley is an engaging and accessible writer, and he is able to introduce fundamental sociological concepts from the classics (Marx, Weber, Durkheim) in straightforward language and with simple metaphors and examples.
He develops new sociological concepts that are worth noting and thinking about such as the "elsewhere ethic", the "elsewhere class", the idea of "convestment", the "intravidual". The notion of "elsewhere" is understood as the subjective feeling that we are never where we are supposed to be, since technology and the changes in the world of work have reshaped our understanding of space.
Unfortunately, Conley does not delve into the meaning of these concepts. He introduces then and then takes them as granted. He also relies too strongly on mainstream economics to think about society.
Overall, the book has great potential, but I feel like it could have been taken much further and deeper.
Conley is an engaging and accessible writer, and he is able to introduce fundamental sociological concepts from the classics (Marx, Weber, Durkheim) in straightforward language and with simple metaphors and examples.
He develops new sociological concepts that are worth noting and thinking about such as the "elsewhere ethic", the "elsewhere class", the idea of "convestment", the "intravidual". The notion of "elsewhere" is understood as the subjective feeling that we are never where we are supposed to be, since technology and the changes in the world of work have reshaped our understanding of space.
Unfortunately, Conley does not delve into the meaning of these concepts. He introduces then and then takes them as granted. He also relies too strongly on mainstream economics to think about society.
Overall, the book has great potential, but I feel like it could have been taken much further and deeper.
April 15, 2009
A busy professional with an equally busy spouse -- he is Chair of New York University's Sociology Department; his wife is experimental designer Natalie Jeremijenko -- Dalton Conley lives the multiple lives he describes. Most critics think he has honed a forward-looking book that successfully combines personal anecdote and hard science. Even if his ideas are not cutting-edge, he is a "lively if sometimes overheated writer" (New York Times Book Review) who presents a snapshot of our times that some of those "intraviduals" might actually read on the morning commute. Conley's penchant for coining new expressions and his ability to synthesize discrete strands of information draw a few comparisons to the work of Malcolm Gladwell. That's not necessarily a good thing, though, as some critics feel Conley is more interested in creating lingo than in figuring out where Elsewhere is really at.
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
July 22, 2010
A sociologist's perspective of how we Americans have evolved from 1950's to present day, including the influence of technology and women in the workplace. The author also talks about the concepts of happiness, satisfaction, stress, and consumerism, and how these things tend to drive the working 24/7 mentality that is prevalent in our culture and society today.
One of my life goals is to "work to live, don't live to work". And apparently my choosing to bypass the fast track (or, to take it at a more leisurely pace) is counter to how many others feel or think they ought to feel. One of my SWE friends (Sarah Kirkish) wisely said: "Never confuse being rich with being wealthy. Wealth is having your time to yourself and being able to enjoy it fully." And I completely agree with that statement!
One of my life goals is to "work to live, don't live to work". And apparently my choosing to bypass the fast track (or, to take it at a more leisurely pace) is counter to how many others feel or think they ought to feel. One of my SWE friends (Sarah Kirkish) wisely said: "Never confuse being rich with being wealthy. Wealth is having your time to yourself and being able to enjoy it fully." And I completely agree with that statement!
September 6, 2016
Overall an interesting book that tends to meander while making and linking observations and arguments. While there are a lot of citations, there's a great deal of positions taken and arguments made that argue correlation rather than causation. Unfortunately, there's not a great deal of data shared to back up claims that the author makes. The author also is writing to and about a specific audience (middle and upper classes) and has obvious bias and privilege that shows when making certain statements about the lower classes (some of which come across as quite offensive at times). There are some interesting points made regarding the linking between economics and society and the concept of disruption within society due to the growing divergence of income, but they are often marred by the author's quite blatant disconnection with much of the population and their experiences.
June 30, 2009
I picked up and read this one as it is about one of the subjects I am interested in. I enjoyed it, but can't say that I really learned anything from it.... He talks about "weisure" where we are working during our leisure time by being tied to our blackberries, etc. Times sure have changed since the 1950's, but since I have lived through these changes, I was already aware of the vast majority of them. Didn't even find new insight into these issues. That being said, I still found that it was easy to read and kept me going.... If this is your subject and don't have a better book to read, try this one!
July 26, 2012
Huzzah! I finished reading a book! Someone recommended this to me, but I don't know who. It was on my phone as a note, and I just so happened to be perusing a used book store, and voila! There it was!
Two things that stick out. There are a lot of cliché phrases and he uses "Begs the question" incorrectly.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of cool and interesting things in this book but that's what sticks out in my mind.
His theories are sound too, the only thing is, it sounds like he is talking about the more affluent demographic.
But I'm being nitpicky. I did enjoy reading it, especially since I had nothing to do because I was stuck outside in nature with no internet.
Two things that stick out. There are a lot of cliché phrases and he uses "Begs the question" incorrectly.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of cool and interesting things in this book but that's what sticks out in my mind.
His theories are sound too, the only thing is, it sounds like he is talking about the more affluent demographic.
But I'm being nitpicky. I did enjoy reading it, especially since I had nothing to do because I was stuck outside in nature with no internet.
September 1, 2014
This is a pretty simple analysis of how modern capitalism functions: increased reliance on technology, precarity, lack of distinction between work and leisure, etc. The author focuses primarily on those in the higher income brackets (his own class bracket) where he says inequality and uncertainty are growing the fastest. While that argument isn't entirely convincing, some of the points he makes can be used to approach the economy more generally. Much of what he says has been said elsewhere in more detail and with more nuance, but this might do for folks looking for a simple and quick understanding of some of the shifts in capitalism in the past fifty or so years.
March 26, 2013
I was hoping to learn something new about Elsewhere, USA. Instead, the book was a review of facts that I learned in my college business and communication classes and he held up a mirror to show a reflection of my life. I didn't need a book to show me how stretched-thin I am (raising 4 kids, age 5 and under, running my own book of business, various volunteer work & clubs I'm in, etc.)
If you are one of my neighbors in Elsewhere, USA, then you probably have more valuable ways to spend your time instead of reading this book.
If you are one of my neighbors in Elsewhere, USA, then you probably have more valuable ways to spend your time instead of reading this book.
Want to read
February 22, 2009Quotes from danah boyd's review (http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/arch...
"This constant fear of being exposed, cut out, or outsourced, and thereby having one's 'capital' rendered valueless, is the principal pathos of the era."
"Whereas in the industrial epoch, the ability to cloister oneself off from the hoi polloi was a mark of power; in the post-industrial, networked economy, being surrounded by as many people as possible, all seeking your attention, is the ultimate manifestation of rank."
"This constant fear of being exposed, cut out, or outsourced, and thereby having one's 'capital' rendered valueless, is the principal pathos of the era."
"Whereas in the industrial epoch, the ability to cloister oneself off from the hoi polloi was a mark of power; in the post-industrial, networked economy, being surrounded by as many people as possible, all seeking your attention, is the ultimate manifestation of rank."
May 13, 2009
I hated this book so much that I kept reading so I could find more things to hate about it. It's like an all-you-can-eat stereotype buffet. It opens with an absurd caricature of an urban professional as if Conley's ability to dream it up somehow proves his point. This becomes a habit, in which he simply makes huge assumptions and then works off of them without bothering to justify them. The only observations that I didn't hate were the completely obvious and unoriginal ones. I don't know why I don't learn my lesson about these books.
January 20, 2010
Lots of interesting points from sociology perspective. The book flowed well, but also had a greater density of ideas then say Freakonomics. I felt like a was attending an engaging lecture series.
Outsourcing child raising, housekeeping, lawn care. Remaining plugged in 24/7. Fragmentation. Modern class relations. Lack of seperation between work and leisure.
Interesting to contemplate societies trends, and my place in them.
Outsourcing child raising, housekeeping, lawn care. Remaining plugged in 24/7. Fragmentation. Modern class relations. Lack of seperation between work and leisure.
Interesting to contemplate societies trends, and my place in them.
January 14, 2011
Lucid explanation of the dichotomy the modern human faces in trying to be an individual while be being overly networked. The concept of an "intravidual" as someone who has multiple selves/personsa and the stress that it brings is explained.
The book is spot-on in terms of its examples (Teaching kids Mandarin, working on Webkinz, home-office). The book does not provide answers, but does go miles in explaining many of things we take for granted. (Why do we clean up after ourselves at KFC ?)
The book is spot-on in terms of its examples (Teaching kids Mandarin, working on Webkinz, home-office). The book does not provide answers, but does go miles in explaining many of things we take for granted. (Why do we clean up after ourselves at KFC ?)
January 18, 2010
This was OK, and put a lot of data into an interesting context. I felt it was lacking in the author's understanding of the pressures of the corporate world he's describing. Unlike Barbara Ehrenreich, who really immerses herself in the issues she writes about, Conley came to this as an outsider and came off that way throughout.
September 7, 2009
Easy read- and interesting read as well about how we live and how the public/private lives we lead are blurred. Didn't know he was also the author of "Honky" which is a book I received about 6 years ago and haven't read yet! Will be digging it out of storage to check it out.
September 19, 2009
I enjoy comparing social/culture changes between generations and this book definitely outlines how much faster our world has changed in the last 50 years, and whether or not we can call that progress?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews