Featured Video

 
Jan06

Pach Conversation #2: Moral Injury, 10/30/2013

Author // Alisha Ali, Carol Gilligan Categories // Conversations, Featured Video Homepage

Subtitle

Following Jonathan Shay’s lecture Moral Injury and Our Common Humanity, panelists drew from their own personal and professional experiences to describe evidence of our common humanity as well as the ways in which our stereotypes about race, gender, sexuality, and SES disrupt our ability to recognize our common humanity. 

Transcript

Niobe Way

Okay so first of all I wanted to welcome everybody back. It’s delightful to see everybody we have old members we have new people who are just joining us which is exciting to have them here and hopefully people are talking to each other and getting to know each other. Tonight we have a panel with Jimmie Briggs moderating, applaud, [Laughs, everyone applauds] and we have five fantastic guests Lisa Crooms was very sick unfortunately she is very sick, so unfortunately she couldn’t be here with us tonight, but she really regretted it and I got lots of emails from her saying how much she wished she were here tonight. So tonight we’re going to have this panel but before we begin I want to do a couple business kind of things. One is that we have a new project director. Daphne stepped down and we have Amber Madison who’s our new project director (Woos and applause). Amber is, let me tell you how impressive she is. She is an author of three books, freelance writer, media expert, and practicing therapist she’s written for Seventeen, Glamour, Cosmo, and Men’s Fitness among others. Frequently lectures on college campus about healthy relationships and appears regularly in the media commenting on issues of sex, gender, and intimate relationships, and we got her (laughs) as the director. So I’m going to hand it over to her in a second because she wants to tell you about a few things we’re doing.
One of the things that is the challenge of doing this organization for Carol, Pedro, and I is creating a community that meets six times over the year in person but continues to have the conversation between conversations so one of the things we’re doing now is we’re creating a very fancy, interactive website that will be up and running shortly which is not only going to include blogs, but we want it to actually include your questions and comments in these conversations. So on your table you see pads, we want everybody to take a pad and write comments, questions, observations, and anything you want. We are then going to collect the pads and transcribe them onto our website to begin to engage in questions with each other about what this work provokes in you and reflects in your own work . (Takes a question, Can we do this on a laptop?) yeah just send us the notes, (jokes) no you have to do it on the pad (laughs). We are hoping to make this a regular part so that while we have panels talking and your listening carefully you’re also reflecting on how it relates to your own work and where you are in your own work. So please do that. 
(Someone asks a question) If you don’t want to, but of course we would love your names on the pad because then we can actually begin to identify each other by names that we know, but also if you write comments that you don’t want on the website it’s fine, just say don’t put on the website please. Okay, so I think that was all I wanted to say before handing it over to Amber. Oh yeah, generally in addition to answering questions, asking each other questions etc. we are also going to be posting asking for you to send articles either that you wrote yourself or that you think is relevant to PACH and as well as articles, this was Amber’s idea, as well as articles that you hate and you think absolutely misrepresents things and that is good to engage in conversation with PACH members to sort of think about what’s problematic about this piece and the way they’re framing some new crisis that we’re facing. So I think again to engage in dialogue about who we are as a group, what’s our community about, what’s PACH about, and then to engage in dialogue with each other. We are already getting interest from the media, we have some media sitting here, but we are also getting interest from the other media about wanting to know what PACH is about, about wanting to write about PACH, so that’s very exciting, but I want this to be a collective thing so that we get the voices from all of the members in this conversation not just Pedro, Carol and I. So you know thinking of- and we have approximately 45 members. Okay, Amber your turn.

Amber Madison

Great, well I think Niobe covered a lot of it. The idea for the website, we have two right now. One that will be living at Steinhardt right now, online, and one we got PACH.org which is awesome, we had to pay a lot of money for it but it is ours and so on the website. So on the website it’s going to be a combination of blogs from you guys, if the word blog freaks you out don’t worry I will send an email shortly. Blogs are intimidating it only has to be a couple of paragraphs of just some ideas you have that you want to get out there. Articles that you see that are really in line with our message, articles that you see that drive you absolutely crazy that you’re like I know they got this wrong with a little paragraph on top about why they got it wrong. Also, our Tweets, which is the other thing we have the twitter handle PACHNYU. So if you Tweet at us, please follow us Tweet at us, we’ll re-tweet all of your messages. The only other thing is that I will probably be reaching out to all of you at some point talking about your media contacts and figuring out how we can really get all of our voices out there. So, thanks

Niobe Way

Okay Jimmie, take it away.

Jimmie

Good-evening everyone. I wanted to start off the conversation, first some of you weren’t in attendance, during dinner we had the privilege of hearing Michael Shay talk about moral injury and at the end of the discussion this evening we’ll hear more comments from him talking about his remarks earlier, but also the remarks of the panel. First, I’d like to start off with a framing question for each of you by way of introduction. Alisha, I’ll start with you since you’re next to me. It’s a very basic question, like what brought you to PACH. What about PACH attracted you to want to be a part of it?

Alisha

Thank you. If I’m going to long just let me know because I don’t have the privilege of knowing how short other people can be in theirs. So what brought me to want to join PACH, it was a number of things, but I would say the most salient is this sense that I have been having for a number of years. I’m a researcher, a psychologist. I do research looking at people in domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, kids at very low-income schools, and I look at the mental health effects of living in this sort of chronic state of being oppressed and what that does to a person. And for years now as a social scientist I’ve been feeling dismayed and disappointed in the fact that in order to do our work, what’s considered the “correct” way, we have to detach from our subjects so to speak. We are not allowed to be in connection with them because the belief is that if we’re detached we’re objective and only then can we really tell stories accurately. So a lot of my work and this is why I’m attracted to PACH is really about understanding connection and how we can be in connection with others and how that can actually prevent mental health problems and help people overcome mental health problems. So maybe I’ll give a couple of examples just because these are very recent things that have happened, that I have in my head at this second. A lot of those of us who do research around gender, we think about the fact that girls at a younger and younger age have to feel disconnected, not only from others, because there’s the idea that if you’re a girl amongst other girls your relationships need to be defined by this strange combination of closeness and competition, right? So you have to disconnect from others, but very young you’re actually taught that you have to disconnect from yourself, right? So a friend of my mind who has a daughter around the age of my youngest daughter, so she’s about six, they got a new puppy. It was a Peek-a-poo, so you can imagine how small this thing must be. It’s not only a Peek-a-poo, it’s a cross between a Pekinese and a Poodle and it’s a puppy. So, it’s small. And her six year old daughter had a friend come over to play wanting to meet this puppy, and she said to my friend the Mom, “How much does it weigh?” and my friend said, “Oh, about eight pounds.” Right away the little six year old girl said, “Oh, what I wouldn’t give to weigh just eight pounds,” in a very adult intonation, okay? Somewhere in her young life she’s been taught a self-betrayal, a necessity really to disconnect from yourself because she wants to be something that she never could be, right? Then just two mornings ago when I was dropping my two girls at school, elementary school, I was walking away and I didn’t notice this but in some ways at my daughter’s schools there tends to be, this is a generalization so I’m sorry if I’m speaking in generalizations here but, there tends to be older affluent Fathers and younger very stick-like, sorry, wives who tend, I mean this is just genetics, biologically will have stick-like daughters it’s true. And I’ve noticed this over the years. I think without realizing it as I dropped off my daughters and I was walking away from the school. There was a girl who on some levels I registered she was an average size girl, not a stick, right? So they’re let’s say a fourth or a fifth grader, and I didn’t realize I had registered that until I saw her Mom say goodbye to her as she was heading into the school, and the last thing she said to her was, “Don’t eat too much.” She could be the best athlete at that school, she could be the highest scoring kid in math at that school, but what her Mother was saying goodbye to, not I love you, have a good day, do great on that algebra test, she was saying goodbye to the child who was not small enough, who was not thin enough, right? That is a betrayal, she is being taught by someone that is older than her to betray herself. So what we don’t have is a science of that. We don’t have a science of humanity, even when we do the science of emotions a psychology researchers, what we have is a science of typologies and archetypes, not a sciences of experience. Even when we do research in psychiatry we have a science of symptoms not of the human being, and I think that’s what attracts me to being involved with PACH.

Jimmie

Great examples. Adrian, can you talk about your work in relation to a common humanity or disconnection from our common humanity?

Adrian

Okay. Hi! I am a practicing journalist that takes a really long time to get my stories into print, but they’re with me for a really long time before they’re published. One of the main things that drew me to PACH was that the resources that I draw from to sustain my wellbeing during very long periods of field work have often been people among other disciplines. Partly because I am not part of the institutional locations of my profession, in large part by choice I would say. Also I’m drawn, I guess I wanted to formalize that in some way because it’s taken more time for me to maintain my wellbeing and my clarity given the ways in which I am becoming a more complicated thinker, a more sophisticated thinker, I believe, so that’s one reason. I guess the other is that I feel a real sense of urgency about what’s taken me so long to understand in the work that I do. I really try to go into the work with as open mind as I can have and that takes many years actually to shed away all the kinds of assumptions that I am not even aware that I hold, and the assumptions are only part of it, there is a lot of practical information that has to be gathered. I’m very concerned about how to cultivate among young journalists the skills that they need to do this work more efficiently, and that requires all kinds of supports. Historically those supports for me have been my editors. You know when Jonathan was speaking this afternoon about the helpfulness of a ritual purification that’s come back for more before they go into a civilian life. I have often felt journalists need places where they can not only process their experiences, but share the joys that are not so apparent in very dark stories or the urge, the pressure on journalist to make quick meaning of their experience is unrelenting. So I am very interested in the changes in editorial opportunities, how editors for me have been those places where I can sort of begin to tease out what’s happened. I’m concerned now because the pressure on editors has been as unrelenting as they have been on writers in the past. So I’m interested in using this as a way to have a conversation that not only I’m interested in how not only you begin to get the media to receive a different story but I would also like the insight of these bodies of work to actually have an impact on my profession as well because journalist are certainly a part of common humanity even though people don’t seem to remember that much anymore. (Laughter)

Jimmie

Thank you Adrian. You know I was a journalist myself for a long time. I think you’re so right this idea of moral injury that journalist experience often, whether it’s covering inner city situations which you’ve done frequently. When I was a journalist I covered conflict and coming back it was difficult often to talk about, you know and really damaging. Thank you.

Adrian

May I just say one other thing too? Sorry. With this, I also just think this would be useful in the ongoing discussion about the media is to recognize to that the people that are moving in between the stories and the actual outlets for the stories. You know sometimes I would feel much closer to the people that I was writing about than the places I was publishing work. There’s a whole, there are a lot of different locations that I think there aren’t as many clear, safe harbors when you get down to it sometimes, because you know as you become a more seasoned journalist you know the business that you’re involved in is much more out of your control than you think at first.

Jimmie

Thanks. I actually want to go to Stephan. Could you talk about? We’re going to fast-forward a little bit. Could you talk about the concept of moral injury and it’s relevance to your work?

Stephan

Uh yeah, yes! (Laughs) It’s just slightly intimidating that the man who came up with that is sitting right there, but it actually ties into what I’m even doing here, because for the moral injury is steeped in mythology or the myths that we’re told, or as we’ve been discussing in the PACH meetings, you call it false stories. I just call it the myth. Ten gallons through a one gallon hose so forgive me here I’m trying to sort this out, but I’m here because I’m a military veteran and now an actor, a Shakespeare actor and the leap to those isn’t as broad as you would think. The reason I am both of those things and that I’m here is because of moral injury. Using theatre literally, Tina Packer’s work at Shakespeare and Company, the pedagogy they use for classical actor training they use has combated my post-traumatic stress symptoms, and I’ve used that to help other veterans, and as this grows we find all of these other facets that it helps. I have a one man show that is just this, professing how I me Rich- (laughs) Richard, yes Shakespeare’s Richard the third. Yes, but it really was my best friend, and I loved moral injury in many ways beside my wife, your book this year brought me back from the brink of suicide again of suicidal thoughts. That in conjunction with the month long intensive, I keep pointing there because that’s Tina Packer there, she created it, and for forty years has been doing this work that low and behold I thought I was stumbling across that no one else had discovered and it turns out the Greeks were doing it 4000 years ago and the Chinese, but you know whatever, this is about me right now. But with that I realized that all of the myths that caused me to join the military and then I realized once I was in the military the myths that were perpetuated and capitalized on to continue the work in the military, and I was having doubts while I was in the military already. When, after I survived infantry officers basic course, ranger school, countless schools, I was in the- I don’t say this in a form of boasting, I say this so understand at what level I was operating. I was in the top 2% of all company grade officers for all four branches in the US military. I was going airborne, air assault, ranger in the top 2% survived the first Gulf War I didn’t do anything. We were circling in a plane while it all went down, and I thought thank goodness, I made it, I figure we got about 10years before we go to war again. Because when I went in I wanted to kill someone I really did, I was angry and by this point, I was about 6 or 7 years in I was like yeah, not so much anymore, and my best friend was shot in training in the face right across from me, from me too, Jim away, and something broke and that’s when I saw the Shakespeare play. I saw Richard the Third and I’d never seen a Shakespeare play, and I have what I call in my show the Ghost Buster’s moment. Where they say don’t cross the streams or else every molecule in your body will explode at the speed of light, and that’s what happened to me it the best way I can describe it. Then for the past 16 years of doing this work, specifically the performing arts, which require collaboration with each other and require that actor/audience relationship. I was reconnected to my humanity and to other people’s humanities and I was really terrified that I had lost it for forever because when I went into graduate school I wasn’t right and I don’t know if I’m right now, actually I know I’m not, but I’m accepting that it’s okay to not be okay, is what I’m getting at. So that’s what brings me here, is to get in a room with incredible thinkers like yourselves and break down the barriers that the industrial age and amongst other things have created between psychiat- right? In the Greeks it was theatre, theology, and therapy were all-together. Theatre, therapy, and theology were all together, right? And now it’s like well that’s the math building and that’s the science building, that’s where they do plays, and they can’t be in the same building where they do music because apparently they’re different. So I’m trying to tear down all those walls literally so that we work together to try and reconnect us on a deeper level which I think we were originally. Did that make any sense at all?

Jimmie

It did. It did. Thank you Stephan.

Stephan

Okay, that’s where I’m at.

Jimmie

Carry from your perspective. I ask about it because you talk about it so eloquently. From your perspective, how do you identify the types of humanity, the levels of humanity when we talk about humanity? How do you recognize the different humanities or elements of humanity?

Khary

I think that when we start talking about humanity, just jumping off a little bit of what your asking others in terms of why I’ve come to this conversation is because I think personally and then in the work that I do we believe that there is this intersection of humanities that they don’t exist in silos, they don’t exist in separate spaces but that if we’re really trying to get at the core solutions for the kind of issues that so many people have talked about already in the first two times we’ve come together and written about. The answers lie in the intersections of humanities. We’ve sought answers for too long in isolated, segmented ways, and then we look at the major issues that we’re now facing and that I face in my work with young people that they’re completely interconnected. So you can’t deal with issues of gender, with issues of sexism, misogyny, from women talking to girls, right we all know that, men have to talk to boys and you have to talk cross gender and you have to have an analysis that moves into every space. When we talk about the inequities we continue to face around race and class. Again, the only way we can find these solutions is if humanity sees the solutions as everyone’s responsibility. Everyday I’m confronted with what I consider to be gross inequities in our global community, but in a very isolated way also here in New York and in Harlem. The inhumanity that the children I work with in Harlem face everyday, I really see as an abomination. I see it as a stain on New York City, a stain on the country. The problem is that their humanity has been seen as their lack of humanity that those two pieces have come together for so long. It’s okay that they’re at failing schools because they are poor black and brown children. It’s okay that everyday they’re terrified of violence even if they don’t experience the violence because they’re poor black and brown children. It’s okay that the unemployment rate for black males is hovering at 50% right now in the city, because of issues of race. So if we’re trying to tackle these issues, there has to be an understanding that the solutions have to be global. So what we try to talk to young people about all the time is that their humanity is connected to others. Sometimes it’s the injured I think who are the first to recognize and see that. So yes you face all these inconsistencies, all these oppressions, this kind of suffocating sense that you can’t get out and you have to get out, but you also have to understand your connection to others humanity. So we’re talking about wars in other parts of the world that America’s declared. We’re talking about issues of masculinity and issues of misogyny. We’re talking about issues of homophobia, we’re talking about issues of violence, and we’re trying to counter at times every lesson they’re learning in their home environment, in their school environment sometimes, you know in the community as well. So when I think of humanity, that’s why we do the work at Brotherhood Sister Sol. That’s why we feel we’re kind of at the forefront really in a, and I use this word cautiously because I know that there are people who have been in actual war, but our young people at times feel that that is what their circumstances are. That every day they’re afraid of violence, everyday they feel their lives are in danger. Everyday they feel like they don’t really have any access to following their dreams because they’re just in survival mode, that is not the same thing as being in the middle of a war zone but the trauma that comes from it, the ramification of it is profound and deep. So part of why I would come to this conversation is that I think that we’re always looking for solutions. We feel like we really understand the depth of the problem, the inhumanity we all continue to perpetuate and face that people can go about “their lives” while you have 25% of the people in this borough surviving off of $9,000 a year or less, in Manhattan. That people go about their lives while 700,000 children are at risk for failure in the school system and 400,000 will more than likely fail meaning not graduate from high school with a 61% graduation rate. So when we look at that I think we’re constantly trying to understand what solutions can be. So kind of as a closing thought it reminds me of the fact that we use a lot of folk tales and proverbs with our young people, it’s a way of story telling. I think story telling has often played a core-part of developing humanity. Getting people to understand another persons story is often a way of understanding his or her experience. There’s an old proverb that’s told that there’s a group of people on the banks of a river and they’re enjoying the day and they’re enjoying the river and the sun and all of the sudden they have the horrific vision of a child floating down the river and somebody dives in the water to save the child and they pull the child out and just as they’re trying to figure out what happened and why the child’s in the water they start to see a second child and another jumps in and the woman grabs the child and swims out and brings the child out and at that point two of the people in the group run away from the group and the group starts screaming at those people and you know says what are you doing and where are you going, you know we need your help right here and they said we’re running up river to find out who the hell is throwing our children in the water.

Jimmie

Thank you Khary. I didn’t forget you Jim.  I actually have two questions for you, you know the first it that framing question I’ve been asking everyone what brought you to PACH. What about PACH attracted you in terms of your experiences, but the second part of the question I wanted to ask from your perspective what are the benefits or interests in not seeing a common humanity?

Jim

Thank you. Okay let me just start by saying at first I was really skeptical of this group when I first heard about it. I was not at all convinced it was a good idea. The reason was because the phrase, “project for a common humanity” reminded me of the famous story about Calvin Coolidge when he went to church one Sunday and came home and his wife asked him what happened and he said, “Well the preacher gave a sermon,” and she said, “What was it about?” and he said, “Sin.” She said, “Well what did he have to say about it?” He said, “He was against it.” (Everyone laughs) and I thought the project for the common humanity could easily sound like well we’re against sin. Well of course who isn’t against sin, but I want to make the point that there are a lot of people who are against our common humanity, and the whole idea of commonness. After all the word common comes linguistically etymologically from the same roots as the word community and communal, like Jonathan’s comment about the communalization of trauma, and the word communism. And you know all you have to do is be for our common humanity and be accused of being a communist. We see that in our current political debate, but it’s been going on for a long time. There’s a famous story about the archbishop of El Salvador who commented, “When I said we should give alms to the poor I was called a good Christian. When I asked why we have poverty I was called a communist,” and that’s what we are going to be up against. Some of you may remember during the last electoral campaign when there was a big debate about Obamacare. People supporting Obamacare were actually being given death threats, I mean there were people who were that strongly opposed to the idea that everybody should have a common access and equal access to something as necessary for life as health care. I mean I couldn’t believe it, but that is what happens. Now, what do I mean by being open to our common humanity? I think of the motto that Dostoyevsky put in the mouth of one of the great characters in his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Father Zosima, the priest monk, comes up with the motto that we are all, that is all human beings, are responsible for all. That is we are all responsible for each other. To me that’s what is meant by a common humanity. Now I’ve often said if there’s any validity to what I’m saying you can read about it in this morning’s newspaper. So let me quote from a recent New Yorker. A letter objecting to an article which has given an example of a reasonably prosperous man who in his early thirties or forties did not have health insurance and got very sick and had huge health bills, they drove him into bankruptcy. He lost his home, his business; he was subsisting on food stamps. So this letter comes in saying, you know, this article was just absurd saying, “We do not as a society have a duty to protect people (like the man in this story). Protecting individuals from there own irresponsible behavior is not a duty of the affordable care act or the function of government generally.” I mean that’s a real statement I think of people who don’t believe we have a common humanity, or should act as if we do. Now I don’t think we can discuss this issue without talking about politics, because politics is the arena in which we solve problems communally.  Problems that cannot be solved at a smaller level, and I’m reminded of something that the great Italian political scientist Norberto Bobbio said in the book he wrote on left wing versus right wing politics. He said the essence of left wing politics is the value on equality. Right wing politics supports inequality, supports hierarchy, and class status differences and so forth. In America this battle has been fought out, the left versus right wing, mostly in our two party system by the republicans versus the democrats. Franklin Roosevelt said once that we can test our progress as a nation not to how much we give to those who already have much but by what we do for those who have too little. I mean he was pushing for a common humanity where everybody be counted, the poor as well as the rich. By contrast I’d say the iconic representative of the Republican Party was Ronald Regan when he said our party, the Republican Party, wants to see an America where it’s always possible for somebody to get rich. Meaning you know but your not rich by comparison to somebody who’s poor, I mean it means you’re pushing to support the rich. So they’ve become the party of inequality. So I’m saying if this group is going to accomplish something we are going to have to take on political issues. People may disagree with the way I would frame some of this I would hope some of what I am saying would just stimulate a debate because there is room for disagreement on these things. I would push for the notion that we can’t pretend that politics isn’t at the heart of the question of a common humanity, and that’s one reason why I would support this group as a kind of think tank as a kind of collective research and writing and thinking group comparable to but very different from the dozens of extremely well-funded right wing think tanks which over the last 30-40 years have been dominating the American political debate, setting the terms of the debate. I think it’s time for us to set the terms of the debate and I would like to see this group do this. I know we have such a riches of academic and intellectual and moral force, I think with this group. So I would push, you know as a physician, I read a lot about and I support evidenced based medicine. I think it’s time that we really created a think tank that would support evidenced based politics, (applause) and I’d like to see us do that.

Jimmie
Thank you Jim that’s good. Alisha and Stephan actually raised it, thank you so much, this idea of false ideas or false ideas that we tell ourselves, can you talk a little bit about how that fits into the work that you’re doing?

Alisha
I mean there is so much that we are taught to believe is a true part of our so called “nature” that is actually a betrayal of who we can become. I think a lot of my work what draws me to do that kind of research I do is trying to expose I guess they are false stories that tell us the ways that we can allow certain people to express their humanities and other people we are told we shouldn’t have compassion for them. Their humanity is kept invisible, right? So in this country the belief that if you just work hard enough you’ll be one of the people who matters and the reason you feel you don’t matter is because you didn’t work hard enough to become one of us and so you can be invisible, right, we don’t need to even acknowledge your humanity. There’s so many things I can think of in my research. I think one of the recent ones which I think connects to a lot of what we’ve been saying about what’s so very wrong with literally systems that we have in place. A lot of my work is in homelessness shelters, domestic violence shelters, and if a woman goes through a DV shelter and wants to qualify for housing assistance, even if she’s coming from a DV shelter directly she needs to prove that there has been abuse, so that she can qualify for subsidized housing/transitional housing as a DV survivor. What that means is that she has to go to the Department of Homelessness Services, DHS, and explain I’ve been abused therefore I have no where to go and I can’t go back to the home where I left because that’s where the abuser is. This system is such that you have to sit with a worker and tell your story. The problem is that you have to come and sometimes wait 3 full days before you actually get your turn, and you have your kids with you usually and they don’t have a separate space for your kids to be while you’re being interviewed, so you can see this all playing out right? One women, and this is a very common story, now they’ve actually started talking to the women that we work with about this, but one of the first stories a women was telling me is that so many of us in deciding to leave our abusers decided I’m going to tell my child some other reason because so many of them didn’t let their kids know that their dad was beating them.  A lot of them had fathers and they didn’t want them to grow up with the idea that this is what a father is. So they would say for instance, Daddy has left, we’re leaving we can’t live here anymore, and they would be vague about it. So one of the women that was telling me this story said that, and then there I was with my young daughter being interviewed and being asked, “What is the evidence of your abuse, tell specific instances” and it was extreme is was extreme battering, it was extreme rape at the hands of her husband and it was over the course of years. It was always after there daughters bedtime at time so she didn’t know about it. She protected her daughter from knowing about it. That’s an understandable lie, but then with her daughter sitting there and her having to listen to the Mother describe the abuse and this is what the abuser did. Her daughter asked her when was this happening? And she said, oh well it was at night, it was happening when you were asleep in your bed. She said well who was it, who was coming into our home at night and doing this? The fact that the Mother had to sit there and say this was your Daddy doing all of these things to me shows us that we feel some people’s humanity matters and the humanity of this mother and her child does not matter. They are poor, they are homeless you got yourself into this situation. How can we use power that we have collectively to allow stories to be told from the lives of people that can teach us so much, which a lot of us who do this sort of research this is what we try to do be vehicles for the people we work with, but also understand that we need to do something wherever we can, so we’re now working with a representative from the Department of Homeless Services my research team and I to advocate with the people who are actually directors of homeless shelters that if you run a DV shelter you need to say that my work should be enough, I discharged this woman to you and we had to go through a screening for her to come here and be at a DV shelter, that should be enough, as opposed to her having to wait three days to tell a story and to have to tell the story in front of her child. So to me I feel that that is sort of the bigger picture as I see it.

Jimmie
Thank you for that example Alisha. Adrian as a journalist, or I want to say as an anthropological journalist, how do you see yourself or how do you see your role in I guess addressing these challenges that we’re talking about around common humanity, the false stories, the moral injury, often that the disenfranchised endure often. How do you, what strategies do you bring to these issues to combat them?

Adrian
Well I guess in the subject similar to what you’re talking about just in the course of my brief career in terms of pitching stories to publications for example. It used to be fairly easily to sell say a poverty story, as it would be called. Then it would be, you could do it less frequently, and then it was more like a, I’m being, I’m using gross generalizations, but it would be like an annual thing because the readership, the demographics of the readership you know now are, people are highly aware of who there readers are and the assumptions about who’s reading and what they care about which also I think could use some evidenced based practices because I think they always are underestimating what readers can respond to, but I just found I had to keep improvising strategies to try to get to the stories that were also becoming more complicated for me. So whereas I might initially be interested in wanting to write about the outrageousness of that I would now be curious to know issues of complicity and negotiating strategies that are adaptable and then what the consequences are further down the road, but anyway the subjects of the stories had to keep getting younger and younger in order to be innocent. So I used to be able to write about juveniles and now poverty can almost only be told on the back of a child protagonist. It’s very difficult to write stories about adults in poverty because the constant question of the choices that they’re making. So I’ve developed ways into questions, for example this project I’m working on about stand up comedians now, is really in part motivated by watching practitioners who are trying to convey provocative truth, how they negotiate that give and take with live audiences night after night after night. Like how do you get people to hear a very disturbing truth with the high artists among them? How do you literally get people to hear you out and then to extract some of those skills? I do constantly and I think even among the conversations here I’m highly attuned to the fix that people seem to get by hearing and narrating the most extreme damage which I myself have participated in as a journalist absolutely. I’ve often wondered why is it sort of that people often go for the extreme story in a sort of way or you have to, you have to sort of get people to pay attention, but I think some of it over time it struck me that it is a function of people not listening, so that you have to keep screaming you know, look this is how bad it gets and you have to sort of go down into the thing whereas in a way so much of the utility of what you were talking about as an example would be a story about how you actually go about changing that and that would be a useful thing to read about for a lot of people who care about the subject. Right? But to get that story told you have to get people to comprehend what it means for a woman in that moment, you know what I mean? So you’re constantly between these things so I feel I look for kindred spirits. You know people who are willing to hear out the messiness of it but I guess I don’t really have any. I think I’m here partly because I’ve run out of, I’m very concerned, I don’t think it’s an argument anymore. I’m sort of thinking, I think it’s a paradigm shift, it’s not like making the right pitch or getting it, it’s actually the whole thing has to change because I’m out of, because now that 12years olds are involved in school shootings I mean I don’t know how much younger you can. You know it’s just going to be an impossible, it’s just an impossible thing, so I think that’s part of what’s- I don’t think I answered your question (Jimmie- No, you did) I think I just restated the problem in detail I-

Jimmie
No but its, you recognized the complexity especially being a journalist, what you’re facing.

Adrian
And then the pressures of you know who readers are, and I think it’s a real great opportunity now with all the things that are going on in media to really find ways to get things out there that have difference gate keepers or no gate keepers at all.

Jimmie
Thank you Adrian, that was great. Stephan you know I was reflecting on this after hearing Jonathon Shay’s talk earlier. As a veteran, as a soldier who’s been in combat, is the idea of common humanity, I mean do you feel like in reality it can actually exist, in that framework as a commissioning soldier fighting for any government it doesn’t really matter. Can a soldier really, as a soldier and a veteran is the idea of a common humanity something that can coexist with your responsibilities?

Stephan
Can it coexist with the responsibilities to kill each other? Probably not, which is why they spend so much time and money on training, it’s not, and it doesn’t begin with basic training. There is an incredible book by the Lieutenant Colonel Grossman called On Killing. He covers our efficiency of killing, and it’s actually really really inefficient. They go back to even the revolutionary war where they find multiple, it was where they had to load the bullet, it was a ball at the top of the barrel, mussel loaders is what they call it and so they had to put it through the top and what they found were not a few dozen but hundreds upon hundreds of weapons with multiple balls stacked on top of them. What they discerned was that these were men not firing at the other men. Then when we look at the number of bullets fired for the number of people killed they discerned that we have about an efficiency rate of about 5-15% killing rate, and this number varies on how much we actually dehumanize the enemy. So for example the only time we’ve gotten that number higher, and the highest we’ve gotten it in recorded history is 50% just under 50%, and that was in the Pacific theatre in World War II against the Japanese where we had a clearly different looking enemy right? And clearly different uniforms, we were able to convince- or dehumanize that enemy much more so than the Germans who were also Caucasian you know right? The likeliness or the distance was less if you will. So they have to capitalize on creating a distance, and what this suggests is that it can’t. That we have to get rid of this humanity we have to create enough distance and what I propose in my personal theory of how this all works is that it begins at a very young age. I believe that we cultivate a crop of draftees in this nation through, you’ve probably heard the term draft by poverty it’s self-explanatory if you don’t, but that really only accounts for 70% of the people that enlist or draft. There’s another quarter that go in for not economic reasons, and they’re going in for pride, self-respect, courage, honor, all these things that they’re not- we’re not getting- I say we- me- I didn’t serve with a bunch of men and women who were from healthy, wealthy, well adjusted families. We were mostly escaping low-incoming families, violent families, hometowns that we despised and so on and so forth, wanted to do something honorable, wanted to gain self-respect. All of these different things and the proof of this I just want to throw this out, 73% of the casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan are from low-income families, so there’s my evidenced based data if you will. That number unfortunately stays the same whether we have a draft or not, in the Vietnam was it was around 60% low-income families. Right? Even with, and think of the distance we had with Iraq and Afghanistan with this whole “patriotism and nationalism” thing, you can tell how I feel about the –isms, right? But people are joining because never forget 9/11 and yet still 73% are from low-income families. So I’m that’s what I’m saying we cultivate a crop, we have a draft by culture as I would call it and then once we get in we’re rewired and it starts with basic training and every- all branches have 8 weeks of basic training. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, all four do basic training where they dehumanize us. They shave our heads where we’re all Q-balls, we all where uniforms, we are no longer individuals, we are part of a unit, we are uniform in our dress, uniform in our speaking everything. Then they wire us for war and at the end where my work comes in is at the end of that training, and this is years, that as you say in your book Dr. Shay, at a highly malleable age. Right? Years, years, think of it the minimum service is two years minimum. Two years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week of distancing the enemy, firing at a silhouette that’s just shaped like a human being, so that that’s not a human being. So the distancing, distancing, distancing, and then the real problem comes in at the end of service. They don’t undo that distancing. They don’t suddenly re-humanize other human beings. They just dump us back into the community. So whether we’ve been berserked, as you talk about it the book, or not we’re all a little off as I put it, and we all have a little something going on, and then we’re just dumped back into our communities. So that’s what I- to answer your question, no (laughs) no we can not.

Jimmie
Thank you. Khary with the work that you’re doing with black and brown youth what it the strategies that you see we could be doing to address moral injury and these false hoods?

Khary
You know there are lessons in history for those of us who see ourselves as sort of a progressive vision. You know we all use different terminology for it but a more humanist vision. I think we’ve lost sight of some of those efforts and I feel that when we start talking about the work that I’m engaged with you know I often use as an example when we’re talking about organizers. We train youth to be organizers you know to seek to develop the skills to create change in there own community, and we use a lot of different types of stories from history and examples from history. We often say to young people, the most often talked about the least heard from constituency right? Where are the youth’s voices? The youths voices were at the forefront of the women’s movement, gay/lesbian movement, anti-war movement, brought down a president, but a core example we use is the Civil Rights movement, and when you look at the effort to end segregation and to ensure one person one vote in the country you saw four efforts that were concerted and were long term, right? This didn’t happen one speech in Washington, it didn’t happen with 10years of work, but it happened over decades and decades of litigation, running hand in hand with organizing, running hand in hand with policy work, and running hand in hand with media work. Those four pieces had to come together you had to have an integrative approach and while the litigation strategy was 40-50 years, right, and any student of constitutional law can see the stepping stones to reach Brown v. Board at the same time policy efforts were going on and at the same time certain people in the country would not have been moved if they had not seen dogs attacking children that was an intentional decision, right? And so what I think we’ve lost sight of in the progressive movement, in a movement for a greater sense of humanity is how these four things run together. So that’s the organizing model we’ve tried to teach our young people, and so when we’re talking to young people about their humanity it’s not just about the laws we want to seek to change but we’ve worked on those we’ve been very involved in the anti stop and frisk work and our young people have been some of the lead voices around reforming stop and frisk in the city, litigants,

<…?52:56>

brief you know we’ve submitted assorted documents to the courts so you know one part was litigation and for them to be aware of it, the second was organizing for them to take to the streets and organize people so that people understood how broad this was an issue. The third as I mentioned was media you know the definitive first person piece by a young person stopped and frisked was written by a young person Nicolas Peart in the New York Times Why’s the NYPD After Me?, one of our alumni members. And Nicolas has this very powerful line when he’s now talked about his issue in every media space in the U.S., major media space, German T.V., Japanese T.V., Brazilian T.V., it’s become like comical in the office where the next country’s going to be calling from and he says whenever he is talking about this issue to the audience when you see my face see the face of your own child. Right? And he brings a humanism to it that it’s not the other that he’s walking to the store and he’s put down on the street at gun point, it’s that he is out on his 18th birthday and they put him on the street and put a gun to the back of his head and when they see his I.D. and when they see that it’s his birthday they drop the I.D. on his back and wish him a Happy Birthday. Right? The inhumanity of that moment he tells those stories. And then we’re working on a policy level, you know we’re working to advise and push the conversation to the city hall, to the city council, to the district attorney’s office. There are many who worked on that issue, but again we’re using it as an example of the incredible concerted effort that needs to happen and I think that those of us in the progressive movement have to take on to seek change in any of our spaces, whatever the space may be because I think what we’re running up against are these false stories that are so profoundly entrenched, right? You know I’m an attorney and when I first really came face to face with this concept of originalism, the idea of the original intent of the United States constitution and it’s framers should drive us today and this is the core kind of right wing philosophy of constitutional law and yet when these documents were written of course it was only white men with property who were empowered. Women had no power, Latin people had no power, Native Americans, poor white folks and certainly black people who were 3/5ths of a human being in these constitutions yet we’re told in the constitution, yet we’re told that’s the narrative and the framework we’re working within. When we look at the narrative around the founding fathers I mean this may seem a long time ago but if you continue to elevate people and every founding father other than John Adams owned human people, trafficked human people, owned there own children, I don’t know what could be more barbaric than that. I think that kind of story does two things. One, it creates in the people who were not written in to those documents a fundamental disconnect, you know what the boys talked about a two-ness, a disconnect from society, but it also does profound disservice I think to the progressive voice. All the white folks who were abolitionists who were Quakers who were standing up in congress and speaking out against the inhumanity of slavery, instead the narrative becomes this is what the constitution was about because this is what the country was about, and this is what power was about, and this is what it was built on and we should all celebrate it, and that is one of many obviously incoherent stories, but the stories have staying power today. You know a proverb that we often use with our young people is that you know when lions have there own historians hunters will cease being heroes, right? So the entire perspective changes via what the lens is that you bring to the conversation and so when we’re talking about war and we’re talking about Afghanistan, and we’re talking about Iraq with our young people, we published a curriculum called, Why Did This Happen? And that was because on 9/11 as Manhattan fell under attack and buildings were falling and people were dying by the thousands our young people came to our building and said, why did this happen? We realized that in that moment this was when the rubber hit the road, you know? My co-founder was down on Wall-Street running from the clouds of smoke, right? A couple more blocks and who knows what occurs. It was very personal. It was personal to people who had family members who worked in those buildings, but we had to talk about the fact that we had a shared common humanity with people in these countries, and so as we thought about what the future would bring we had to open the conversation up in a way that included for the young people a space to vent yes, a space to be angry as many were, but also a space to understand the complexity of international, geopolitics and war.

Jimmie
Thank you Khary. Jim I want to bring the question to you I’ve been asking the others, strategies for responding to these issues we’re talking about moral injury and false hoods from your perspective?

Jim
Well I think again this room is full of people who each have real expertise in a wide variety of different areas my, the field I’ve concentrated in is in the investigations to the causes and preventions of violence. I’ve used jails and prisons as you might say my social/psychological laboratories in which to study that. There are a huge variety of ways though I would say in my area that I’ve at least attempted to reach a public audience by publishing articles and books, by participating in interviews on radio and television and being involved in making documentary films, writing blogs for the Huffington Post among other places, giving public lectures. I mean there’s that whole range of things, but the most effective thing actual has been testifying in court. Because my experience has been that they only time that we made real progress in the criminal justice system and eliminating some of the worst practices, and some of the most self-defeating practices has been when judges ordered cities or states to make those changes. Because people who are dependent on getting elected to office whether that’s in the executive branch or the legislative branch of city, state or federal government are terrified that they’ll be accused of being soft on crime if they engage in anything in the area of prison reform or reform of the criminal justice system. So I spend more time talking to lawyers and judges than I do to my fellow psychiatrists. Because that’s the forum by which I have been able to really get change. I mean just for example one thing you read in the Newspaper every few days now is the Supreme Courts ruling that the state of California has to reduce the overcrowdings in the prisons there because as I and my fellow expert witnesses were able to show in this litigation, one prisoner in California was dying every 5 or 6 days from inadequate medical and mental health care. 
I and my fellow expert witnesses were able to show and that this litigation, one prisoner in California was dying every five or six days from inadequate medical and mental health care because the prisons were so overcrowded that the doctors’ offices were even being used as bedrooms, I mean there was no place to provide treatment. And not only that, they were ordered to reduce the population of the prisons by forty thousand people. At least that many people suffer from severe mental illnesses in the prisons and shouldn’t have been in the prisons to begin with, they should’ve been in the mental health system. A majority of people there were in for non-violent crimes. So you could release eighty thousand people from that system without really endangering the public, I mean there’s- I could go on and on but and- and I’ve been involved in dozens of

<…? 1:00:50>

like that, so that’s a place we can, but again this is gonna vary for each of you with what is your own area of expertise and interest as to how you can begin to make change. These are all little changes a step at a time.  If I really wanted to say what I would really like to happen, I would like to have us just, well let me put it this way, I think it would benefit every man, woman, and child in America if we took the prisoners out of the prisons and jails and demolish those buildings, and then replace them with an entirely new architectural model. The model of jails and prisons now is based on a model that the zoos had to give up decades ago because they realized the animals were dying when they were simply put in concrete cages with bars on the walls. So now zoo animals are put in zoological parks, which is what they were evolved to adapt to and survive in. We still put human beings in cages that no zookeeper would be allowed to put animals in. And then we act surprised in a very disingenuous way when the people in them behave like animals. I mean it was “oh, oh, that’s why we should have treated them this way” so it’s a self-defeating policy. So I would abolish the prisons and replace them with locked secure schools, colleges, universities, therapeutic communities to provide medical care, substance abuse treatment, psychiatric treatment, even dental care. I mean, you have no idea the degree of deprivation and neglect the people in prisons have suffered from infancy on. You know I could go on and on, the economic system, I think it’s time we stop wanting to have simply equality of opportunity. We do need equality of outcome. There’s no equality of opportunity when one child can inherit a million dollars and most children inherit nothing. Until we have equality of outcome, where I think inheritance taxes should be a hundred percent, I think we should have a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage. I think we should equalize the two {crowd laughing} I think we should equalize both of them. So what I’m saying is I would hope to start a controversy and a debate and to say some things that are really polemical cause I think if this group can’t do it, who would help him? 
Jimmie
Thank you. 
{Applause}

Jimmie
I wanna give Dr. Shay the opportunity to make some remarks, a response to this conversation and the group at large, but first if I may, a question I want to ask based on something Jim said earlier, which, it’s been marinating in my mind, I’ll ask Alisha the question. Is the notion of common humanity apolitical?
Alisha
It’s an interesting question to ask a psychologist because we’re told that we have to be thinking as scientists and that if we are truly objective scientists then the political has nothing to do with the work that we do. And I believe that we can’t tell the stories that we need to be the story-tellers of in our science unless we think always about the political realities that shape people’s lives, right? And so umm I feel that when we talk about the way that people suffer psychologically and how that’s connected to all, all the other sorts of suffering that people live through, as psychologists, as social scientists, we can’t only talk about suffering, we have to say: why is this here, and how is this imposed? Because more often than we think, it was, it was imposed on someone against their will. I mean even- I do mental health research so I mean in deference to the psychiatrists here, the number of stories that I hear from people I interview about umm the fact that the, they- they’re suffering and they’re told that psychotropic drugs is the most effective, this is the best way and this is the answer, and it’s getting younger and younger so those of us who teach here at NYU, I mean a decade ago we didn’t really see incoming freshmen who had been on some kind of psychiatric medication since they were in middle school, we’re seeing it now. They’re moving away from home and they’re here and they don’t know what to do with themselves, you know do they, do they fill their medication, do they, do they go off and try to see how they are without it? Younger and younger kids, it was a child who I was interviewing, I was talking to a family that the child had been diagnosed with ADHD, he was six going on seven, and umm he had been, he had known that he’d been naughty and doing bad things, being sent to his room for bad behavior for years. But the way he explained it to me is that his- he said mom and dad always told me that you’re not bad but you do things that are bad and it’s not good for other people or for you, so we need to listen to these experts cause they’re wise and they really can help you and they can help us. And he said now I know that I take a pill and I understand now how everything’s changed. This is a kid who’s not even yet seven, he said I know now that it wasn’t the doing that was bad, it was the me that was bad. Because I take the pill and the me goes away and the bad goes away. So he has been told, he has been forced to swallow a false story literally every night at bedtime, right? He has to live a false story. What happens fifteen years from now when Niobe or me or Carol has him in our graduate seminar on mental health

<…? 1:06:43>

? What, what can I tell him? I can tell him that you have come out of a system that is broken and that is morally broken because what’s been done to you is injust. So I can tell it as a psychologist, as a human story, or I could tell it as a scientist who sees everything, I mean everything through a political lens. So I think that we can’t separate the two. I, I think that it’s a mistake for us to try because then what we’re saying is but that’s, that’s only personal, that’s just one person’s story, and that’s the trap that we so often fall in to. So I think that it’s the system that’s broken.
Jimmie
Thanks Alisha, umm Stephan? Can you also answer the same question?
Stephan
I guess, I’m still thinking of the six year old taking the medication {chuckling} uhh what was the exact question again?
Jimmie
Is the notion of a common humanity apolitical?
Stephan
Oh umm I think so, yes. Yes, I absolutely do because, I mean, because politics becomes [pause] well politics uses tools and politicians use tools in means and all of that.  What we’re talking about is something again you said that we’ve known that human beings, we know when we look at the cave paintings that are forty thousand years old,  those in my opinion are about our common humanity, sharing stories, you know and in teaching, giving the lion’s story in the painting, giving the lion his chance or her chance to speak on the cave walls. So that had nothing to, there was no Democrats or Republicans then, or even now when we’re talking about humanity. Just like there are no atheists in a foxhole, I mean, I didn’t get along with most of the guys I served with, but when we’re in the field, there’s no Republicans, no politicians, no it’s just my brother, you’ve got my right flank, I’ve got your left flank, you got the point, you know what I mean? So, and that’s as, I bring up the military cause it’s the most base I think we can get. It’s the extremes of humanity, both the very best of us and the very worst of us in that controlled little environment of war. And as long as I have the microphone can I do one more thing? Cause uh well just cause I had, just cause I wrote it down I have to share. Umm I wrote because when you were talking about the myths, or the false stories, I started writing them down and I didn’t realize how much of my life was based on these, cause this was thanks to you all here at PACH that I even thought of this.  I mean I knew that the military capitalized on this. But I wrote these eight and I just had to share them if you don’t mind really quickly. Umm that the myths as they pertain to what we’re talking about, and specifically with my work. Here are the lies that what I consider lies that I were told that got me to this point. One: war and violence are part of human nature. I was taught that my whole life, it’s not true. Two: the military has three functions. It defends our freedom and democracy, which once I got in realized meant killing human beings, other human beings, not Taliban, not [Hajjes?], not [Vici?], human beings, but we don’t call them that. So, but we call that defending our freedom. It also is where I can earn pride, dignity, and self-respect, so you can imagine when I read Jim’s article and book, how that that leapt out at me, the prisoners are saying this exact same thing. And that this is where I can break my cycle of my family’s poverty. But if you know anything about the military, income is also a lie. Umm the VA will fix any people that are broken, that the military breaks, and will take care of all veterans. That was another lie I was told. The perfect family exists. That was a lie I was told and therefore keep any of our flaws secret. That was what I was taught, and these are all contributing factors to me going in the military is why I would say this. America’s the best nation in the world and everyone wants to be an American or in America. Right? And these two go together: finally might is right. Right, that strength is big, it’s brawny, and it’s powerful and it’s masculine, and everything else is feminine and weakness, emotions, all of that is weak and bad. And finally, the arts because I wanted to be a dancer since as early as I could remember. The arts are at best, and this is an actual term actually what I was told as a kid, the arts are at best a useless hobby that women, gay men, and weak hippie [commies?] do. {Crowd laughing}. That was an actual quote that I wrote from when I was a kid. So I wanted to do that just cause since I had the mic I wanted to share that because that then explains what I think we should do, what you didn’t ask but I’m gonna offer what I think we should do after we do Jim’ plan, Jim’s plan {crowd laughing} of what we can do forward is I believe that the performing arts specifically, and I mean dance, music, theater, needs- should be taught at all levels. It should have as equal importance as math, science, the athletics, all of those, it should be equally funded, given equal time from K all the way up through our work that we continue to do. And this is not just some “Oh it’s lovely cause it’s”- they’ve proven it that math scores improve when we do music, right? Communication skills obviously improve when we do theatre, amongst many many other things. Take a month long intensive at Shakespeare and Company with Tina and see how your life changes, literally, and in Los Angeles where I moved from, they’re working with kids from South Central Los Angeles, the graduation rate from making it from freshman year to senior year is less than thirty percent, and I think only ten or fifteen percent of those graduate, but they do Shakespeare plays with them. One Shakespeare play and they pay them above minimum wage, that they change by ninety percent. Ninety percent of the kids who participate, they do a Shakespeare play, who didn’t even- are the way I was when I first saw it- make it to the senior year and of that ninety percent, over ninety percent graduate, so that’s what I think we should do, Shakespeare! Thank you for letting me ramble. 
Jimmie
  Of course, thank you. Dr. Shay, would you be comfortable making a few remarks for us?
Dr. Shay
Wow. Oh thanks. Well I’ll just dance around. First of all, this has been an incredibly rich panel and there’s just so much to both take in and digest and respond to. I’m just gonna throw random fragments out there that it seems to me we’re definitely talking in the political territory. First of all, in the words of Judith Herman, a towering figure in the trauma field, that “trauma always emerges from the ecology and power.” Period

And so any definition of the political by a sociologist, by a political scientist, an anthropologist, always says that the political as a category is about power and its use in society among and between human beings, and all of the stuff that goes with it, the way it’s legitimated, the way it’s celebrated, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it becomes a self-refuting proposition to be a detached apolitical scientist, whether of the social science stripe or the psychological science type or the biological science type, examining trauma without considering examining power. So it’s a formula for irrelevancy, it’s a formula for being what Lenin and Stalin used to call “the useful idiots.” That is the scholar, scientist, journalist, who would find either knowingly or unwittingly ways to legitimate the power structure that Stalin ran. I worry that my work with the military has been at least in part window-dressing, that I was regarded as a “useful idiot.” I have no way of knowing and I try to always speak the truth and to get to know people well enough that they’re willing to trust me to tell me the truth, and I cannot gauge for myself how well I succeed. Anyway, just random stuff that floated into my mind is Lincoln’s amazing words: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Boom. Another thing that I wanted to say is that a core meaning of citizenship I think pretty much anywhere where this word matters to people, and admittedly what defines a citizen has been profoundly flawed in different places, different times, it remains flawed in this country, as an on-the-ground operational fact. But once within that frame, there is a basic thing about citizenship, and that is that you look other citizens in the eye and you say “You are part of my future and I am part of yours.” And that is, there’s ultimately the stoic idea of cosmopolitan citizenship being a citizen of the world where we regard every human on this planet, and some people would extend it to all species on this planet, but to be able to say that if there is a child in Zimbabwe who is dying of a treatable illness, this diminishes my welfare, my well-being, even if there is literally zero probability of us ever meeting. So that’s the ethical side of it, but on the scientific side I really desperately want to beat the drum for an expansive image of what the human critter is. What we’re doing at this moment is physiological. Everybody is a body. But it’s also at every moment psychological, and it is also at every moment social, and at every moment it is cultural. And none of these four brain slash body, mind, society and culture, is ontologically prior and superior to the others. You cannot reduce mind or society or culture to brain. The reductionist program is bankrupt. What is not bankrupt is the evolutionary, the evo-devo tradition in embryology, which basically looks at what happens in the boundaries between systems that are each others’ environments. Brain, mind, society, and culture are each others’ environments and they have obligatory exchanges with each other, and if they don’t get those exchanges things begin to change often in very bad ways. And you can do rigorous science at the boundaries of these interchanging systems without going to any kind of reductionism and there are practicing bodies of rigorous science that demonstrate that you can do rigorous science in a non-reductionistic way. Now that’s oh so far in the world of abstract ideas what I just said, and I’m not- I don’t wanna burden this conversation with too much in that. But that we can and should aspire to understanding the whole human critter, and not compromising on that. There are plenty of conundrums, plenty of antimonies, there’s lots that can really tie you into knots trying to untangle them. But that’s where it’s at. I mean, it’s supposed to be easy? It’s not.
Jimmie
It never is.
Dr. Shay
It never is, and so –
Jimmie
I’m sorry Dr. Shay, I just want to stop right there, and people have an opportunity to talk to you more at the Q and A session. I just want to pause right there just so we can open it up for responses and reflections from the guests.
Dr. Shay
To me or to the whole panel?
Jimmie
  I guess to the whole panel, we’ll pause right here and then just open it up for questions from the guests. But thank you so much. Okay.  If you when you ask a question just identify yourself, state your full name.
Guest 1 (Tina): Yeah, I’m Tina

<…? 1:24:26 last name> and I’m <…? 1:24:27>

. I think the panel could actually solve all the problems that we have {audience laughter} I’m serious. I really think that it would be perfectly, I mean that we have the, we know what the answers are. My question is how do we have, or is there any way of studying, how we make the change? Cause we know, you know, the communists were the last people who actually said “we’ve got a plan to change the face of the Earth.” We don’t have a plan! And it seems to me that on one level we need to concentrate on how to actually create change, because they all know. I mean, we know what’s the right thing to do. So my question is how do we shift it, how do we change it?
Jimmie
Does someone on the panel wanna tackle that question? One of you?
Adrian
I have a thought. I just have a little thought. I guess I’m just gonna push back on what you [Stephan] said about, I do recognize what you mean when you say war is the most base thing, do you know what I mean, it’s the most, it’s a great, it sort of stops every conversation if you use stories from war. Like you can’t really speak to the life or death thing. It’s hard to tell more quiet through mundane stories, so I think one way would to not be focusing on the extremes all the time, because I feel, and it’s not to say that, so that, and I think that that implicitly is focusing on the healing. If you’re not focusing on, you know, if you’re focusing you sort of lead in maybe, but you’re focusing on what happened and how you change this because you were a psychologist who couldn’t deny the social circumstances in which clients were trying to resolve the problems of their lives. So I just would put up a red flag for the extreme stories or freezing the frame in the extreme moment of the ongoing story. An argument for the mundane I guess.
Jimmie
Thanks Adrian. Is there another question or comment?
Niobe
I think we should have more people respond to that.
Jimmie
Oh respond to that? Okay, Stephan?
Stephan
This is uhhh, yeah I don’t have the magic answer obviously but that it’s, well obviously. But the Dalai Lama was recently asked this, what’s the most important thing that we should be meditating on? And he said, the living Dalai Lama, he said, he said, give me a second {chuckling} He said, {audience laughter} cause I’m leaping to the second part! He said, he said “critical thinking followed by action.” And so I think that the beginning, to put it in Niobe’s terms of thick and thin, the thin would be each of us to take action in our daily lives. The thick of it is that if we wanna change policy, and I’ve heard you mention this before, if we wanna change policy we have to go into politics and change the political landscape things. To me it astounds me that this country as old as it is, and we don’t have an equal representation in congress of women that we have for the population in the military. We don’t have equal representation of any group in any of our legislative branches that’s proportional to what we actually have as a nation. So that would be one thing, as much as I think most of us would loath to go into politics, that is one thing. But in activism in whatever form we can do. And I’m probably stating the obvious but that’s just still what I think.
Jimmie
Any other responses to that question? Corey?
Khary
You know I think that goes back to a lot of the comments already from the panel. I think one is that there has to be a more concerted effort I believe. Too often I feel like I’m in conversations where people refuse to break down the barriers between issues. There has to be a focus on what are the macro issues that are interconnected between the struggles we’re talking about. So that we may not be able to tackle the fifteen struggles we would put up on the board that speak to the greatest amount of inequity in our country. We may be able to tackle three of them initially, but the tangents reach into every other issue as well. And somebody may need to submerge what’s the main issue they’re working on to realize a macro issue that is still touching their issue. So as an example, if we were to step back and say well there’s over twelve million people who are undocumented in this country who are facing a unequal status in the country, an inequal status, and B- if made documented would more than likely disproportionately be voting on a progressive side. That may be an issue we’re gonna put front and center and you may have to take your issue and not focus on it as much, just as an example, right? So how do we find those core issues one, and then I think two- once we find those core issues how do we have a concerted effort around it? The rights made a lot of mistakes, but forty years ago there was a rational coherent right wing ideology. There were people you could literally have a conversation with, you would read books, you may agree or disagree, but it was a rational coherent philosophy. So I don’t think this is a good thing, so I’m not saying we should become a pattern of irrational as well. But there was a concerted effort over forty years to organize around God, gays, and guns, right? And every effort was made to radicalize its voting population around these very broad themes. I don’t want us to become irrational, I don’t want us to have these kind of didactic views on things, but I do think at times it’s important to dial down what are the progressive values we’re all working on? What does it mean to have a common humanity? What does it mean to have commonality between us? So that we can go back and work in prison reform, in gender equity, in issues having to do with educational access, whatever we’re talking about, bringing those common themes back. And so when you talk about the need to completely deconstruct the prison industrial complex as an example, that would affect so many of the issues that we are all talking about here, and it’s big picture thinking. It’s not how do we slightly reform juvenile justice or how do we stop being one of the few places that prosecutes juveniles as adults? But instead, what does it look like to completely change the system and by doing that that will affect so many of the issues we all work on.
Tina
Do you know of anybody who’s doing that work? Who’s looking at all those things to see how it can change?
Khary
I mean, I think, not to bite off more than we can all chew, but I think that’s somewhat the idea of bringing us all together. Right? That it isn’t happening broadly enough, it’s certainly in pockets among groups, among our friends, and among our peers, but at the end of the day there aren’t people coming together from divergent and one-way places and yet very symbiotic places as well, to come up with what some of that organizing tenet, and I don’t mean in terms of us in an elite way creating the movement, but instead some of the intellectual theory that’s behind what broad progressive change looks like. 
Alisha
Can I just second that? That sometimes we might think that there’s a group, an organization, an action that is creating some kind of positive change, and the ripple effect goes far beyond what original problem they were trying to tackle, so that’s why I wanna second this idea. I’ve done a lot of research looking at poverty transition programs. There’s one that’s based in Harlem where they use a microcredit microlending model, with very very low income people. They have a phenomenally high loan payback rate amongst very poor people who would never qualify for an entrepreneurial loan. Part of the reason is they use, as a Canadian socialist I love the model, cause it’s a collective experience model where you have a peer group and you apply for a loan, if anyone in your group cannot pay back their business loan, collectively you have to pay it back together on their behalf. It’s one of the reasons that it has been so successful. But when I went in to study it I wanted funding from NIH so I had to frame it in a mental health way, so I said I’m gonna go in and study depression. What I found was that there was a significant drop in depression, this is not a mental health organization in any way. The rates of reduction of depressive symptoms were comparable to the published rates achieved through psychiatric medication, and through individual psychotherapy. And what we found was the predictive factor is that they worked collectively and they said it was the collective experience of being amongst the communal known where they all knew each other, working towards a common goal of getting not you, but collectively all of you out of poverty, that was the statistical predictor of the reduction in depressive symptoms. They’re not even about doing mental health, but we can look at one thing and see the other effects that it has. Another group I worked with INTAR the International Network for Treatment Alternatives in Recovery, they look at things like first break psychosis, so when someone has a first psychotic episode, and instead of using mainstream treatments, drugs, et cetera, they use something called open dialog where they surround the person with the people in their community, literally don’t leave them alone day and night and don’t make them leave their home. And the rates that they have in avoiding a second psychotic episode are truly astounding, if there were a drug that could do that, believe me, Eli Lilly would be on that, right? I don’t believe there ever will be a drug that can achieve that, because it’s through the collective understanding of self that it actually works. And so I think that these things need to be finded, this is what I also want to push back Stephan, cause you directly disagreed with me, that I believe it’s all political because the small percentage of the military budget that would be needed to restore arts programs to the public schools in this country would be such a small percentage, and yet what it would do for this country would be tremendous. That’s a political action that needs to be taken. So we really need to do both, and I think collectively we can because what we’re really good at in a group like this is knowing, getting the knowledge out there to each other, and actually having that knowledge inform the action that we take. And so I think that that’s something that collectively we can do. 
Jimmie
Thank you, Alisha. 
Leslie
Oh, well we’ve moved on a bit but I just, I was struck by what you [Adrian] said about not focusing on, maybe trying not to focus so much on the extremes but tell the things that are going on more generally, sort of the undercurrents. And then also your [Corey] mention of the need to kind of try to focus on macro issues and establish what we as progressives, what are our values. And that’s been something that I’ve been sort of scared away from touching all my life, sort of to address values. I mean I know I have them, I know how I was raised, and I know my education, but talking about values with people has been something that I really haven’t done that much. I mean, and I choose people to surround me who share my values, but you don’t talk about it so much. And the right has, the right has, and I think that that’s just very interesting and I think that this is something that speaks to not addressing so much the extremes but what we’re talking about is a crisis of culture, and how do we talk about that in a way that’s urgent, where we feel it’s urgent without using these extremes necessarily? But something that’s very general and trying to locate it is also the problem, right?
Jimmie
I’m sorry, can you just state your full name?
Leslie
I’m Leslie Davol. 
Jimmie
Thank you. Any responses? Jim.
Jim
I just wanted to comment that I think it’s important for us not to feel too hopeless or discouraged about all these things. I mean I don’t want to be a Pollyanna, you know, pie in the sky optimist either, I mean we can spend the whole evening talking about all the ways that everything’s going downhill. But I’ve lived long enough to see changes that I would never have believed possible in my youth. When Carol and I first got married she couldn’t get a credit card in her own name, I mean it had to be in the husband’s name. And that would be, nobody could imagine that these days. Umm it was a crime for two adults of the same sex to have consenting sexual relations with each other. When I say crime, they could be put in prison, and they were put in prison. We now have gay marriage. Umm, you know you can go through the list. The Vietnam War, you know, seemed impossible. Finally it ended, but that was cause hundreds of thousands of millions of people marched in the streets, who ever thought that was gonna happen.  Look at the Civil Rights revolution. I mean, obviously it’s an unfinished battle and of course there are counter movements and so forth, but the fact is things are not the same that they were. I mean, I could go on and give a dozen examples, you can all come up with them too. I just want to say that there has been more change in my lifetime than I could ever have imagined when I first started out. It wasn’t until a few years ago the Supreme Court stopped America from executing its own children. We were one of only six countries on Earth that still gave capital punishment to children. Many people under the age of eighteen, sixteen, seventeen year olds, there was, I just heard Texas wanted to lower the age to twelve. I mean, you know, we were one of the last countries to, we were also one of the only western democracy that has a death penalty, but one state after another is now abolishing the death penalty. Maybe every year or two another state does, you know we have abortion is legal now, yes there’s a huge reaction against it, it’s a battle, but the fact is it is still legal. I mean, you know, so you can just go through the list. I just think it’s important for us to recognize that things that seem inconceivable now just off the range of possibility, could actually happen within the next few years. 
Jimmie
Thank you, Jim. Corey? 
Khary
Yeah I mean I want to respond to your point but also offer something that Jim said. I think that, you know, as I talked about and others talked about, it’s absolutely essential that we’re doing this kind of broad organizing work. You know, the deep dive, the building of bridges between our efforts. But as another part of the theme today I also really do believe the importance of storytelling, the importance of changing narrative, and that’s what I mean by storytelling, I don’t mean all of us becoming novelists and short story writers, but that’s cool too. But within our work and within our space how do we change the narrative? So yes it was unconscionable that this country continued to execute people who committed crimes as juveniles, and we supported the amicus brief to change that law. But here in liberal New York, with a quote unquote democratic liberal governor, we are one of two states in the United States of America that tries sixteen and seventeen year olds as adults. I have sixteen year old kids this tall who are put in Rikers Island, you can only imagine what occurs to them. That’s in our state, that’s under our watch. Where is our narrative, our conversation, our voice around that? And so I think it’s imperative that we push back on the silencing that you’ve experienced, and I think all of us have experienced, right? I mean, the word liberal has been turned into like a derogatory word, right? People will say “I’m not a liberal, I’m a ____” and they’ll use some other word, as if there’s something wrong with that word, conservative everybody wants to claim now in their political space, even the democrats wanna claim to be a conservative democrat. And so I think it’s important in all of our spaces that we’re pushing back against that, we’re objectively openly identifying as whatever, I’m not telling people any way to define you don’t want to, but if you are liberal and progressive to talk about your work in that way. Push the agenda forward. Push back against these kind of false narratives. I think a lot in my work I’m inspired by my grandfather. My grandfather was a convicted felon. My grandfather was put in a federal penitentiary. Some would just claim it in that way, well I see him as a radical organizer who was incarcerated because he violated the Smith Act. He said that he was advocating overthrowing the United States government. He was a union organizer who believed in equality for all and signed up for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and went to fight in Spain. I mean talk about putting your viewpoint, your politics front and center, he volunteered, he didn’t scream at his television, you know he didn’t say this is bad and storm in the other room. He got on a boat, picked up a gun, and went to fight against Franco. And when I think about that he was seen as the criminal, and he was called in front of HUAC, and he was told he was un-American, he was the most American person in that room, right? The people representing the government were the un-Americans, he was the American. But that whole narrative was flipped on us. And if we don’t reclaim our radical history, our liberal history, our progressive history, and take ownership on what we think brought about the changes you’re talking about, if not for liberal progressive radical people all the changes you’re talking about wouldn’t have occurred. And so I sometimes think that very base thing we lose sight of, like we don’t think we have to push that dialog or that conversation. We do the work in our spaces, but I think both have to go hand in hand, I think it’s very very important that we reclaim those narratives. 
Jimmie
Thank you, Khary. 
David Amodio
Okay, so my name’s David

<…? 1:42:47 last name?>and, first of all thanks to the panel, this has been really inspiring and enlightening so far. One question I have for you all is, this is about common humanity, and here we’re kind of in a, I’m guessing like a safe in-group where we share a lot of values here. And believe me I’m on board with all this stuff. But there are battles to be fought but if it’s a common humanity, does this mean everybody? And also like Dr. Shay was saying, we gotta understand the human critter. I’m a social psychologist primarily and I study things like prejudice and stereotyping, discrimination and all types of bad things that happen, and I feel like I have to try to get inside the heads of the people who do the bad stuff or the things that I at least disagree with, in order to figure out why they’re doing it and then how I might be able to convince them that it’s not a good idea. So I can understand you gotta fight the battles and that’s what we’ve been talking about most of the time, but also what do you think about bringing people in, cause I know there’s complimentary strategy?


Adrian
I’m just smiling because I’m thinking about just the moment where you said common humanity, I’m thinking about a comedian that I’ve followed for many years who has a very large loyal fan base, and he sort of takes on a new issue once in a while and decides he’s gonna begin to float it out there and challenge his fans. And you should see the faces of your loving loyal fan base when you just speak out an idea that is new to them.  It’s a scary thing. I mean, it’s actually, it can be a violent thing, you know it can be- And this is in a room where people are choosing to go, they paid money to go, they’re out to have fun. It’s just a person speaking, it’s not somebody trying to get them to do anything except hear out, and it’s a very- actually just talking about it is making my heart race because it’s a very anxiety-producing moment to watch the reaction of a crowd that is just receiving something that they really they don’t want to think about. So I was laughing because that’s a really good question and I guess in the spirit of that I just would like to add about the human critter. There’s a lot of talk in these last sessions about war and trauma and teenagers and all kinds of things, but one thing that hasn’t come up and I just want to just mention it because it has to come up is pornography, the use of pornography among people during war, the issues around adolescents now and pornography, issues around genders. I mean it’s just a huge business, it’s comparable to talking about the business of incarcerating people in terms of money. It’s completely under covered by the press but it’s just something that I wanna mention because it’s one of those things that I think crosses into everything in terms of wellbeing. So I guess in the spirit of another difficult {chuckling} I have no answer, I don’t know.
Jimmie
Anyone else? Stephan?
Stephan
I’m not sure I understand what you mean, inside this room, you said inclusion of the outside, do you mean for PACH or do you mean in as far of what Tina was talking about, taking over the world? 
David
Umm, the people who you’re gonna fight the battles against. I mean you could fight battles where you win and they lose, but maybe also you need to figure out why are they that way? So there’s a lot of research on power, what it does, how it changes the way you think, perceive things, and what people, certainly people will do anything to maintain the power. There are so many other examples that humanity suggests, common humanity suggests inclusiveness. So that just strikes me as a little bit different than a lot of the things that have been talked about so far.
Jimmie
So you’re saying less of a battle and more of an embrace?
David
Well it seems like both probably are important. Clearly there are battles, I mean Khary talked about for different aspects, components to making progress, but-
Jim
Could I just say, I mean in a democracy the only way we are going to win battles is through persuasion. It’s a matter of persuading people, it’s not so much defeating them, I’d say, as inducing them to change their minds. But I agree with you, at least I think this is what you’re implying, I absolutely think it’s essential no matter who we’re dealing with, to treat them with respect. I mean we may disagree with them, Voltaire said once “I disagree with everything you’re saying, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” And I think that we need to take that attitude that we respect people, but we’re not trying to humiliate them. Because one thing that will keep them from being persuaded is if we say “You’re stupid.” But I think we have to treat people with respect. I’m assuming that if we can give them a rational argument and reliable data, sooner or later at least enough of them will be persuaded that we can change policies, that we can demonstrate are very destructive to our common humanity. 
Jimmie
I know Niobe you wanted to say something. 
Niobe
I want to say something and then- so I just, in some sense David your question is the reason why we run PACH, right? Which is to tell the story, but when you begin to tell the story of our common humanity…
1:48:40 to 1:52:56
Jimmie
Thank you Dana.
Kent
Hi I’m Kent Harber. Also a social psychologist and I’m at Rutgers. And so my question is sort of a corollary to David’s, which is, I think Niobe sort of outlined the goals to the common humanity, I think we sort of I think we subscribe to it, cause to hear the speakers talking to where as we’re listening to it there is, while there’s a common humanity I think that we probably have a very distinctive set of values and that they’re implicit in what you’re saying. So when Khary talks about his grandpa being the only American, it’s a great story I think spanning the Civil War, but I think that’s something, when you talk about progress that has occurred, that means something, and talking about being a progressive or a liberal it means something. I think that maybe it’s helped sort of crystallize what it means to have values that we think are gonna be important, but in doing so that does create, there’s a common humanity but there won’t be a common mindset. And so how do you do both? How do you have a common humanity and also have a distinctive ideology? How do you both sort of embrace but also sort of be assertive and distinctive? I think there is, so I guess I’ll give my question to you guys.
Jimmie
Thank you. Khary.
Khary
I think that there’s a continuum to me when you start talking about how broad the conversation goes and who are we trying to be inclusive with and what does humanity mean when you start talking about some of these polarizing issues. So to me just to pull out one issue I think that class inequality and inequity in this country is a foundational issue. And you have millions of people voting against their interests because they’ve been sold a false narrative. I think at its core it’s not really about the income inequality but the inhumanity of those creating the false message. I think actually inhumanity is at the core, which leads toward the income inequality. And so what I mean by that if people aren’t following me, is that if we look at for instance the anti-labor work right now in the country, I won’t go on a whole thing about labor, obviously there are mistakes the labor movement has made, many, but in general that labor was historically on the side of working people. And you see the kind of labor struggles that have occurred around the country. I think there are millions of people who would see themselves as opposed to our viewpoint of what a progressive vision looks like. They may vote conservatively, they may think conservatively, but their interests are not being served by those who they’re supporting and they would be open to the narratives and the understanding if we communicated it correctly to get people to understand this view of humanity is one that’s inclusive of them. I don’t know if that’s inclusive of the [Coke brothers?]. I don’t know if those who are actually behind the efforts to end unions in the country would be interested in our conversation and I don’t know that that should drive it. I think what we’re talking about more broadly is who can we bring to the table? Because my view is that what they’re doing is not that the [Coke brothers?] and others on the conservative side really care about education, right? They’re trying to break the teacher’s union because it’s the two representations of major political dollars that come from the progressive side, two major funders if there were steel unions, they’d be trying to break the steel unions. So it’s not about education, it’s about their political power. And in order to do that, they’re selling this false narrative around labor and education to many people who are now voting against their interests, many people who have bought into this narrative. I think we can convince those people over generations, the way that young people today, to your point, are so much more progressive around gay marriage, so much more accepting of interracial relationships, friendships and marriage, because it’s changed over generations. I think we can reach people on that side through new narratives. I don’t know if the common humanity reaches to those who are articulating an inhumane vision of what politics look like in this country, if that’s clear. So I think there’s a great deal of space to bring people over to quote “our side” without it being a war, without it being something where there is, where there are people left outside the dialog. They can be with us, but there may be those who are orchestrating some of these divisions, who as FDR talked about, will be diametrically opposed to anything we’re doing to change the conversation because of their own personal interests. And so that’s where again I think that the organizing runs hand in hand with the story telling. 
Jim
I just, I think we’re facing a kind of logical dilemma or paradox here, which is you can say that the world is divided into people who think everybody is equal and those who think the world is divided into the superior and the inferior. But the people who think that everybody is equal are superior to those who think that we’re all divided {laughing, audience laughing}. And I think that’s something we have to look out for and not come off as though we’re saying we’re superior and you’re inferior cause you think that’s the way the world is. We have to treat people, everybody with respect. 
Kent
  I actually don’t think that way- we wouldn’t. We wouldn’t think that because we endorse equality there is anything insuperior to that. I think we should not be embarrassed about that.
Jim
Well no, that’s okay, except I would try to put it more in terms of, you know, these are empirical questions we can demonstrate through empirical research that human beings live longer, there’s less homicide, there’s less suicide, there’s less, you know, that the general welfare improves if you pursue certain policies. That’s not to say that people who don’t know that yet are inferior, it’s just they haven’t yet learned that. But it’s a matter of education, it’s a matter of scientific research. As Harry Stack Solomon said once, “science proceeds by way of consensual validation” that is experts in a field reach a consensus, and basically that’s what accepted as the scientific reality of that. I’m saying if we can kind of get this into that kind of mindset rather than you know, I’m superior, you’re inferior, but rather here’s what the data shows. Maybe we can at least diminish the degree to which we are implicitly insulting the people that disagree with us. 
Jimmie
Niobe, did you want to make a wrap-up comment or? 
Niobe
I think it’s a fantastic panel, they did a great job.
Jimmie
Okay so we’ll stop there then, thank you.
{Audience applause)

Panel Members

Alisha Ali

Alisha Ali

Alisha Ali, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Applied and Counseling Psychology at New York University. Dr. Ali’s research focuses on the mental health effects of oppression including violence, racism, and discrimination. She has examined depression and its psychosocial correlates across a range of disadvantaged populations including domestic violence survivors, clients in poverty transition programs, psychiatric outpatient samples, and immigrant/refugee women. Her current projects are investigating empowerment-based programs in domestic violence shelters and low-income high schools. She is the co-editor (with Dana Crowley Jack) of Silencing the Self Across Cultures: Depression and Gender in the Social World (Oxford University Press) which was awarded the 2012 American Psychological Association Division 52 Book Award.

Carol Gilligan

Carol Gilligan

Carol Gilligan is the author of In a Different Voice (Harvard University Press, 1982), described by Harvard University Press as “the little book that started a revolution.”  Her 2002 book, The Birth of Pleasure (Knopf), was described by the Times Literary Supplement as “a thrilling new paradigm.”  She was the Graham professor of Gender Studies at Harvard, the Pitt Professor of American History and Culture at the University of Cambridge, the recipient of a Heinz award for her contributions to understanding the human condition, and was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans. Gilligan is a novelist and playwright as well as a psychologist. Her novel Kyra (Random House, 2008), and her play, “The Scarlet Letter,” written with her son Jonathan Gilligan, has become the libretto for an opera called “Pearl.”  She is currently University Professor of Applied Psychology and the Humanities at New York University, and her most recent book is Joining the Resistance (Polity, 2011).