Why I picked it up: see my review of the introduction to this book: "The Field of Prosocial Behavior: An Introduction and Overview"  
​
What you need to know: Part 1 focused on prosocial behavior at the individual level. I found the following articles particularly interesting, and have bulleted out my takeaways to make it easier to internalize. It's still a very long post, mostly because I found so much to be relevant. Finally, you'll see I added commentary that I connected with museums, our current state mid-pandemic, and other research (identified at beginning of bullet at "SMW comments"). 

• "The Economics of Prosocial Behavior," Eric van Dijk.
  • Classic economic theory assumes humans are rational, but behaving in prosocial ways isn't always rational and often comes at economic cost (such as giving money to charity). Behavioral economics, however, does begin to describe why people engage in prosocial behavior … and how they benefit from it as well (such as reputationally when they give that money to charity). Generally, when societies support prosocial behavior, they tend to have higher levels of cooperation, to everyone's benefit. And, generally, societies that heavily sanction poor behavior have lower levels of cooperation … and fewer benefits.
    • SMW comments - Think about masks. When we cooperate and wear masks in a pandemic, we all benefit. And when we don't, well, we don't.
  • Most people can be classified as having a prosocial/cooperative personality, a competitive personality, or an individualistic personality. The individualistic one is highly self-interested, while competitors and prosocials consider the outcomes of others … competitors because they want to come out ahead, while prosocials (about half of adults) want to increase everyone's outcomes. Prosocials seem to be more concerned about "true fairness," while individualists and competitors are more likely to use fairness instrumentally, as a means to improve their own outcomes.
    • SMW comments - This is interesting. If this is personality type, then that suggests that, to some extent, it is how individuals are wired. And that doesn't jive so much with American Generosity, which explored how external factors and childhood upbringing and adult peer groups affect generosity (which is, clearly, a prosocial behavior). Taking our behaviors during this pandemic as an example, this suggests that there appears to be a correlation with political persuasion, with conservatives more likely to be individualistic, and liberals more prosocial.
  • People are more generous if they know more details about the people they are helping. That's why appeals that tell stories about those helped tend to do better than appeals that are simply statistics.

 

• "The Development of Prosocial Behavior," Nancy Eisenberg, Natalie D. Eggum-Wilkens, and Tracy L. Spinrad. - Reviews theories around the development of prosocial behavior, especially in childhood.
  • Early childhood. Explores Hoffman's Theoretical Model for empathetic responding, which posits that capacity for empathy begins during infancy. Around two to three years, "veridical empathy" begins, which is the awareness of others' needs and feelings, and responding to them in other-oriented ways (that is, trying to comfort in ways someone may wish to be comforted). By late childhood, the capacity for "empathy for another's life condition" develops, right around when the ability to think abstractly develops, which is a valuable progression as it can develop into broader awareness of issues and prosocial activism.
  • Middle Childhood. Generally, it had been supposed prosocial behavior increases as children get older, but a number of trajectory studies indicates that prosocial behaviors appear to decrease through the elementary-school years, especially in studies of boys.
    • SMW comments - I find this distressing. It is like we set kids up really well, but then we find it difficult to sustain it as kids get older. Is this because we, as parents and caregivers, have shifted our focus from social development to academic pursuits and extracurriculars? Are we doing our children a significant disservice in the process?
  • Adolescence. The research indicates that prosocial behavior in adolescence and early adulthood has some starts and stops, but tends to increase in late adolescence and early adulthood.
  • As individuals, we tend to be consistently prosocial in our lives. That is, those who were highly prosocial as children tend to be highly prosocial as adults, and vice versa.
  • Those with high levels of socio-cognitive and self-regulations skills, including emotion understanding and perspective taking, have higher levels of prosocial behaviors.
    • SMW comments - This makes sense to me. And now we're starting to talk business, because that cognitive bit is where I think museums come into play.
  • Origins of Prosocial Responding
    • Heredity - Some people are more wired for prosocial behaviors than others.
    • Parental Socialization - Through encouragement and modeling of behavior, warm and secure relationships with their children, and exhibiting high levels of emotional intelligence, parents affect the prosocial development of children throughout childhood and into adulthood. Additionally, authoritative parenting is linked with higher prosocial behaviors in children than authoritarian parenting. 
    • Nonparental Socialization - Such as teachers, peers, and siblings. Like with parents, having close, supporting relationships with siblings and peers tends to yield more prosocial behaviors, such as perspective taking. Teachers can also affect prosocial behaviors by the tone they set in their classrooms.
  • Role of Cultural and Subcultural Variation
    • There can be wide variations in prosocial behavior from culture to culture, with different cultures having different social norms. Typically, where prosocial behavior is prized, communal values are as well, and more aggressive and hostile cultures tend not to value prosocial behaviors as much.
    • Cultures that tend to assign children chores from a young age, value extended families, and appreciate the economic contributions of women in the household tend to raise more prosocial-oriented children. More "traditionally" cultured children tended to act more prosocial towards family members, and children raised in more "industrial" cultures tended to be more prosocial towards those who are not relatives. Cultures with more focus on individuals (more "Western") versus those focus more on communal needs (more "Eastern") show mixed differences which yield no conclusions that either is more prosocial.
    • There are some research studies that show that certain school-based programs can affect children's intrinsic motivation as well as prosocial behaviors, indicating that prosocial behavior can be nurtured outside of the home environment.
  • Overall conclusion is that prosocial behaviors are a mixture of nature and nurture, and that some children are more receptive to prosocial intervention than others.

• "Morality and Prosocial Judgments and Behavior," by Elliot Turiel
  • Explores the difference between prosocial behavior and moral judgments. Whereas prosocial behavior are actions to benefit others with no expectation of a reward (and often at some degree of sacrifice), moral judgments refer to the cognitive aspects of morality, including conceptualizing and reasoning about moral issues. This isn't to say that they are not connected, or even that there is no overlap in them; there can be. Sometimes, the moral judgments stem from times when prosocial reasoning is necessary to overcome laws, authorities, and potential punishments in order to then proceed to action (civil disobedience would be an example).
  • Overall discussion of how we weigh greater good, with actions against trust and honesty. When is it OK to lie in order to prevent/cause something else to happen that may, on balance, be better? How does that line vary with maturity, or based on the scenario given? What happens when it is a matter of fairness? What happens if exercising one's right to do something negatively affects a different right … or another's rights?

• "The Contextually Grounded Nature of Prosocial Behavior: A Multiscale, Embodied Approach to Morality," by J. Scott Jordan and Eric D. Wesselmann
  • Immediately posits that the world isn't black-and-white, prosocial or antisocial, but instead there is a lot of gray as we inhabit a "multiscale" world of peers, social groups, and cultural groups that influence our behavior and that may affect whether that behavior actually is prosocial or antisocial. For example, ostracism is seen as an antisocial behavior, but when used as a form of correction, it is prosocial, working towards the greater good (though this can be used for ill-purposes as well, such as in cults).
    • SMW comments - I would argue that ostracism can be taken to an extreme with cancel culture as well. That wasn't even a thing when this volume was released.
  • That being said, gives considerable discussion to how we respond prosocially to the actions of others. For example, two people engaged in discussion while sitting in rocking chairs are likely to rock synchronously, while two people ignoring each other don’t. This has repercussions for empathy, of course, and it is also somewhat related to Theory of Mind and how we think about the mental state of others. In so doing, we are constantly in a state of considering that mental state of others, as individuals one-on-one, but also as we operate in the multiscale.

• "Culture and Prosocial Behavior," by Irina Feygina and P.J. Henry 
  • Are some cultures more prosocial than others? Is it a degree of interpretation? Or, are some privately prosocial, and publicly less so (or vice versa)?
  • Prosocial behavior, and its rewards and punishments, has its own 3 Rs: reputation, reciprocation, and retribution. Engaging in prosocial behavior enhances reputation, aids in reciprocation, and failing to do so risks retribution.
  • Individualistic cultures have different types of prosocial expectations than more collective cultures, with the latter making more cooperative choices. That being said, collective cultures tend to be more prosocial within their ingroup, while individualist cultures tend be more even-handed toward both ingroup and outgroup individuals.
    • SMW comments - I get what they are saying, but I think it varies within those cultures as well. For example, the United States tends towards the individualistic side. But if we look at conservative and liberal attitudes, especially during this pandemic (and mask-wearing, as an indicator behavior), we see the opposite of what the authors are suggesting. That is, conservatives tend to be more individualistic, but are more prosocial within their ingroup; liberals are more collective, but are more even-handed toward both ingroup and outgroup.
  • The less wealth someone has, the greater the likelihood that individual will help others. They go on to note that lower SES individuals tend to behave more prosocially. It is hypothesized the lower SES individuals need other people more, which leads to that prosocial behavior, while higher SES are more independent, not putting them into the prosocial frame of mind as much.
    • SMW comments - this has been seen in other studies as well, with lower-income households often giving a higher percentage of their incomes to charity than high-income households.

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.

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: 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.