Why I picked it up: My sister is angry. As a liberal, she is angry that conservatives have taken patriotism away from her. She's angry that the values that conservatives have imbued patriotism with are not, in her mind, easily reconciled with what she believes America can and should be … the values she associates with this country. She loves our country, but is angry that conservatives thinks liberals like her are trying to destroy it. And she wants to reclaim patriotism.

I understand how she feels. While I am not as angry as she is (despite being, if anything, even more liberal), I am grieved that the conservative/liberal divides have deepened so much that liberals feel they can't embrace patriotism … and that conservatives could even think that liberals don't love the ideas and ideals of this country.

Yet this assessment, both from other sources as well as in my research, generally holds true. In particular, my research has yielded evidence about how strongly some conservatives feel that liberals are anti-American … even going to so far at time as to explicitly say liberals are actively working to destroy this country. And liberals, on their part, feeling a bit of bewilderment that their positions come across as anti-American while at the same time calling out conservatives for clinging to a romanticized view of the founding of this country … a view that also excludes any history that disagrees with that romanticized view. After all, an America that isn't just to everyone isn't really living up to its ideals.*

While this divide in America is rooted in many things, one of the things my research indicates it is rooted in is history and the different ways people approach, and question, the past. But, when I look deeply, my research also indicates hints of common values that may bring us together … not to agree, but to perhaps find common ground and a common path forward.

Which brings me to why I picked up this book. I'm searching for insights, ideas, and hypotheses about the work that needs to be done to bridge our differences in productive ways … and the role of museums in being that bridge. I want to have hope. And I'm hoping that Eric Liu's "civic sermons" on the ideas and ideals of America, and our civic life, will help.

What you need to know

The focus of the book is civic religion, which Liu defines as "the creed of ideals stated at our nation's founding and restated at junctures of crises (like today), and the deeds by which we and those before us live up to the creed."

The book is comprised of 19 civic "sermons," which are very much like a sermon you might find in a house of worship … except the texts are primary sources related to American founding and identity, and the sermons focus on what it really means to be an American.

Liu is a liberal, and many of his sermons spoke of his heartache at what he sees happening in this country -- not only the actions of our national leaders but also the implosion of civil discourse and responsibility. He wants Americans fight for what they know to be just and good through a context of American history and values, and to promote social justice as part of our American creed. I find that fascinating because history is such a crucial part of this. It is all about the relevance of history to today's public discourse and the social challenges facing us today.

The overriding emotion that comes out of the book, however, is fear. For Liu, a thoughtful fear, but still fear. And a diagnosis of a citizenry that is also full of fear.

I think the fear that Liu diagnoses is correct … I've seen it in my recent research on American attitudes towards inclusive history. Fear is real and palpable. This fear comes from both liberals and conservatives, is sometimes rational, and often isn't.

But if we are to find any common ground we have to use cognitive empathy to understand the fears that others have. Not necessarily agreeing, but understanding. We have to rehumanize American society, which begs the question of how we recognize our shared humanity in this polarized age. What can bring us together?


Implications for Museums:

Given how intertwined American identity is with history (and vice versa), and how conservatives and liberals thus approach history with different questions and ideas, it seems self-evident that history museums and historic sites are, whether they like it or not, political players in our current polarized society. And as trusted sources for history, that makes it incumbent on us to be a forum for civil discourse, whether the public explicitly wants us to do this or not (data on this forthcoming). We have a critical role to play in understanding what it means to be an American now and in the past … and bringing us all together through the shared values we do maintain, creating a future for us and this country.

This doesn't mean it will be easy. But if not, us, who?

Additional things of interest:

There are a number of themes that emerge that are relevant to history and American discourse today, including:

• The fractionalization of America over identity. As Liu says, "Identity politics here started when the first Puritan stepped ashore." No kidding. Just now we are much more aware of it. This yields some who resist hearing the multiple perspectives of the past and today (calling it "revisionist"), and those who embrace it. Liu suggests that the single, common narrative of the American story of the past is dangerous because it allows the rationalization of the domination of other in order to privilege the few. That's the story of American history, but will it be the story of the American future?
• What I call "Mayberry Syndrome." That is, a feeling of nostalgia for the past and a desire to recreate it … that small-town, everyone knows each other, safe past. Of course, that rosy view of the past wasn't so rosy for everyone. Indeed, it could be argued it was only rosy for white males. Personally, I find Mayberry Syndrome abhorrent because I think of all the people that environment held back (or kept down). But Liu points out there are other ways of thinking about it that can be productive. The sense of community, of safety. But it has to have a 21st-century interpretation of inclusiveness that most victims of Mayberry Syndrome don't seem to be able to stretch themselves to (at least, not the ones I've seen in my research).
• Empathy and compassion. In some ways, Liu seems to dismiss empathy as not useful. And when you think of empathy as the end-goal, then that makes sense. I prefer a view of empathy (especially cognitive empathy) as a step towards empathetic concern and action. Doing something productive and good with that empathy. But Liu does consider ways empathy can help us find the common ground we need, and the shared values we do still retain. I found myself linking what Liu writes with the empathetic research and practice of Jamil Zaki (reviewed here).
• All of our civic responsibilities take practice. Deliberate practice. We can't be lazy. We need to get into shape civically, by taking civic action on a regular basis, so we mainstream that action into our own lives. To serve our local communities deeply and diligently with that new civic muscle. I'd like to think through how we do this as museum professionals, and thus effect a more civil, just, and equal society through our work.

I also had three primary issues with this book:

• It isn't so much what Liu says, as a suspicion that it will be a victim of polarization. Because Liu is a liberal, I fear that few conservatives are willing to listen to his message … even the parts that should be shared values. I found myself wishing for a conservative counterpart that embraced the shared values and provided a foundation for discourse. (If you know of one, let me know!)
• Sermons serve their purpose best by being weekly messages … not all at once. A steady drip-drip-drip reminder of our values and faith, which requires some degree of repetition. Thus, I suggest spreading out your reading of this book, so you don't have the sense of repetition I had.
• I felt sermon #7, "Legitimate Doubts," was elitist, condescending, even somewhat victim blaming. I don't think it was intentional, but it left a bad taste in my mouth that I had to work hard to dispel to review the rest of the book.

Read or skip?

Read … slowly. If you want to practice being a American, and consider how your museum can be more proactive in helping visitors practice being an American, then you should pick it up. Just take your time reading it!



*As a liberal, of course I have a liberal bias in my beliefs. It is a bias I am aware of and try to mitigate in my research in order to present alternative viewpoints fairly. With that in mind, I have endeavored to fairly represent the research findings I share in this review … and to make clear when my opinion is being shared.


Full citation:  Liu, Eric. Become America: Civic Sermons on Love, Responsibility, and Democracy. Seattle, WA: Sasquatch Books, 2019.

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com

Why I picked it up: As I wrap up a project on American attitudes towards inclusive history, I've been giving a lot of thought to the deep divides in this country, and how they are rooted in history. Understanding the perspectives of those who don't value inclusive history, and who I personally disagree with, is crucial if we are going to find common ground that can move us forward into a future that is full of uncertainty. (Senator Cory Booker calls this "courageous empathy," and I agree).

Thus, I want to practice radical curiosity and courageous empathy, as it is only by understanding those perspectives that are different than mine that I can understand how we can work towards making our society more just and inclusive. When I saw a review of this book (it was released only two weeks ago), I jumped on it because I wanted to better put my research findings in better context. 

What you need to know:  This book is an excellent primer on empathy and how it works in humans in today's society. It also explores how our society is shifting in ways that don't support empathy, with empathy levels generally decreasing. But it also shares that, like most traits, empathy isn't fixed. With practice, we can all become more empathetic, which benefits our collective fate.

Museums as empathy gymnasium.

OK, Zaki didn't write about museums at all. But if empathy is a skill that can be practiced, what is the role of museums in helping people practice it? Zaki discusses that empathy helps people recognize their "common humanity with others." That phrase jumped out because I see comments from museum-goers all the time that say museums help them do just that. (I tweet these types of comments daily at #imaginenomuseums; take a scroll through and you'll find examples.)

While museum-going may not be doing extremely focused training like psychologists do when they run their studies, it does appear that museums are a viable empathy gymnasium for flexing empathy muscles over a lifetime … especially for cognitive empathy.

There's a hitch, though. When it comes to opening people's minds to other perspectives (especially if they are resistant), reason and evidence are not great tools. Yet my research indicates that, at least when it comes to attitudes around inclusive history (and likely contentious science or social issues today), those who resist it the most are also most likely to say that museums should only present facts so they can make up their own minds. They tend to look for certainty, and this type of rigidity, according to Zaki, inhibits compassion. This doesn't mean we abandon facts (we can't), but instead consider how we present those facts in ways that reassure that we are presenting the truth while also opening the door, even if only slightly, to different perspectives that can engender empathy.

Empathy for "the other"

While I've studied this quite a bit in my work, this book helped me crystallize my thinking while also producing some new research and evidence that pushed me to stretch and grow to consider new insights.

• "Contact theory."

In psychology, contact theory is basically the idea that the more we rub up against one another, the easier it becomes to accept one another and feel empathy. In some cases it isn't true (think alt-right responses to demographic change happening around us), but when contact is meaningful, it can help.

To some extent, I see this in my research as well. Over and over, museum-goers share that museums are important for exposing them to other opinions, ideas, perspectives, and experiences. That museums broaden minds, and that these experiences lead to prosocial outcomes (including empathy).

But I think we need to be honest about how museums do that because the exposure is typically indirect, through stories and interpretation and not through person-to-person experiences. That means it is likely more superficial than person-to-person experiences, and that's OK. Instead, museums appear to provide a fundamental first step towards exposure and acceptance, laying groundwork for deeper empathy in real life. In fact, if museums play a role in doing that for a lot of people (and my research indicates they do, as do some other informal learning activities), then that is a significant contribution to a kinder society. Helping move people from ambivalence to starting to care should never be undervalued.

Another way that museums help with this opening of the mind is by how we position our content. Zaki notes that sometimes for change to occur people's impression of their community's beliefs have to shift, and then their own beliefs catch up. If, for example, we think everyone believes blue is a horrible color, then it is easier to believe that too. But if we learn that all we are hearing is a very vocal minority of blue-haters, it is easier to shift our opinions to say blue is perfectly fine color.

This suggests that when museums mainstream content, such as a more complete and inclusive history, visitors better contextualize detractors as outliers. That shift of perspective can help create those initial exposures and contact shifts that are so crucial for eventual acceptance, tolerance, and understanding.
​

• Race and historical empathy

Zaki cites a study where white Americans were asked to read about the massacre of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans. Afterwards, "they doubted that Native Americans could feel complex emotions such as hope and shame." Why that result? Apparently, when people cause suffering, empathy begins to erode. It isn't so much that people choose to harm others, but instead adapt to the choices they have made. That is, they rationalize the harm in ways that suppress emotional empathy. In this example, whites today were rationalizing what whites did long ago. 

Let's contextualize these results with my own findings around historical empathy. Numerous studies (some reviewed on The Curated Bookshelf) have shown that whites tend to downplay racial discrimination or rationalize it differently in ways that support who and what they are today. To support the status quo, that is. When it comes to inclusive history I suspect the same thing is happening. Those who are more resistant to that more complete and inclusive history are doing so as a defensive mechanism to protect their identity. So as a white-dominated society did, objectively, a considerable amount of harm to people of color in the past, whites adapted in ways to rationalize the harm, which suppresses empathy towards people of color today. This would, of course, extend to harms happening today (which are often products of the past).

But I would go further than that because in my work I find that many history museum-goers claim they have high levels of historical empathy … but, most crucially, who they have empathy for varies. Those that are more historically conservative tend to believe they exhibit more empathy for people of the past because they don't judge them by today's mores and values. Of course, that can also be interpreted as a way of letting whites off the hook for grievous harms to people of color (as well as women, LGBTQ, those with different religious beliefs, etc.). Based on what Zaki shares, this tendency of historical conservatives is likely a defense mechanism they use to rationalize the past and who they are today. (My research findings on historical empathy will be coming out in fall 2019.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that historical conservatives don't feel any empathy for those harmed in the past, however. But their empathy scale is likely out of whack, heavily weighted towards empathy for that white perspective. Zaki writes that when this type of imbalance occurs, sometimes the goal is to reduce empathy towards the in-group so that a better balance can evolve, thus improving empathetic concern towards the out-group. In my example, that would mean that whites with the most imbalanced empathy scale would need to pull back on empathy for whites in the past in order to have a greater relative empathy for people of color. Realistically, I'm sad to say, that is a very tall order.
​

Final thoughts: When it comes to something like inclusive history, or climate change, or vaccinations, I believe what I believe to be rational and right, and the most kind to the most people. But those beliefs are wrapped up in my identity and emotions (also making it harder for me to admit I might be wrong), and we see how that is playing out for everyone in our modern, and polarized society.

So I'm thinking carefully about how we effect change in ways that we can come together for a kinder world. And that means using radical curiosity and courageous empathy to better understand how those who I disagree with come to their conclusions. Especially when they think their beliefs are rational, right, and kindest. 

This means listening and understanding beliefs and fears. It means considering how we can drive the biggest impact … and that small shifts in perspective can make a much bigger difference than we think. It means giving far more thought to the appropriate pacing than we may have anticipated so that we bring people along with us for the long-term good. Because not deploying that courageous empathy likely means alienating those we most need to reach … and losing them as an audience altogether. We can't risk that.
​

Read or skip? This book is an excellent introduction to empathy in today's world. For that, yes, it is a great read. If you are really deep into empathy work already, it is likely mostly review, but there is enough new content that you may want to at least skim it to find those spots for closer reading. I've read a lot on empathy, and I picked up new thinking to help me in my work.


Note: if you have ever had an infant in the NICU, I strongly encourage you to skip chapter 5. I powered through it (and then took my dog for a long walk). You don't need to do the same as it is the least relevant to museums.

Full citation: Zaki, Jamil. The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World. New York: Crown Publishing, 2019.

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

I read and skim a lot of reports. Some are reviewed here on The Curated Bookshelf. Some turn out to not be that relevant. And some have bits and pieces that are interesting, falling a bit in between.

Pew Research Center produces a prodigious amount of high-quality reports, and here are snapshot review of three fairly recent ones that I found of enough interest to flag (two briefly, one at more length). 

"Generation Z Looks a Lot Like Millennials on Key Social and Political Issues." Pew Research Center, January 2019.

First, if you don't know who Generation Z is, it comprises a new generation ages 14 to 22 … the generation that comes after the Millennials. It is shaping up to be the most diverse and well-educated generation yet (until, of course, the generation that comes after them!). Overall, their attitudes are fairly similar to Millennials in that, compared to older generations, they tend to be more liberal … at least for now. As they grow fully into adulthood, attitudes can shift. What I think is most important to museums is that both non-Hispanic whites AND Gen Z Republicans specifically are more progressive on racial and ethnic issues and on climate change than their older counterparts, which I personally view with hope.


"What Americans Know About Science." Pew Research Center, March 2019.

Science, just like many things, is political. Climate change, vaccines, the age of Earth … whether one believes science is real or that theories are up for debate (thus clearly not understanding what science means by the word "theory"). As usual, Pew Research Center is unafraid to delve into political issues and looked at what Americans know about science, and then ran their filters and cross tabs to look for variations. Of interest to us is that science knowledge isn't steady. One would think that those with more education score better on a test of science knowledge (they do), but men outperform women, and whites score better than blacks and Hispanics … even after controlling for educational attainment. Meanwhile, political persuasion doesn't seem to matter when it comes to science knowledge, but it does come into play in terms of how people apply science to the world. If you are dealing with the public on science issues, you should read the full report.


"Where Americans Find Meaning in Life." Pew Research Center, November 2018
​
We talk about how visitors find meaning in museums. But most people don't visit museums, and those that do are visiting a handful of times a year, not every week. So how do Americans find meaning in their day-to-day lives? And can that give us better insight to how they find meaning in museums?
​
Unsurprisingly, family comes out tops for finding meaning in life. But of interest to museums is how activities and hobbies rank, as well as learning.

The learning finding makes a lot of sense, given my work that shows that somewhere around 5 - 10% of the population is highly curious and finds joy in learning … as well as the 10% or so of Americans who visit museums 3 or more times/year. While these two groups are not exactly the same, the point is there is likely a high degree of overlap and the sizes make sense.

As Pew points out, different groups of Americans finds meaning in different places. Educational attainment drove some key differences, as those with higher education were more likely to mention friends, good health, hobbies, travel, and most crucially, learning … things that those who are less socioeconomically privileged may not always have the resources to enjoy. 
​
​There are important differences by  other factors such as religion, race and ethnicity, and political persuasion. Some are more relevant to museums than others (though educational attainment seems to be the strongest factor for us). But bottom line, meaning is found in emotional attachments, whether family, religion, or friends, and in how we live our fullest lives. Museums can help with both. 


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Is history a list of facts and dates to be memorized? Of course not. If it were then, sure, we could leave history to our phones and simply look up what we need to know, when we need to know it.

But we all know history is much more complicated than that. It is also being politicized, which increases its capacity to harm if most people don't have the historical literacy to understand how bias works, what facts and truth really are (and how they differ), how to evaluate evidence, and who to trust. I am working on a project that assesses public attitudes around history and how it relates to inclusion and social justice, and this book caught my attention as a plea for historical literacy to increase for society's sake.

What you need to know: The book is largely a criticism of how history is taught and shared in this country. History as taught tends to be focused on facts, and stripped of its "intrinsically human character" … a method that discourages critical thinking about the past AND that leads many students to become disengaged with history as adults (as my research also clearly shows).

The teaching of facts means that students look at history as only facts, black-and-white, not changeable (hence charges of "revisionist history" when we change our interpretation of the past), and that today they don't know how to evaluate the source of information for credibility. We all know what that means in our fake news saturated world.

Wineburg makes two comments that stood out as important as we as a society wrestle with the past and how it affects today:
​

1. "Too often, whether we like someone's politics determines whether we like their history." My evidence-based response from my research? No kidding.
2. With the right efforts, "students' muscle for ambiguity grew stronger." I'd like to bottle that ability and then put it in the water supply because so much of my research shows how uncomfortable most people are with an ambiguous past. That discomfort leads to doctrinal, black-and-white approaches to history that draws absolute lines in the sand. This makes our work so much harder … especially when we try to be inclusive in our interpretations of the past.

There was one conclusion that did not sit well with me, however. Chapter 8 suggests that good work has been done in opening a more inclusive past to Americans. Specifically, he shared data that showed that MLK, Rosa Parks, and Harriet Tubman are now considered the most influential Americans (that were not Presidents or First Ladies).

While I agree that those individuals deserve that acclaim (their stories are courageous and inspiring), I also felt that their appearance so high on the list isn't necessarily a deserved pat on the back for history. This outcome does not mean that a truly inclusive history is being taught. That is, by teaching about the things that Harriet Tubman achieved, we skip over the horrors of slavery and its long-term repercussions. By extolling MLK and Rosa Parks, we can push to the side where the Civil Rights Act has failed. We can teach, then, "feel-good" history.

Or, as one of the qualitative panelists from my Inclusive History in America research noted, "I feel like the Civil Rights movement is taught about because it is the more convenient narrative of history to be taught. It is a way to teach about slavery and racism with the least amount of white guilt as possible."

We can't just teach the inspiring stories and what seems like happy endings, and then check off the inclusive work as "done." Inclusive history needs to become mainstream history. That hasn't happened. So while Wineberg doesn't say straight out that work for inclusion is successful/done, neither does he make the case that we haven't done enough … and why this matters.

Implications for museums: As the most trusted source for history, how we deal with history in this age of alternative facts really matters. My research shows how aware many of those on the left are that the traditional historical narrative deliberately leaves out whole swathes of the population … while those on the right see that traditional narrative as one that supports values and ideals that are important to them. How do museums deal with this tension? How do museums convey that history is messy, interesting, nuanced, ambiguous, inspiring, and challenging, and thus our understanding of history is ever-changing? It's hard. The past as taught teaches certainty, and when we share a more inclusive history, that certainty is erased, making many feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them (or worse). As that most trusted source of history, we need to figure out how to deal with this … and use it as an opportunity to truly share evidence-backed knowledge that works to open minds to other perspectives, understanding, tolerance, and the complexities of our past, present, and future.

Bonus: Quotes Stacia Kuceyeski of the Ohio History Connection on page 49!

Read or skip? A maybe. I think about history a lot, and I found this a highly thought-provoking read not only of how we teach history, but also extrapolating it to today's civil and historical discourse (or lack thereof). But while I think Wineberg is (mostly) right about his criticisms, I also thought the book would have been stronger if it included a more nuanced understanding of how most American adults actually approach history … and why this matters if we are going to raise new generations of historically literate and tolerant Americans. Bottom line, if my review piques your interest, go for it. It's a good read. 

Full citation:  Wineburg, Sam. Why Learn History (When It's Already on Your Phone). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2018

Wilkening Consulting research quote: the Inclusive History in America research will be released late summer 2019; a full citation will be provided at that time.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: As I continue to analyze research I fielded around American attitudes towards inclusive history, anything that feeds into that analysis will inevitably catch my eye. The stat that nearly half of whites think a majority nonwhite population will weaken American culture certainly did that, and as places of American culture, museums need to pay attention to these attitudes.

What you need to know: Pew asked Americans to consider what they thought America would be like in 30 years, and found widespread pessimism, with respondents believing that the US will decline in worldwide importance while our American society becomes increasingly unequal and increasingly polarized. While this pessimism could reflect current dissatisfaction with the current state of the country (nearly 3/4 are dissatisfied with that), it also highlights very real challenges that we are grappling with.
​
The report focused on perceived challenges in four areas (perceived because they were asking what Americans thought about the future):

• Weaker economy
• Growing income divide
• Degraded environment
• Broken political system

​My focus, however, was on American culture, and here things were, well, interesting. While only 23% of respondents said that a shift to a majority nonwhite population (estimated in 2050) would be "bad," whites were about twice as likely to say so than people of color. Additionally, whites were about twice as likely to feel that this shift would weaken American culture. 

Yet interestingly, minorities are more optimistic about the country's future than whites. I wonder what drives this, and speculate it may be because whites may be more likely to see a majority minority future as a challenge, whereas minorities may see it as an opportunity.

While race, age, and education affected how people responded, the bigger gap in the survey was between Republicans and Democrats … a gap that I see in my research as well. People's political attitudes reflect their social attitudes in highly pervasive ways, and Republicans and Democrats agree on very little in this research. Bridging that gap (whether in politics or in attitudes towards inclusive history, DEAI, science and the environment, or anything else), will be a challenge that affects all of us … including museums.

Implications for museums: One of the things I have been thinking about in my work is how we bridge the gaps in our polarized society, and how much political persuasion correlates with what side someone takes on an issue. This report underscored those gaps today and projects them into the future in ways that are clearly troubling. Yet I keep coming back to a question: what are the shared values we still have? Then, how can we use those shared values to allow real conversations about our pasts, our environment, our communities, our different backgrounds, and our country today? And what should be the role of museums in sparking curiosity about others, gaining knowledge, and developing empathy, understanding, and tolerance? Because someone has to … and that work may be the work of museums as one of the few places that are trusted and considered safe for just that kind of exploration.

Read or skip? The big takeaway is it underscores how divided our country really is, and in ways that affect museums. Internalize that, and you can probably skip in favor of research more specific to how it affects museums. But if you want to get really depressed, go read it. It doesn't paint a particularly optimistic portrait of the future or for an America that is willing to come together to tackle problems.

Full citation:  "Looking to the Future, Public Sees an America in Decline on Many Fronts." Pew Research Center. March 2019
​
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

I am a hyper-curious person, and curiosity is an important value in my life … as well as an important impact of museums.

But curiosity isn't limited to museums, and can be hard to sustain through adulthood. By sharing some of my curious paths through reading, I'm hoping to reinforce how important wide-ranging curiosity is to our practice and spark new conversations that may seem unrelated to museums, but deeply matter to how we do our work. After all, as museums we cover a variety of topics. Our curiosity should also be as omnivorous!

To that end, here's a new installment of some of my wide-ranging reads (mostly non-fiction) I hope to hear recommendations from you!

Treasure Palaces, edited by Maggie Fergusson
Twenty-four great writers, on museums. Pretty obvious must-read, I should think. These essays were originally published in Intelligent Life (now called 1834), a sister publication of The Economist. Includes meditations on connection, thought, objects, serendipity, sublimity, intimacy, and perception shifting (just to start). A lovely read.


Book: My Autobiography, by John Agard
Imagine if Book (yes, Book) could tell you its autobiography. From writing and clay tablets to ebooks (and everything in between), this book tells Book's story. Beautifully and cleverly written, learn why Book salutes Phoenicians, personally thanks Ts'ai Lun, and feels excited about "sitting on a passenger's lap and feeling my pages turned, and the pride rushing down my spine, as the steam engine puffed its way through the countryside of northern England" (train reading apparently a precursor of modern-day plane reading). If you love books, get Book!


Technology in the Country House, by Marilyn Palmer and Ian West
Confession: I love to geek out around old houses. I also realized, halfway through writing my master's thesis, that I was writing on the wrong topic. I should have done technological systems in 19th-century homes. So I LOVED this book. From plumbing to heating to central vacuum systems … it totally appeals to my interest in not only how people lived, but how they strove to make their homes more comfortable and efficient. And while this focuses on the grand country houses of the United Kingdom, it's not hard to extrapolate to how, say, electric lighting changed domestic spaces for people across the socio-economic spectrum.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I am delving deep into prosocial behaviors, as I want to understand the role of museums in promoting empathy, compassion, understanding, and tolerance. So, in my totally geeky way, I got very excited when I discovered this book that has no fewer than 17 articles that appear relevant. I'll be plowing through it as long as my inter-library loan lasts (thank you, University of Wyoming for sending it to me in Seattle!).

Overview of prosocial behavior: Prosocial behavior is exactly what it sounds like: behaviors of people who act to benefit other people. It can come in many different forms, from rendering aid to volunteering to sharing resources (basically, all forms of generosity, as covered in American Generosity - reviewed here). But while it is easy to identify, it is much harder to understand the nature and source of that behavior. Why do some people choose to help, to be generous?

Since prosocial behavior is "the glue that holds the social fabric of society together," the more we can understand its source and how to develop it, the better.

This introduction lays out :

• What prosocial behavior is, including the differences between "helping," "altruism," "volunteerism," and "cooperation."
• Why we help, including evolutionary/biological factors (distal motives) as well as egoism, collectivism, altruism, and principlism (proximal motives).
• The when and who of prosocial behavior, exploring four different perspectives on these: evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, personality and individual differences, and social psychology. All four perspectives contribute to our understanding of the when and who of prosocial behavior.
  • Interesting sidebar: apparently affective empathy (including empathetic concern) is more heritable than perspective taking, which is the cognitive component that is assumed to underlie empathy more generally.

My goals for reviewing the rest of the book:  Most of the introduction talked about prosocial behaviors from developmental and heritable perspectives, which I agree are important in understanding the why behind those behaviors. But aside from developing exhibitions and programs that are developmentally appropriate, they are not the focus of my lines of inquiry.

Instead, I am more interested in the cognitive component that underlies behaviors. That is, what is it that we learn (knowledge gained) that broadens our minds and permits perspective taking, thus cultivating empathy, compassion, tolerance, and greater understanding? Or, to paraphrase His Holiness the Dalai Lama, how can we be more warm-minded?

But I want to also back it up even further to what motivates people to learn in the first place (in particular, curiosity). So as I wade through the 787 pages of academic explorations on prosociality, I'll be thinking about the links between curiosity, knowledge, and empathy and compassion, thus making us more warm-minded … and in ways that make this world a kinder, more just place for everyone.
​
Coming up: The book is broken up into four sections; I'm likely going to do a review or each chapter, selecting relevant essays and findings. These include:

1. Prosocial Behavior at the Micro-Level (that is, an individual level)
2. Prosocial Behavior at the Meso-Level (that is, the transactional level when people directly interact with other people)
3. Prosocial Behavior at the Macro-Level (that is, the societal level)
4. New Directions in Prosocial Behavior: Extensions of Prosocial Processes

And let's be honest. The stuff is dense, so it is going to take me some time to read and review!


Full citation:  Schroeder, David A. and Graziano, William G. "The Field of Prosocial Behavior: An Introduction and Overview." The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior, edited by David A. Schroeder and William G. Graziano, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 3 - 34.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I'm interested in how spaces work, and I am also interested in inequality, the levels of civic engagement and discourse in our country, and health and wellness. This book is a confluence of these things, so I picked up a copy as soon as I heard about it.

What you need to know: The author studies what he calls social infrastructure, "the physical places and organizations that shape the way people interact." It isn't the same thing as social capital, which measures people's relationships and interpersonal networks. Instead, it is about the physical conditions that determine how easy it is for that social capital to develop … or not.

There is an increasing numbers of academic research that documents the physical and mental benefits of social ties, but are there physical mechanisms that make those social ties easier to develop? Klinenberg says yes.

He goes on to make a case that a strong social infrastructure is increasingly critical because when it fails it can have catastrophic consequences for people's health and wellbeing: as a chronic condition of unattachment and/or when disaster hits (such as a natural disaster).

So what are the places that promote social infrastructure? He suggests the places we would call "third places," such as playgrounds, libraries, parks, etc., as well as the community organizations that meet in those places. These places can be designed to promote interactions in ways that benefit residents.

This book kept reminding me of The Vanishing Neighbor, by Marc Dunkelman (reviewed here March 2018), which suggested that communities are struggling as Americans have reduced their "middle-ring" friendships of casual acquaintances and friendships. When that support social network fails, so do communities. Similarly, when the social infrastructure that supports the "middle-ring" friendships fails, so do the support networks that help all of us over the long-term and in times of crises. Both books make the case that we are facing challenges, and that we need these community places and networks to engage with each other to our mutual benefit.

Implications for museums: Theoretically, museums would be great places to build social infrastructure (and some do). What breaks my heart in this book is that Klinenberg doesn't mention museums once. He does, however, love libraries, and speaks at length about how they serve as crucial social infrastructure for many. Indeed, this book could serve as a love letter to libraries.

It begs the question, however, of how and why we have structured our museums historically so that museums are simply not even considered part of the social infrastructure of our communities. We can do better. We must.

Read or skip? If you are interested how place and community intersect for greater wellbeing, and/or if you liked The Vanishing Neighbor, you should pick it up. There is a lot in the book to think about and consider. I only scratched the surface in this review. Otherwise, this review is likely sufficient.
​
Full citation: Klinenberg, Eric. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown, 2018.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I've been exploring the attitudes and behaviors of museum-goers and the broader population around how history museum present a more inclusive history. Thus, examining related studies are important for me to understand my research contextually (and to extend the findings to other types of museums seeking to be more inclusive in their interpretations and practices).

​What you need to know: African Americans and whites differ widely in their perceptions of how much progress has been made for civil rights in the past 50 years. Unsurprisingly, whites have a more positive perception, while African Americans have a less positive, but arguably more accurate, assessment of progress.

The issue brief includes three things that the authors feel are the key takeaways:

1. 78% of Americans feel there has been at least some progress on the goals of the civil rights movement
2. 2/3 of African Americans say there has been little or no progress in how they are treated by the criminal justice system, and nearly 3/4 say little or no progress in how they are treated by police
3. 65% of African Americans say race relations have deteriorated in the past year; only 45% of whites say likewise

Additionally, only 52% of whites say that they have an advantage based on their race, and only 44% of whites think African Americans are disadvantaged. This correlates with other research out of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and genFORWARD that finds about half of whites think discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color.

Implications for museums: The finding that troubled me as well (though didn't surprise me) is that only 18% of African Americans feel they are treated the same as whites in their community while nearly 4x as many whites (64%) think the races are treated the same. Those are some staggering differences that certainly have implications for our communities, but also for museums, our practices, and our interpretations. African Americans that live in mixed-race communities, however, are significantly more likely to say they are treated equally (34% - still not great, but better).

This is pretty interesting for museums. If we are preserving and sharing a primarily white culture, art, and history, and hiring primarily white individuals, it is fair for African Americans to say they are not being treated equally by museums. But when culture, art, and history are presented through a mixed-race/multi-cultural lens, this finding implies that the response would mirror that of African Americans living in mixed-race communities … that museums are more inclusive places in interpretation and practice. We all know, however, that our field has work to do … and perhaps we should consider not only how to be more inclusive, but also how we can more effectively reach whites in ways that changes their perceptions to more realistic, less privileged ones.
​
Read or skip? Pretty much what I said about the other studies on racial attitudes. Anyone doing inclusive work should review this (and since we all should be doing inclusive work, that means you). It is a reality check that our work in this area is going to be really hard, especially if the majority of whites in the broader population don't have a realistic view of their privilege.

Methodology comment: NORC at the University of Chicago does great work, but I would have liked to see a slightly larger sample of African Americans for stability. Additionally, most sampling work isn't really representative, and some samples have larger "blind spots" than others. This survey had only a cumulative response rate of 6.4%, and even though they sampled broadly to get large-enough numbers, it is unlikely that this sample (or most others, including the broader samples I field) is truly a representative sample of the broader population. (You can learn more about blind spots here.)


Full citation:  "50 Years After Martin Luther King's Assassination: Assessing Progress of the Civil Rights Movement." NORC at the University of Chicago. March 2018.
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

​I think His Holiness the Dalai Lama likes museums. I could be wrong, but if you Google "Dalai Lama Museums," you'll find photos of him at museums. And he did, after all, spend nearly 90 minutes with a group of about 30 museum professionals last week, including me (video below). It was surreal and thrilling to not only learn from His Holiness, but also to participate in the Fostering Universal Ethics and Compassion Through Museums Summit in Dharamshala, India.

​During our private audience with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama shared his thoughts about compassion and secular ethics. There were three tidbits in particular that stuck with me:

1 - Anger's antidote is compassion. Admittedly, this is a hard one to swallow sometimes. It is easy to give in to anger, especially around issues of social justice. I get angry that we cannot push as hard as we would like to present a more inclusive history and share more inclusive art and culture. But in my work, I have to cultivate cognitive empathy for all of our audiences … even those I disagree with. Only then can we understand the rationale of those who think differently than us, and determine the best path forward that brings more people with us rather than alienating some (which, let's be honest, defeats our purpose).

2 - Wise selfish vs. foolish selfish. There are times in our lives when we need to take care of our own needs first. Primarily, our basic physical, mental, and emotional needs. That self-care is what the Dalai Lama referred to when he said there is "wise selfish." And then there is modern life, when "foolish selfish" abounds (and I think we all know what that is).

The reason this leaped out at me is that it fits in with the theory of capacity I have been working with for the past 18 months or so. Generally speaking, as the graphic below shows, we are all at the center of our own universes, and before we can take care of the needs of others and engage in the broader world, we have to take care of our own needs, in concentric rings going outwards. Some people have greater capacity to engage, largely because they have more education and/or resources at their disposal. Some are doing the best they can when they simply take care of themselves. It isn't a judgment, but an honest assessment of the constraints we all have to varying degree. I have fewer constraints than most people, and thus have greater capacity to engage with the broader world (it would be fair to say my greater capacity = privilege). 

But the Dalai Lama gave me vocabulary to articulate when it is good to focus on self and family (perhaps at the expense of community and broader world), and when it isn't. That is, an affluent family with a newborn or experiencing a medical crisis is practicing wise selfishness to take care of those family needs, just as a struggling single parent may also be on a day-to-day basis.

But foolish selfishness comes into play when an individual or family has resources at their disposal and chooses not to engage in community and the broader world. To not be interested in learning about other people and culture, to make their neighborhood better, or to give back in meaningful ways. That's foolish selfishness … and I will admit my human nature is to be critical of that.

Keeping in mind, of course, we are all human and practice both wise selfishness and foolish selfishness to varying degrees. I have my foolish selfishness just as much as most people.

(For more on capacity to engage, see my reviews of American Generosity and Creating Capabilities.)

3 - In Tibetan, they don't have the phrase "warm-hearted," but they do have one for "warm-minded" or "warmth of mind." What I love about being "warm-minded" is that it links knowledge with compassion. The more we learn, the more we open our minds to others and other perspectives, which in turn diminishes "the other" and builds compassion and trust. We can't be compassionate and open-minded without knowledge, and museums tend to be really good at providing that knowledge of others that can both open and warm minds. And we sure need more of that.


The whole experience of traveling to India, then participating in the summit, was surreal (a word that many of us used, over and over). I was very much out of my comfort zone at times, and at other times thrilled to feel my mind expand, grow, and become "warmer," (as did my heart!). My deepest thanks to Elif Gokcigdem for her leadership and vision that made this summit possible. Stay tuned for next steps the members of our group take.