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.
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.
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.