The Glass Castle

Just a few years behind schedule, I’ve just finished reading “The Glass Castle.”  It’s one of the very few books I’ve read for fun recently.  And it is remarkable for many reasons – one of which is that it contextualizes much about American political development and the (deliberate) absence of the American welfare state in the central lives of its very poverty-stricken central characters during the 1960’s – 1970’s.    It is one of the few memoirs I’ve read that simply illuminates the struggles of a recently by-gone era in ways that remind us how differently communities were structured prior to the full implementation of government anti-poverty laws that we now take for granted.  Along with “Black Boy: American Hunger” and “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” (both from slightly earlier times), “The Glass Castle” effectively provides a memoirist’s detailed window on neglected populations living in decidedly unglamorous geographic and social communities.

“The Glass Castle” is a teaching tool in many ways – especially for some of us who grew up in a time when Head Start, school “free lunch”, and other related government programs were a social and legal norm.  And, for better or worse, and despite recent threats (see, r.e.,, many of those core anti-poverty programs are such settled law that few members of either major party would seriously consider outright eliminating them.  And so it is that we take the programs’ existence as a political and legal given, and the problems that created such programs become a *somewhat* distant memory.   We certainly still have poverty and inequality in America, although it appears that these programs have served to partially mitigate their effects.

It is against the backdrop of the brutal descriptions of poverty and dysfunction in “The Glass Castle” that makes me wonder how memoirists will write about the great American social inequality problems of our time (e.g., healthcare, education, immigration) and whether government, law, and/or courts served to provide effective solutions.  Or, have we now reached the point that since starvation-level poverty in America has been reduced substantially, we can no longer agree on common grounds for reducing social inequality without the bitterest of political debates?  One thing is for certain – the memoirs of today’s generation certainly won’t sound much like “The Glass Castle” and, for better or worse, I suspect that’s a government intervention we can all agree with.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Jimbino says:

    There are still almost no Blacks, Hispanics or Native Americans, and certainly no poor folks, among the tourists at our numerous national parks and forests.

    We should either sell them off to the Chinese or start busing minorities and poor there so they can start enjoying the national treasures of which they are part owners.

    Our socialist gummint is racist and elitist, if anything, and regularly transfers wealth from the poor to the rich by means of national park country clubs, social security and public education.

  2. I must have read a different “The Glass Castle.” In the book that I read, the parents were suffering from at least alcoholism and possible mental disorders. The children do not seem to blame lack of social services for their plight, but their parents’ utter refusal to negotiate any type of social or economic structure for the children’s well-being. Perhaps their neighbors could have benefitted from intervention, and perhaps the children could have snuck one free lunch a day, but I seriously doubt that the parents in that book would have either accepted or tolerated intervention. I’m certain the parents would not have filled out paperwork for their children to get free lunch, for example. The chidlren also were not developmentally behind because of the lack of free preschool, either. In my read, the book was an example of exceptionally poor parenting, not exceptionally poor government institutions. Particularly when we learn that the mother has at all times owned property in Texas worth a few million dollars, even when she was too busy painting to find food for her children, it’s hard to see where any social services would have given the author a better childhood. I am not saying that life isn’t better with a social safety net, but these parents sought out life without a net for their own misguided purposes.