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!

Mahogany: The Costs of Luxury in Early America, by Jennifer L. Anderson
The older I get, the more I feel I have head-slap moments. Reading Mahogany was one. Of course it was crop made possible by enslaved labor. Of course it was clear-cut to enable sugar plantations. And of course the harvesting of mahogany has significant environmental repercussions. I was blinded by the amazingly beautiful wood and the furniture and objects it makes possible. Now, I am looking at the handful of mahogany pieces I have, as well as those in museum collections, with new eyes.


The Revenge of Analog, by David Sax
Over the past 20 years, our society has seemed to promote that digital is the future, and analog options are for dinosaurs or luddites. Yet we all live in an analog world. David Sax investigates a hypothesis that analog is often superior, and explores when it is, how, and why. This is, by no means, a rejection of digital progress, but instead an embracing of a hybrid existence that values and supports how we can make choices for our very human lives.

It was interesting reading this book, which is grounded in a pre-pandemic world, and then look at the digital experiment we all participated in during the pandemic. If anything, the pandemic made Sax's case as humans sought (and missed) human contact and IRL experiences. Indeed, the 2021 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers found that fewer than half of regular museum-goers (our most avid fans) participated in virtual content from museums during the pandemic … but they are anxious to return to our IRL experiences, objects, plants, animals, and spaces. I also had to chuckle at Sax's observation that the people pushing digital technology the most are Baby Boomers who are afraid of appearing out-of-step with young adults. Guess what museum-goer demographic participated in virtual content from museums the most during the pandemic? Adults over 60.


Blood at the Root: A Racial Cleansing in America, by Patrick Phillips
This one hit close to home for me, as it explores the racial violence of Forsyth County, Georgia in 1912, when it went sundown, as well as the ongoing "whites only" nature of the county that existed into the 1990s. I grew up about 20 miles away from Forsyth County, and I remember Hosea Williams leading protests there in the late 80s. This chilling book lays out the racial terror that wasn't uncommon in America at that time, and how it continues, even today, to affect this community. I found it difficult to read, yet one of the most important books I've read lately. I'm sending my sister a copy.


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

Why I picked it up: I came across the phrase "moving at the speed of trust," referring to the pacing of social justice work. I have been struggling with how to talk about the pacing of inclusive work in museums, especially given how some audiences would respond more effectively to a more measured pace (versus a fast pace that might alienate them), and this phrase struck me as helpful. So, I followed the source and it led to this book.

What I learned: There were some key concepts that I found helpful in this book:
​

• Emergent strategy: a strategy for building complex patterns and systems of change through relatively small interactions. I think this is a smart strategy because, in museums, it is those small, incremental building blocks of learning that helps us open minds to other perspectives … and more inclusive content.
• Imagination battle: the way our imaginations create fears, and we also have to imagine our way out of them. This is an interesting way to think about racism. White people who are actively racist are imagining how people of color could harm them … and anti-racists have to battle that by imagining a more equitable world. Where it becomes particularly fascinating is that what racist white people imagine as a fear is perceived, at times, to be what anti-racist people are actually striving for, which makes this work so hard.
• Moving at the "speed of trust": the incremental changes made in individual viewpoints towards inclusion is going to happen at different speeds for different people … some are ready for a fast pace, but others will get there too if we adjust the pace to a slower one, giving them time to trust, process, understand, and address their individual fears. The point is, if we go too fast, we'll lose our opportunity entirely, so we have to move at the speed of trust. And museums have a lot of trust, so we should consider how to use that trust to result in the most impact. That may mean a slower pace than is fair (because it isn't fair!), but one that actually gets us to the goal. This is a marathon, not a sprint. 

While these concepts excited me … the rest of the book, to be honest, was a letdown. I wanted to love this book and tell everyone to read it … but I didn't. Overall, I felt the book meandered and needed a strong editor, and when there were sections that were super-clear and concise I became even more frustrated because the rest of the book wasn't similarly clear. I skimmed a lot.  There were also whole sections that felt very self-help … and while that isn't a bad thing (and is often a good thing), that wasn't what I was looking for.

Yet there were also alternate approaches to others and societal issues that I have not considered before, and I am now chewing on. I don't know that they will ever become my approaches, but I am willing to consider them as valid.

Read or skip? Likely skip. I pulled from it what I felt was relevant (the concepts above), but I found my frustrations with the writing were enough to make me not recommend. Unless you found something of particular interest in this review, then skip. I'm still glad to have at least skimmed it.

Full citation: Brown, Adrienne Maree. Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds. Chico, CA: AK Press, 2017.

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

Think of that old story about the blind men and the elephant. Each one of those blind men, when experiencing the elephant, is asking a different question based on his individual perspective. What is this broad thing? What is this ropy thing? It doesn't occur to the man feeling the ear that there might be another body part that is thicker. Thus, he seeks to answer the questions his experience brings forward … and then he answers them with the facts he gathers. Ditto the man feeling the broad side of the elephant. Each of the men apply that same intuitive epistemology, and none of them gather all the information they need. It begs the question why they didn't ask each other what they experienced so they could gather all the facts.

Now, imagine this happening times X number of Americans … or Y number of humans. We all have different cultural backgrounds, lived experiences, and thus values that arise out of them. The questions I come up with as a liberal white female in America are inevitable going to be different than, say, Xi Jinping's questions. Is it any wonder that we all end up with different sets of facts that we then use to (at times) to disagree with one another?

Why I picked it up:

Last year, when the Mueller Report was released, I came across a new term: intuitive epistemology. It described how two different people could read the Mueller Report and come to two different fact-based conclusions, largely because they were asking different questions of it.

Major light bulbs went off in my head. Because I was seeing the exact same tendency when it came to people's examination of the past. That is, those who want a more inclusive history were asking one set of questions about the past, while those who want a more traditional (and perhaps conservative) history were asking a totally different set of questions. And, of course, those two groups were then finding very different accounts of the past that, at times, conflicted.

And then I started to see this in other parts of my work and daily life. Climate change. Vaccines. Immigration. Race. Gender. All topics that museums cover, and thus all topics ripe for conflict in our exhibitions and programs.

I needed to know more, so I went to the source of intuitive epistemology, and dug in.


What you need to know:

There are two big concepts, and two big things to understand

Concept 1: Intuitive Epistemology. Epistemology is the process and study of establishing facts, but intuitive epistemology acknowledges how individual values and life experiences deeply affect the questions individuals ask of a subject, and thus the answers (facts) they find. That is, when I, as a human, approach a subject, my values around that subject affect my approach, what I choose to accept as valid information on that subject (and what I ignore and/or reject), and how I make sense of it. And this often leads to …

Concept 2: Dueling Fact Perceptions. As individuals approach a subject from their own value-laden lens, they find the facts that tend to support their already-formed values. Since two people thus approach the same subject in different ways, and find different facts, those facts can lead to conflicting conclusions, or dueling fact perceptions. (Think elephant ear and elephant body … if all you know is the ear, the facts you know about elephants will conflict my facts about the body.)

Which leads us to two big things to understand.

Understanding #1 - We all practice intuitive epistemology. It is human nature. Conservatives and liberals do it. Those who are deeply religious do it as well as atheists. Scientists do it (valuing the scientific method is, of course, a value). We. All. Do. It.

Understanding #2 - Since we all do it, finding middle ground is practically impossible. There is no neutral. And because it is entrenched, it is exceedingly difficult to practice radical curiosity and courageous empathy to understand how others might come to their (opposite/different) conclusions.


Implications for museums:

Museum-goers are coming to museums with different sets of values … and that affects how they engage with the content museums share. It also affects how open they might be to hearing information that conflicts with their world view (answer: not as open as we might like).

That's why understanding peoples values, attitudes, and beliefs is so crucial when it comes to discussing big issues that matter. Such as inclusion and DEAI. Climate change. COVID-19 (and especially wearing masks). Vaccines. By understanding how they are approaching the subject, we can work to reframe questions with visitors that may allow new information to be considered thoughtfully. Because making that incremental shift in thinking matters. (And the results from the 2020 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers will look at this carefully … as well as how museum professionals approach content from different value sets than many of our visitors.)


Read or skip?

It took me, a motivated reader, 6 months to get through this book. Granted, I was a little busy … but still. That being said, there is a lot more in the book of value. If you want my running (and unpolished) notes on the subject, email me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com and I'll send them along.


Full citation:  Marietta, Morgan, and Barker, David C. One Nation, Two Realities: Dueling Facts in American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019

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

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.

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.

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.

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.