Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities
22Jan/133

The House We All Live in

This past weekend I took the time to watch Eugene Jarecki’s new documentary film The House I Live In, which calls passionately and insistently for the U.S. to end its decades-long War on Drugs. Jarecki’s previous documentary work includes The Trials of Henry Kissinger (2002) and Why We Fight (2006), and he is known for activist filmmaking that combines sharp social commentary with fluid storytelling. There is much to admire in Jarecki’s take on the effort to stamp out illicit drugs, and given the massive racial and class disparities that have emerged in prosecution and sentencing, he is right to cast the War as a litmus test of our national commitment to equitable democratic citizenship. But there is also something about the manner in which he makes his case, and the very sweep of his vision, that gives me momentary pause.

Let me touch on the film’s strong suits first. Above all else, Jarecki sheds powerful light on the intimate impacts of the drug trade and the law enforcement crackdown against it. He does so in no small part by giving a prominent role to Nannie Jeter, the African-American woman that Jarecki’s family employed as a housekeeper in his youth. (Nannie is Jeter’s given name, not a reference to her role in the family’s life.) Jarecki regards Jeter as a second mother, and he often played with her children as a boy. We learn, however, that their paths in the world diverged sharply from his own, and several of them eventually became entangled in drug use, drug-related HIV/AIDS, and incarceration. Jarecki unflinchingly relates how his family’s privilege had adverse if unintended consequences for Jeter’s, and while some viewers might fault him for inserting himself into the film, his approach ultimately lends moral heft to his pointed political argument. Jarecki maintains that we are all implicated in the circumstances that led to the War on Drugs, and he refuses to remove himself from the film’s critical scrutiny.

In addition, The House I Live In includes revealing commentary from the many varied participants in the American drug crackdown: dealers and cops, defendants and judges, prisoners and wardens, activists and lawmakers, parents and children. The film features articulate reflections from people who have dealt drugs in the past and are now in correctional custody. Significantly, not one of these individuals denies responsibility for their actions—“I messed up” is a common refrain—but all seek to situate their decisions and actions within larger structures of constraint and disadvantage. At the same time, Jarecki includes remarkably candid insights from law enforcement personnel. Although a few of them make disturbing admissions about the perverse incentives that encourage profiling and drug-bust profiteering, the film does not demonize police officers and corrections officials. It instead allows them to express both the pride and the ambivalence they feel toward their work.

Lastly, Jarecki musters a wide array of legal and other experts, including prominent academics like Michelle Alexander and Charles Ogletree, to lend his film critical perspective and authority. To be sure, almost all of these commentators are sympathetic to Jarecki’s viewpoint, but it is nevertheless refreshing to hear intellectuals speak as intellectuals in any kind of feature-length American film. What is more, these figures do not merely touch on what are, at least for me, the most familiar and even well-worn points about recent drug-related criminal justice: the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines in the 1970s and 1980s, the precipitous increase in rates of incarceration, and the dramatic expansion that ensued in both the state-run and private prison industries. For these commentators also relate the War on Drugs to the years of Jim Crow in the South; the Great Migration of African Americans to the Northeast and Midwest; the redlining and other practices that contributed to the formation of racially segregated ghettos; and the far-reaching impacts of deindustrialization. This attention to the longue durée of U.S. history is one of the film’s strongest attributes.

At the same time, Jarecki’s commitment to accessible and engaging narrative sometimes gets him into trouble. Although he and his collaborators are quick to criticize the reductive sound-bites that have defined mainstream public discourse from Nixon to George W. Bush, the film is occasionally too content to rely on its own slick editing and glib turns of phrase. There are also moments when sobriety yields too much ground to showmanship. Of all his interlocutors, Jarecki grants the most prominent role not to any person directly impacted by the War on Drugs, but to David Simon, the former journalist who went on to create the HBO hit “The Wire.” To his credit, Simon is a generally subdued and thoughtful commentator, but should the maker of a television series, however relevant and critically acclaimed, really receive this kind of precedence?

Jarecki’s priorities as a filmmaker also entail some unfortunate substantive trade-offs. At one key point in the film, he relies on interview footage with several experts to contend that the criminalization of opium, cocaine, and marijuana in the early twentieth century was not ultimately driven by benign public health and safety concerns; it was rather motivated by racially charged anxieties over the arrival of immigrant groups and the challenges they posed to white workers on local and regional labor markets. I am willing to grant that racist and nativist resentments may have played some role in the crackdowns against the users and distributors of these substances.

I can only imagine, however, that this claim—at least in its bald formulation in the film—is much more contentious in scholarly and other circles than Jarecki is prepared to admit here.In any case, such a line of argument cannot explain the more recent public response to methamphetamine, a drug that is more closely associated with (poor) whites than any minority or immigrant group.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the film, however, concerns the dubious parallels that Jarecki proposes between the War on Drugs and other cases of group exclusion and violence. Drawing once more on footage from multiple interviewees, he suggests that American law enforcement since the late 1960s has followed a sequence of collective identification, ostracism, confiscation, concentration, and annihilation that can also be observed (most notably) in the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. The film is quick to add that the “chain of destruction” evident in the contemporary U.S. is not equivalent to the one that unfolded in Central and Eastern Europe during World War II. But that does not prevent David Simon from casting the War on Drugs as “a Holocaust in slow motion” against America’s poor and minority populations. Such hyperbolic language strikes me not just as deeply misguided, but entirely unnecessary. Viewers do not need such problematic analogies in order to grasp the film’s claims and stakes.

Despite these warts and missteps, The House I Live In is well worth watching. The film makes a daring claim on viewers’ conscience, and it calls on all of us to undertake the challenging work of thinking through our convictions as citizens in fundamental ways. We need more, not less, of this kind of provocation.

-Jeff Jurgens

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.

Comments (3) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude! Many thanks, However
    I am having troubles with your RSS. I don’t understand why I can’t subscribe to it.
    Is there anybody getting similar RSS issues? Anybody who knows the
    answer can you kindly respond? Thanks!!

  2. This was an insightful and considered article; I’m glad I found it. Though I did agree with some of the criticism of Jarecki’s work, I hold a divergent view regarding his use of Hilberg’s “chain of destruction” parallel with Nazi Germany’s Final Solution policies. There can be no denying the horrific outcomes of that regime, but I do not concur that they are without parallel. The systematic genocides conducted against the indigenous peoples of the Americas in the aftermath of the late-15th century Columbian landings produced equivalent numbers, at the very least, and the wealth obtained from the European colonization project actually funded the Industrial Revolution (Diaz, 2010). Insofar as the U. S.’ minority populations are called to mind, a fear of the proximity of white women and Chinese immigrants via the conduit of opium use fueled the development of local ordinances, led by San Francisco in 1875 (Levine, 1973).

    It is “only when the use of this drug [opium] came to be associated with the Chinese, a despised and feared minority group, was this practice denounced” (Faupel, Weaver & Corzine, 2014).

    Perhaps an instance of larger historic social impact can be seen in the association of African Americans with cocaine. Some of the pervasive mythology surrounding cocaine use has persisted in some or another form into postmodern era, but widely-held late nineteenth beliefs were that a) African Americans in the American South were more inclined to violence toward whites; b) black men using cocaine gained superhuman strength; c) black men’s marksmanship with sidearms was improved; that black users of cocaine were rendered… impenetrable to .32 caliber bullets, which supposedly resulted in many Southern police departments issuing .38 caliber handguns to their officers (Musto, 1973). Faupel et al. also find a coinciding peak of lynchings of blacks in the South (Faupel, Weaver & Corzine, 2014, p. 40). No one well-acquainted with the lynching history in the United States can fail to see that holocaust is an appropriate and wholly applicable term. Perhaps a visit to http://www.withoutsanctuary.org and a view of the film there will serve to educate those with less-than-intimate familiarity.

    The main point of my contention is in no way pursuant to a holocaust one-upsmanship, nor to imply that one holocaust is more horrific than another, but that estimations of their impact cannot be fully informed in a fashion that does not frame the acts within a qualitative scaffold. Even so, such quantitative considerations as exist regarding these lynchings have been under-reported. In neither methodological approach can honest comparative measures be drawn. That, to my ear, seems the greater hyperbole.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Rashied K. Sharrieff-Al-Bey
    Dept. of Sociology
    Hofstra University, NY

  3. Other remedies you could at home are religious therapies of soaking the wart area in hot water; duct tape occlusion; and simple topical ointment application. Simply touching a wart
    on someone doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get one. That resulted in a huge blister,
    incredible pain, but no cure. If your child exhibits any of these physical or behavioral signs, or if the child sustains an eye injury,
    take the child in for a thorough eye exam.


Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.