Not my VP


Overgeneralization:
Critics argue that Vance's experiences in Middletown, Ohio, and his family's roots in Kentucky are not representative of all Appalachia or the broader working-class white experience. For instance:
- Appalachia spans 13 states with diverse cultures and economic conditions
- Vance's portrayal neglects the experiences of people of color in the region
- The book overlooks significant variations in urban vs. rural experiences
Validity: This critique has merit as social scientists generally caution against broad generalizations from personal anecdotes.
"Bootstraps" narrative:
Vance emphasizes personal responsibility and individual agency in overcoming poverty. Critics argue this ignores:
- Systemic barriers like lack of quality education and healthcare
- The impact of generational poverty
- The role of social networks and community support in success stories
Validity: While personal responsibility plays a role, research in sociology and economics often emphasizes the importance of systemic factors in social mobility.

Blaming the victim:
Specific examples from the book that critics point to include:
- Vance's focus on "hillbilly culture" as a source of problems
- His criticism of perceived laziness or lack of work ethic
- Downplaying of external economic factors like factory closures
Validity: This critique aligns with broader sociological debates about the causes of poverty. Many scholars argue for a more balanced approach that considers both cultural and structural factors.
Stereotyping:
Critics argue Vance reinforces negative stereotypes through:
- Descriptions of violence and substance abuse
- Portrayals of anti-social behavior and distrust of institutions
- Emphasis on "hillbilly" as an identity marker
Validity: While Vance describes his personal experiences, the broad application of these descriptions to an entire region or class can indeed perpetuate stereotypes.
Political implications:
The book has been used to support certain political narratives:
- Justifying reduced social welfare programs
- Explaining Trump's appeal to working-class white voters
- Supporting individualistic rather than collective solutions to poverty
Validity: While Vance may not have intended these interpretations, the book's reception and use in political discourse lend some credence to this critique.
Lack of historical context:
Critics argue Vance overlooks:
- The history of labor exploitation in Appalachia
- The impact of coal industry boom and bust cycles
- Long-standing patterns of outmigration from the region

Validity: Historians of Appalachia generally agree that understanding the region's current issues requires a deeper historical perspective than Vance provides.
Limited perspective:
Specific limitations noted by critics include:
- Vance's relatively privileged position as a Yale Law graduate
- His limited time actually living in Appalachia
- The absence of other voices or perspectives in the narrative
Validity: As a memoir, the book is inherently limited in scope, but its treatment as a definitive account of the region by some readers and media outlets makes this a valid concern.
Questionable accuracy:
Some specific claims challenged by critics include:
- Vance's characterization of Appalachian accent and dialect
- His depiction of local attitudes towards education
- Certain anecdotes that seem exaggerated for effect
Validity: While personal memories can be subjective, factual inaccuracies, if proven, would undermine the book's credibility as a sociological account.

These critiques have been articulated by scholars like Elizabeth Catte, Dwight Billings, and Lisa R. Pruitt, as well as by journalists and Appalachian natives. They reflect a broader concern about the representation of marginalized communities and the complexities of addressing poverty and regional economic challenges.
Overgeneralization:
- Vance presents his personal experiences as representative of all Appalachian and Rust Belt communities
- Fails to acknowledge diversity within these regions
- Oversimplifies complex socioeconomic issues
Perpetuation of stereotypes:
- Reinforces negative stereotypes about Appalachian people
- Portrays "hillbillies" as uniformly poor, uneducated, and prone to violence
- Lacks nuance in depictions of culture and values
Blame-shifting:
- Places excessive blame on individuals for systemic problems
- Downplays impact of economic factors, deindustrialization, and lack of opportunity
- Promotes "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality without addressing structural barriers
Limited historical context:
- Insufficient exploration of the region's complex history
- Glosses over long-term economic exploitation of Appalachia
- Ignores impact of coal industry decline and environmental degradation
Political bias:
- Conservative slant in analysis of social issues
- Criticizes government assistance programs without fully examining their necessity or impact
- Promotes individual responsibility while minimizing role of policy and systemic change
Lack of academic rigor:
- Relies heavily on personal anecdotes rather than empirical data
- Insufficient engagement with existing scholarship on Appalachian studies
- Oversimplifies complex sociological concepts
Misrepresentation of culture:
- Portrays Appalachian culture as monolithic and inherently problematic
- Fails to highlight positive aspects of community and resilience
- Overlooks diversity of experiences within the region
Gender and racial insensitivity:
- Limited exploration of issues facing women in the community
- Inadequate discussion of racial dynamics and diversity in Appalachia
- Focuses primarily on white working-class experience
Classism:
- Adopts a condescending tone towards working-class people
- Implies cultural superiority of middle-class values
- Fails to critically examine his own class mobility and privilege
Misattribution of causality:
- Overemphasizes cultural factors in explaining poverty
- Underplays role of economic policies, globalization, and corporate practices
- Simplistic view of relationship between culture and economic outcomes
Selective memory:
- Potential inaccuracies or embellishments in personal recollections
- Cherry-picking of experiences to fit narrative
- Lack of external corroboration for some claims
Lack of solutions:
- Offers few concrete policy proposals or solutions
- Criticizes existing interventions without proposing viable alternatives
- Fails to address systemic changes needed to address regional challenges
Promotion of respectability politics:
- Emphasizes conformity to mainstream norms as path to success
- Criticizes aspects of working-class culture without examining their origins or value
Oversimplification of addiction issues:
- Portrays addiction as primarily a personal failing
- Insufficient exploration of opioid crisis and its systemic causes
- Lacks empathy in depiction of individuals struggling with substance abuse
Misrepresentation of social mobility:
- Presents his personal success as more achievable than statistics suggest
- Downplays role of luck, timing, and individual circumstances in his rise
Problematic portrayal of family:
- Potentially unfair or one-sided depictions of family members
- Ethical concerns about exposing private family struggles publicly
Lack of community voices:
- Limited inclusion of other perspectives from the community
- Presents himself as sole authority on regional experience
Inconsistent narrative:
- Contradictions between criticism of his background and pride in his roots
- Unclear stance on value of his upbringing and culture
Emotional manipulation:
- Use of dramatic personal stories to elicit sympathy without broader context
- Potential exploitation of family trauma for literary effect
Inadequate discussion of mental health:
- Superficial treatment of mental health issues in the community
- Lack of exploration of trauma and its intergenerational impacts
Problematic policy implications:
- Book used to justify cutting social programs and services
- Narrative co-opted by politicians to promote specific agendas
Writing style issues:
- Uneven prose quality
- Repetitive themes and anecdotes
- Lack of cohesive structure in parts of the book
Member discussion