I only thank Naremore for not using French noir to buttress the observation you quote, because if he'd done so, I'd have no reason to write a book to show how the French conceptions of noir are the ones that are truly central to noir's aesthetic underpinnings. (As well as rescue 350+ films that help to demonstrate this, films pushed under the ice by the Nouvelle Vague.)
Noir is protean and appropriable. It is a subversive energy within the structure of society and how drama is used to characterize it. Surrealism is, indeed, the first truly subversive art form that is relevant to a burgeoning popular culture, and it is the first to posit that a crime figure (Fantomas) can actually be "heroic." It embraces the moral ambiguity that the rest of the world at the time was unable to grasp or accept as part of the "way things work."
Of course I do sympathize and can connect with what you are saying about the so-called "simpler world" and the place of popular culture within it. But the world keeps turning and changing, and the dark forces within progress keep pushing the simpler life, based on the now obsolete "industrial revolution," not just to the margins but to the cliffs of extinction, so it is probably useful that there has been an influx of academic occupations and an explosion of communications capitalism, if only to employ people who would otherwise be bereft. Alan Rode joined the Navy, and had a career and (presumably) a pension to show for it, which (again presumably) permits the massive expenditures of time and energy on a massive tome about Michael Curtiz; other people have to be more entrepreneurial, and the last two decades (prior to the ongoing disruptions we are experiencing at the moment) might be said to be the "golden age of the 501c3 corporation."
As for the book, I am less sanguine about it, because the TOC indicates that it is yet another close reading of a handful of films prefaced by yet another tip-toe reshuffling of the Titanic deck chairs as regards the definition of film noir. What I'd hoped to see when I first saw the title of your post was a volume that actually delved in detail into the history of Argentine film noir, a subject that ought to be tackled, since it appears that Eddie M.'s strategy is to follow in the cinephile capitalist modality and simply try to exploit his connection with Argentine noir one film at a time the way Rialto built its original "art film" model into a successful business in the 90s. Books about non-American "national noir cinemas" are what need to appear, along with cross-historical "sub-genre" studies such as "early spy noirs" (something Dan Hodges should be urged to do when he's not in the trenches pushing for single-payer health care). Those are the works that can open up the fact that noir was an international phenomenon that did not "speak its name" in its most creative period (1930-66) and has now become less effective as a subversive impulse because it is too self-conscious and is itself being subverted, partially by the tactics and presentation methods of organizations such as Film Noir Foundation.