Rural America has occupied an increasingly central role in the nation's consciousness since the election of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. While highlighting a previously overlooked key constituency, this increased focus has often had the unfortunate effect of further ostracizing and othering rural people and places through gross characterizations and stereotyping. News reports and popular works of fiction often emphasize rural populations as backwards, ignorant, and “voting against their own self-interest”—or as manipulated by Trump's Republican Party, as if they do not understand their own best interests. Lacking from these depictions are thorough and empathetic interrogations of the larger structural contexts in which rural populations form beliefs and cultures. Sherman's thoughtful study of the community of Paradise Valley, conducted through ethnographic research in 2014, is almost prophetic in providing insights and answers to the nation's current questions about rural Americans. Dividing Paradise builds off her previous work and offers a compassionate and humane window into the lived experiences of a community caught in the national and global headwinds of economic restructuring, rising economic inequality, and political polarization.

The book's central goal is to “explore the processes by which [various] types of social inequality are produced and reproduced as well as their impacts on individuals and the larger community and society” in which they are situated (8). Dividing Paradise begins with an introduction to the theoretical and methodological approaches Sherman used to study Paradise Valley. Chapter Two provides a historical overview of Paradise Valley, her case-study community, as well as the recent demographic changes restructuring the social inequalities present in the community. Here Sherman describes her typology of “newcomers” and “old-timers” that are the central point of comparison for Paradise Valley's residents’ experiences and the unique challenges they are likely to face.

The following chapters go into greater detail of the disparate lived experiences of “newcomers” and “old-timers.” Newcomers are those in Paradise Valley who have lived in the valley for a shorter period (fewer than 20 years), have greater real and symbolic resources, as well as generally more liberal political views. Sherman details how idyll notions of rural places as slower paced, safer, and more family friendly drove newcomers to migrate to Paradise Valley. While newcomers faced some economic challenges, such as underemployment, salary, or prestige, Sherman documents how many overcame these obstacles. For example, newcomers can secure employment opportunities, housing, and consistent childcare through their greater status-based resources, such as human capital in the form of education, job skills, and experience; cultural capital in the form of “soft-skills”; and social capital through connections with other community members. Perhaps most important to dividing the experiences of newcomers and old-timers was the considerable wealth of many newcomers that allowed them to live comfortably on lower incomes and afford quality housing.

Meanwhile, old-timers are residents who have lived in the valley for longer, have fewer resources, and have more conservative political views. In contrast to newcomers, old-timers struggled to survive in Paradise Valley as they tended to have fewer ways to secure even basic necessities: work, housing, childcare, and food. Yet, Sherman documents how old-timers “clung to ideologies associated with the American Dream, including hopes of economic success and upward mobility achieved through individual effort, ability, and perseverance” (85). Sherman illustrates how marginalization and resentment among old-timers emerges from their sense that the future they had expected or hoped for in Paradise Valley had been stolen from them.

In Chapter Five, Sherman examines the various mechanisms driving social class divides between newcomers and old-timers, as well as how the residents of Paradise Valley make sense of these divisions. The focus is on how differences in types and amount of capital produce and reproduce inequalities within the community. For example, Sherman notes how access to social capital in the form of sharing information about employment or housing opportunities were largely hoarded among social networks of newcomers. Thus, while newcomers experienced the community as “tight knit,” old-timers experienced significant social isolation with few people to turn to for support. Sherman illustrates how cultural capital—“taste and preferences in art, music, food and drink, and leisure activities as well as differences in political stances and in aspirations for children's outcomes”—further divided the residents of Paradise Valley (132). Sherman describes how newcomers practicing “class-blindness” largely failed to acknowledge the ways in which “their social activities rarely included old-timers and often overlooked the role that social class played in structuring cultural interests and competencies among residents” (135). Finally, Sherman explores how education and schools provided social and cultural capital to newcomers, while furthering the disenfranchisement of old-timers’ children through unfair treatment due to greater social and economic barriers.

The major success of Sherman is her interrogation of how rural Americans use moral capital, or conceptions of morality and deservingness, to make sense of their lives. In her previous book, Those Who Work, Those Who Don't, Sherman demonstrated how the community of Golden Valley, whose residents generally lacked material resources, constructed social boundaries through perceptions of morality around having a job or not, utilizing social welfare or not. In Dividing Paradise, Sherman interrogates a community with significant local inequality in material resources and the role that moral capital plays in contributing to and perpetuating social differences between newcomers and old-timers. Newcomers consistently emphasized their concerns for issues of social inequality and poverty and still failed to make connections to old-timers in need. Instead newcomers judged old-timers’ misfortunes as the result of their lack of work ethic and morality, and of personal flaws. Simultaneously, old-timers often clung to idealized visions of rural morality, such as hard work, self-sufficiency, or not using social welfare support, as well as family values to create positive sources of meaning and dignity. This often resulted in old-timers perpetuating the same judgments as new-timers among themselves, thereby diminishing their capacities to maintain strong social networks. Sherman offers insight into how local inequality contributes to a sense of social isolation or abandonment and its connection to anti-governmental views: “These feelings of exclusion combined with the sense of being invaded or attacked by an outside force… helped to shape their worldviews, including the sense of distrust and self-protection,” that led to their distrust of “the democratic process and that their concerns weren't addressed by local or national leaders and institutions” (175).

Dividing Paradise concludes by calling attention to how one rural community serves as a microcosm of broader social class divides across the United States. Sherman provides a road map for understanding how social inequality drives experiences of inclusion or exclusion and emphasizes the need for greater attention to how various forms of real and symbolic capital produce and reproduce social inequality. Sherman concludes by calling for “substantive changes in perspectives, behaviors and the structures of our communities and the larger economy to overcome class-blindness, apathy, and anger, and (re)create communities and a nation in which we are united in our shared desires to flourish together and pursue our dreams” (197).

The tale of Paradise Valley is an indispensable resource for social scientists interested in social inequality and its impacts. While scholars of rural America will find this book's themes familiar, it provides significant theoretical contributions for understanding and further investigating ongoing changes in rural populations and places. Sherman's work will also appeal to researchers interested in the mechanisms driving social inequality and political polarization in the United States. The author's ethnographic research is rigorous in both methodological and theoretical approaches, yet accessible both for professionals and undergraduates. Dividing Paradise should be a staple for anyone seeking to develop greater social class consciousness as well as to understanding the perennial question of “what is going on in rural America?”

自2016年美国总统大选唐纳德特朗普选举以来，农村美国在全国意识中占据了日益核心的作用。虽然突出了以前被忽视的关键支持者，但这种增加的关注往往会产生不幸的影响，通过粗略的描述和刻板印象进一步排斥和排斥农村人民和地方。新闻报道和流行的小说作品经常强调农村人口是落后的、无知的，并且“投票反对自己的私利”——或者被特朗普的共和党操纵，好像他们不了解自己的最大利益一样。这些描述缺乏对农村人口形成信仰和文化的更大结构背景的彻底和同情的审问。谢尔曼'Dividing Paradise建立在她之前的工作基础上，并提供了一个富有同情心和人性化的窗口，让我们可以了解一个陷入经济重组、经济不平等加剧和政治两极分化等国家和全球逆风的社区的生活经历。

这本书的中心目标是“探索[各种]类型的社会不平等产生和再生产的过程，以及它们对个人和更大的社区和社会的影响”（8）。《划分天堂》首先介绍了谢尔曼用于研究天堂谷的理论和方法论方法。第二章提供了天堂谷的历史概览，她的案例研究社区，以及最近重构社区中存在的社会不平等的人口结构变化。在这里，Sherman 描述了她对“新来者”和“老前辈”的分类，这是比较天堂谷居民体验和他们可能面临的独特挑战的中心点。

以下章节将更详细地介绍“新人”和“老前辈”截然不同的生活经历。新来者是在天堂谷居住时间较短（不到 20 年）、拥有更多真实和象征性资源以及普遍更自由的政治观点的人。Sherman 详细介绍了乡村生活节奏较慢、更安全、更适合家庭的田园诗般的观念是如何促使新移民迁移到天堂谷的。虽然新移民面临一些经济挑战，例如就业不足、薪水或声望，但谢尔曼记录了有多少人克服了这些障碍。例如，新移民可以通过他们更多的基于地位的资源，如教育、工作技能和经验形式的人力资本，确保就业机会、住房和稳定的儿童保育；“软技能”形式的文化资本；和社会资本通过与其他社区成员的联系。或许对于区分新人和旧人的经历来说，最重要的是许多新移民的可观财富，这些财富使他们能够以较低的收入舒适地生活并负担得起优质的住房。

与此同时，老年人是在山谷中居住时间更长、资源更少、政治观点更保守的居民。与新来者相比，老人们在天堂谷挣扎着生存，因为他们往往没有办法获得基本的必需品：工作、住房、儿童保育和食物。然而，谢尔曼记录了老人们如何“坚持与美国梦相关的意识形态，包括通过个人努力、能力和毅力实现经济成功和向上流动的希望”（85）。谢尔曼说明了老年人的边缘化和怨恨是如何从他们对天堂谷的期望或希望的未来被偷走的感觉中产生的。

在第五章中，谢尔曼考察了导致新人和旧人之间社会阶级分化的各种机制，以及天堂谷的居民如何理解这些分化。重点是资本类型和数量的差异如何在社区内产生和再现不平等。例如，Sherman 指出，以分享就业或住房机会信息的形式获得社会资本的途径在很大程度上被新移民的社交网络所囤积。因此，虽然新来者将社区视为“紧密结合”，但老者经历了严重的社会孤立，几乎没有人可以寻求支持。谢尔曼说明了文化资本如何——“艺术、音乐、食物和饮料的品味和偏好，和休闲活动以及政治立场和对儿童成果的愿望的差异”——进一步划分了天堂谷的居民 (132)。Sherman 描述了实践“阶级盲目性”的新移民如何在很大程度上未能承认“他们的社交活动很少包括老前辈，并且经常忽视社会阶级在构建居民的文化兴趣和能力方面所发挥的作用”（135）。最后，谢尔曼探讨了教育和学校如何为新移民提供社会和文化资本，同时由于更大的社会和经济障碍，通过不公平待遇进一步剥夺了老年人子女的权利。Sherman 描述了实践“阶级盲区”的新移民如何在很大程度上未能承认“他们的社交活动很少包括老前辈，并且经常忽视社会阶级在构建居民的文化兴趣和能力方面所发挥的作用”（135）。最后，谢尔曼探讨了教育和学校如何为新移民提供社会和文化资本，同时由于更大的社会和经济障碍，通过不公平待遇进一步剥夺了老年人子女的权利。Sherman 描述了实践“阶级盲区”的新移民如何在很大程度上未能承认“他们的社交活动很少包括老前辈，并且经常忽视社会阶级在构建居民的文化兴趣和能力方面所发挥的作用”（135）。最后，谢尔曼探讨了教育和学校如何为新移民提供社会和文化资本，同时由于更大的社会和经济障碍，通过不公平待遇进一步剥夺了老年人子女的权利。

谢尔曼的主要成功是她对美国农村如何使用道德资本或道德和应得的概念来理解他们的生活的审问。在她之前的著作《那些工作的人，那些不工作的人》中，谢尔曼展示了黄金谷社区的居民普遍缺乏物质资源，是如何通过围绕有没有工作、是否利用社会福利的道德观念来构建社会界限的. 在分界乐园，谢尔曼询问了一个在物质资源方面存在严重地方不平等的社区，以及道德资本在促进和延续新人和旧人之间的社会差异方面所发挥的作用。新移民一直强调他们对社会不平等和贫困问题的关注，但仍然未能与有需要的老人建立联系。相反，新人将老前辈的不幸归咎于他们缺乏职业道德和道德以及个人缺陷。同时，老年人往往坚持理想化的农村道德观，例如努力工作、自给自足或不使用社会福利支持，以及家庭价值观来创造意义和尊严的积极来源。这常常导致老前辈在他们之间延续与新前辈相同的判断，从而削弱了他们维持强大社交网络的能力。Sherman 深入探讨了地方不平等如何导致社会孤立或被遗弃感及其与反政府观点的联系：“这些被排斥的感觉与被外部力量入侵或攻击的感觉相结合……帮助塑造了他们的世界观，包括不信任感和自我保护感”，这导致他们不信任“民主进程，并且地方或国家领导人和机构没有解决他们的担忧”（175）。

《分裂天堂》最后呼吁人们关注一个农村社区如何成为美国更广泛的社会阶级分化的缩影。谢尔曼为理解社会不平等如何推动包容或排斥体验提供了路线图，并强调需要更多地关注各种形式的实际和象征性资本如何产生和再生产社会不平等。谢尔曼最后呼吁“我们社区和更大经济体的观点、行为和结构发生实质性变化，以克服阶级盲目性、冷漠和愤怒，并（重新）创造社区和国家，我们在共同的渴望共同繁荣，追求我们的梦想”（197）。

天堂谷的故事是对社会不平等及其影响感兴趣的社会科学家不可或缺的资源。虽然美国农村的学者会发现本书的主题很熟悉，但它为理解和进一步调查农村人口和地方的持续变化提供了重要的理论贡献。谢尔曼的工作还将吸引对美国社会不平等和政治两极分化的机制感兴趣的研究人员。作者的民族志研究在方法论和理论方法上都很严谨，但专业人士和本科生都可以使用。分界乐园 对于任何寻求发展更大的社会阶级意识以及理解“美国农村正在发生什么？”这个长期存在的问题的人来说，这应该是一个主要内容。