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.

Why I picked it up: Civics. It is a topic not well-taught in school, yet seems to be one our country desperately needs. Indeed, in my research museum-goers often lament how our society needs civics to properly function. The idea that museums could step into this gap also comes up, so the theme of this paper caught my eye. That civic learning also leads to equity and opportunity also caught my eye, since those are also impacts that museums often seek to create as well.

What you need to know: The two organizations behind the paper, the National Conference on Citizenship and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, are examining if civics can be used to "build an inclusive foundation of engaged citizens," and thus address challenges different population segments are facing. Their recommendations include:

1. Expansion of who is a civic educator, and who needs civic learning. They are recommending a community-wide approach. They don't give examples of who might be doing this out of the formal education system, but museums (particularly history museums) seem like a natural fit.
2. Using civics to "increase understanding and engagement across lines of difference, while ensuring a shared foundation of knowledge about history." History is a key part, as they note that "by learning about history, students can contribute to developing solutions to public problems, contextualized by the longstanding challenges their communities and peers may have faced." They also emphasize the value of individual lived experiences and perspectives
3. Ensure civic literacy as a core educational function. That civics is a critical part of preparing "to engage in civic and democratic processes," thus improving their socioeconomic position as well.
4. Support cross-sector collaboration promoting civic learning. It needs to be both a school and community experience. So they are suggesting the addition of nonprofit, government, corporate, and philanthropic efforts

​I have to admit that while I think these goals are noble, number two stood out for me as I don't think that people across lines of difference can agree upon history itself. I'm seeing too much coming out of work I have in the field that indicates that is going to be a challenge. If we can't agree on what happened in the past, and why it happened that way, how are we supposed to move forward? I'm not normally so pessimistic, but too much is leaning me that way right now.

I do, however, very much like how they summarized each goal and then looked at it through the lenses of equality, opportunity, and equity. By rigorously doing it for each goal, and then through each lens separately, they make clear how these are three distinct things that are necessary to consider.

Read or skip? This review gives you a sense of some efforts in the areas of civics. That may be enough for you, in which case, skip. But if you are planning initiatives in the realm of civics, civic dialogue, etc., then I recommend looking at the NCOC and PACE websites for more papers coming out of their working sessions. There may be new details that are food for thought or opportunities for museums to step up in a meaningful way.

Full citation: "Recommendations for Exploring Civic Learning as a Pathway to Equity and Opportunity." National Conference on Citizenship and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement. January 2018

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

Why I picked it up: Place interests me. Our connections to place, our interactions with place. I think a lot about how people interact with the communities they live and work in, and how museums do (and do not) contribute to that sense of place. I also am very interested in how we can do more to increase individual capacities to engage and contribute to the betterment of individuals and communities. Based on the title, this paper seems relevant.

What you absolutely need to know: The Kresge's Foundation's Arts and Culture Program "is dedicated to Creative Placemaking with a focus on equitable outcomes." The "observations and reflections" in this paper are rooted in the assumption that creative placemaking, or that the building of a community's cultural assets leads to healthier places for all of us to live (but often focusing on "historically marginalized communities"), is a desirable thing to pursue. This paper takes stock of what has happened thus far, and what is needed for further progress, written by a Kresge senior advisor working deeply in this area.

More details: Kresge entered into Creative Placemaking with three goals: 1 - using grounded theory in their work with low-income or historically marginalized communities; 2 - using empirical approaches to assess impact; and 3 - integrating arts, culture, and design in the realms of practice and policy.

After several years of work in this area, they are reporting success in seeing the concepts of Creative Placemaking becoming more widespread in community development and urban planning, as well as public health. The paper discusses in limited detail three areas of "critical field needs" for meeting the challenges and opportunities of creative placemaking:

1. Understanding Urban Inequality and Change. Do we really understand the root causes of inequality, as well as feasible solutions? The answer is a resounding no, but Kresge's work has shown evidence of neighborhood benefits via Creative Placemaking, such as social cohesion and sense of agency. But arts, culture, and design have to be way more than an afterthought in planning and development. My comment: why just "urban"? There is a lot of inequality in rural areas as well.
2. Meeting the Challenges of Cross-sectoral Work. Or, in other words, all these diverse sectors need to get on the same page, even if they go about our work in rather different ways.
3. Research, Evaluation, and Measurement. It is imperative that we do a better job developing tools to assess impact (and sussing out the best ways of having that impact to begin with).

There are critics, however, as Creative Placemaking can lead to gentrification, cultural appropriation, etc. Those are entirely valid concerns that this paper notes, but does not satisfactorily address.

Sidebar comment. The paper also notes that when Kresge entered the Creative Placemaking space, they did so without "succumbing to the dichotomous thinking prevalent in some dimensions of the arts field about the intrinsic vs. instrumental value of art and cultural activity."  I say "yay" to that, because I have never understood how one precluded the other. Arts and culture have intrinsic value. They also have instrumental value. Celebrate both. After all, we never see astronomers or mathematicians beating themselves up when their intrinsic and/or instrumental values are celebrated. Why do we?

Read or skip? It depends. If you are deep in the work of Creative Placemaking, or planning to request funding from Kresge, you should read it. (You should also note that this is one of a series of white papers released by Kresge, so you may want to review the others as well.) Otherwise, my summary is sufficient.

Full citation:  "Creative Placemaking and Expansion of Opportunity: Observations and Reflections." The Kresge Foundation. July 2018

Why I picked it up: Young adults are not monolithic. They present a variety of attitudes and behaviors. They are also more ethnically and racially diverse than older generations … a forerunner of the dramatic demographic change taking place (and leading to likely minority majority status by 2045). As museums strive to be more inclusive, and since young adults are more likely to visit museums than older adults, it pays to know this audience's attitudes on race.

What you need to know: It is, well, disheartening. Even among young adults there are ongoing, gaping divides between the attitudes of whites and those of people of color. This report highlights them, including:

• Young adults of color are significantly more likely than whites to think racism is a significant problem today.
• White Millennials are slightly more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement is full of racists and totally invalid than to say they have a lot of good ideas. (More hopefully, however, white Millennials were still nearly 5 times more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement has lots of good ideas (19%) than the alt-right movement (4%).)
• A majority of white Millennials see Confederate symbols through the lens of Southern pride, and nearly two-thirds oppose removing Confederate statues and symbols. Unsurprisingly, the majority of young adults of color feel rather differently.
• Millennial Trump voters are significantly more likely to feel that whites are economically losing ground compared to other racial and ethnic groups, including in the workplace and in college admissions.
• White Millennials were significantly less likely to include race/ethnicity as a major identifier of themselves than people of color (the overwhelming majority of whom listed it as their #1 identifier, over gender, economic class, etc.). This reminds me once again that only whites have the luxury of forgetting about the color of their skin in our American society.

Discrimination against whites.

I recently shared that research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found 55% of white Americans thought whites experience discrimination. GenForward asked a similar question, and found 48% of white Millennials think discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color.

Yep. Half of white Millennials think they are just as discriminated against as people of color. That is only seven percentage points lower than the American topline results, so while it is better than what older Americans think, it isn't a huge shift.

(Interestingly, a quarter of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinxs agreed that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color. I find this result a bit dumbfounding.)

Other findings

There are, however, some more positive signs. Awareness of racial challenges and disparities appear to have increased among whites between July 2017 and September 2017 (a two-month period that included Charlottesville and other racial demonstrations). It is unclear, however, if that is a blip or sustained.

Additionally, the survey asked respondents what they thought the best way to make racial progress was. About a fifth of respondents said "organizing in communities," a number that was fairly consistent across race and ethnicity. Whites were similarly likely to say "community service and volunteering." Voting and non-violent protests also came up as good pathways. 

Implications for museums: Like I shared when reviewing "Discrimination in America," many whites are not as open to conversations and actions that promote inclusion and equity as we would hope. Thus, museums promoting a more inclusive interpretation should do so with awareness and preparation for white pushback … even among younger visitors. This is work that we must do, and anticipating that pushback strengthens our work, allowing us to push forward steadily. Because that's the goal: ongoing progress, not reactive pushes forwards and then similar retreats. 

Methodology comment: It is clear that the designers of the agenda had a hypothesis they wanted to test, and the survey instrument reflects that agenda, which is an anti-racism, progressive one (it included rather specific questions about Donald Trump and his purported racism, for example). This doesn't make the research bad, so long as the questions are presented neutrally and the results fairly. But it also makes this work easier to criticize if one were of the opinion, say, that whites face just as much (if not more) discrimination than people of color. Thus, when critiquing research, including studies you like or even my studies, instrument design is something to be mindful of and assess as necessary.

Read or skip? If you are deep in the weeds of inclusive practice, yes, read it. This will give you more nuance. If you have to pick one to read, I'd go for "Discrimination in America." This supplements that work nicely.
And if you have a Confederate symbol controversy raging or brewing in your community, the questions on those very things will undoubtedly be helpful (go to pages 20-22).
​

Full citation: "The 'Woke' Generation? Millennial Attitudes on Race in the US." genFORWARD. October 2017.  

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

Why I picked it up: My heart stopped a bit when I came across this report, as the reference shared that a majority (55%) of white Americans believe discrimination against whites exists in America today. You read that right. Discrimination against whites. I'll be honest. I didn't really want to read this report because I was afraid the results would appall me. But if we don't look societal challenges in the eye, what hope is there for us? So I got a backbone and dug in.

What you need to know: There was a piece of good news in the survey (and when I say "good," I mean more grounded in reality): 84% of whites believe there is discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in America today. Awareness is a good first step towards positive action.

But the rest. Oh. My.

First off, that 55% majority of white Americans who believe whites are discriminated against. Statistically speaking, whites who believe whites are discriminated against are more likely to be:

• Republican
• Not have a college degree
• Non-LGBTQ
• Lower income
• Rural or urban residents
• Southern (Northeasterners are least likely; Midwesterners and Westerners fall in the middle)

Additionally, those who believe that anti-white discrimination exists also are much more likely to say:

• they have personally experienced anti-white discrimination (primarily in the workplace or in college admissions);
• other whites in their community "often" experience discrimination; and
• that white children in their community don't have the same chances for a quality education as minority children.

There were two more statistics that gave me pause:

• only 19% of whites think their local police would use unnecessary force against a person who is a racial or ethnic minority; and
• white Americans are more likely to say that institutional racism (based on laws and government policy) is a bigger problem for whites than for racial and ethnic minorities.

Take a few minutes to let all of this sink in.

Did the sheer magnitude of our country's problems with race and ethnicity just become that much harder and more complex? Do you want to scream?

I don't want to disparage the challenges individual families of all races and ethnicities have, especially when resources are limited. But for whites to attribute any of those challenges to their whiteness I find mind-boggling, appalling, sad, and also humbling.

Humbling may seem an odd word choice, but I'm trying to articulate the massiveness of the challenge. And my sadness is more about how resource inequality (which includes wealth, income, education, etc.) is creating greater divisions and blame-casting to more obvious scapegoats, and not the privileged policymakers and corporations that actually are more responsible for the systemic problems challenging millions (including actual systemic racism and discrimination).

Implications for museums: If museums truly want to be inclusive then we clearly need to consider more than attracting and engaging a more inclusive audience. We also need to understand that inclusion may well be seen by some as exclusionary. Which, again, is mind-boggling to me, but a reality for many. Knowing this, however, makes our work harder (it is just more complicated), and also easier (we can better anticipate these challenges).

But I can't help but also ponder the role museums have had in all of this. We, in the aggregate, primarily share the work of great white artists, white scientists, and our audiences are primarily white and affluent (making us part of the cycle of income inequality). And then consider how history organizations, over the past 150 years or so, have made heroes of so many white men, putting slaveholders on pedestals (an obvious example). This isn't to say great work isn't taking place at some history organizations to share a more inclusive history now, but we have decades of sins to overcome.

Read or skip? 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.

Full citation:  "Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of White Americans." National Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard School of Public Health. November 2017.
​


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

Why I picked it up: Back when I was a museum director, I remember being told that your budget is your mission. That is, how resources are spent reflect the mission and values of an organization. Thus, what the United States spends via federal expenditures children (in this case) also reflects to some degree on our values as an American society. I picked this up to see if we are moving in a future-oriented direction, investing children … or not.

Given that those over 65 are likely to outnumber minor children by about 2045, I'll be honest and say I am not too hopeful for child welfare. Not that we shouldn't spend on the care of seniors (we should), but more that I don't think the high costs of senior care should come at the expense of children.

What it is: An analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2017, and projections to 2028. It is a decent primer for what is actually spent where.

Key findings: Federal spending on children relative to GDP is expected to decline over every major category (health, education, income, security, etc.), and children's share of the budget is projected to drop from 9.4% to 6.9%. This decline is largely due to increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (45% of budget, excluding spending on children; it is expected to hit 50% by 2028), and interest payments on the debt (the latter of which will actually exceed spending on children by 2020).

Federal expenditures for children consist primarily of healthcare (Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), tax exemptions and credits to families, nutritional benefits, and income security. Low-income children receive 61% of all federal expenditures for children.

Education receives <10% of federal expenditures for children. States, in the aggregate, spend nearly twice as much on children than the federal government, and the bulk of their expenditures are for education. Indeed, states and local government provide 93% of governmental expenditures on child education. That being said, the 7% spent by the federal government is projected to decline steeply.

Implications for museums: First, and this isn't a museum implication but a societal implication, we as a country have essentially decided that investing in children isn't where we should focus. I find that troubling for many reasons (which you likely share).

This report also portends a troubling future for programs that are deemed more expendable in the budget. As the population ages, and funding becomes tighter as Social Security and Medicare obligations increase (as well as other, new challenges that come with an aging population), any program that is deemed remotely expendable, rightly or wrongly, is likely to face greater scrutiny (at best) and even elimination. I fear the battles over IMLS, NEH, and NEA are only beginning.
​
Additionally, budget constraints will likely ripple out to states and local governments. When federal dollars only reach so far, state and local governments will then be forced to conduct their own assessments and reallocations to make up gaps in childhood care and education, care for seniors, and perhaps for infrastructure and other basic needs. That may mean trouble for line items deemed more expendable, such as state parks, municipal museums, and arts and humanities funding.

Lest I leave you depressed and pessimistic, however, the future doesn't have to mean absolute doom and gloom for museums if museums are proactively part of the solution. That means, when it comes to children, being truly indispensable to child development and welfare. While some well-educated museum-going parents may be prepared to say that now, when push comes to shove I doubt museums will make the cut unless we actually are indispensable to all children, providing measurable, positive impacts on those children and society. Even then, while it would give museums an opportunity compete effectively for funding, my reading of this report indicates funding opportunities will still likely be from private sources.

Let's also consider seniors. As their numbers grow, so will their health and social needs … but increasing evidence shows that cultural engagement (including museums) can help maintain well-being, decreasing healthcare costs. That gives museums an opening to develop positive impacts for individual seniors while also providing pragmatic cost-saving solutions for health spending. If, of course, we are savvy about what we do, measure the impact, and make the case.

Read or skip? The executive summary is excellent. Otherwise, skip, unless you are planning on advocating directly on this issue. The full report really gets into the weeds of budgetary policy (example: how the Budget Control Act of 2011 affected spending on children).

Full citation: "Kids' Share 2018: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2017 and Future Projections." Urban Institute. July 2018.


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