I recently finished reading about the amazing life of Ida B. Wells in her aptly titled autobiography “Crusade for Justice”.  She was born in Mississippi 3 years before the end of the Civil War.  After the deaths of her parents and against the wishes of her extended family, she initially took charge of her 5 siblings despite her young age of 14.  In short time, she sent 3 of siblings to the care of an aunt.  Miss Wells taught school to earn a living until she found her calling:  journalism.  At about age 14 or 15, she refused to change seats on a train, was forcibly removed from the train, and subsequently sued the railroad company.  So, even at this young age, she was already fighting the expectations of others, both family and society. 

In Chicago, she succeeded in convincing other local women to establish a women’s club.  At one of the club meetings, a gentleman urged the attendees to form an organization which would specifically fight racial prejudice.  Subsequently, many prominent women, teachers, housewives, and girls started attending the weekly club meetings.  While Miss Wells was out of town, they applied for a charter from the state and changed the name of the club from the Chicago Women’s Club to the Ida B. Wells Club.  For the men of Chicago, Miss Wells founded a facility where they could read, sleep, and look for jobs.  She sought out and worked with different people, organizations, and churches.  Though she was a fine example of a collaborator, she did not shy away from criticizing specific people, female and male, Black and White, who she thought were failing in their support of her work. 

Miss Wells was well-known in her day as a consummate and eloquent journalist.  She revealed the horror of lynching and the fact that it happened across the country.  Her husband and children obviously emotionally supported her work as an investigative journalist because she travelled all over the country to collect the facts.  One time, one of her children woke her up and said that her husband was expecting her to take the train to the site of the latest horror because if she did not, no one would know what happened.

I marvel at the courage, conviction, and self-advocacy that Miss Wells expressed in her writings, conversations, and public speeches, and very often at a young age.  Unfortunately, I found myself, as has happened so many times in my adult life, shaking my head that yet another woman’s extraordinary life had not been included in my K-12, high school, or college education.  I had not been taught that a woman, especially an African-American woman, could own a business in the late 1800s-early 1900s in the USA, in her case a newspaper.  I also did not learn in school that those who opposed lynching, Jim Crow laws, unfair trials, and ballot box intimidation sought the influence of other countries to convince USA citizens, the press, and politicians that the racist and horrible practices must end.  My lack of formal education about women’s public involvement and accomplishments reminds me of the 2018 statistic that 80% of the contributors to articles written in English on Wikipedia are men.  The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media claims “if she can see it, she can be it”.  So too for reading.  Ida B. Wells did not revise history but rather revealed it.

Last year I watched and blogged about a documentary film depicting the everyday life of a school teacher and his students in Japan.  The film showed his intense focus on the social-emotional aspects of teaching students rather than on their academic performance.  He paid particular attention to their happiness, collaboration, and communication. 

After viewing this movie, I purposefully read The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why by Richard E. Nisbett.  Like the documentary film, this book discussed aspects of communication.  However, it focused on the different thinking patterns and habits of Asian and Western cultures.  Nisbett prudently explained his use of the terms “East Asian”, “Asian”, and “Easterner” interchangeably to refer to China, Japan, and Korea; “Western” or “Westerner” for European; and “European Americans” for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics but not Asian from the US.

In the beginning of the book, Nisbett shared that he originally followed the universalist’s view that “all human groups perceive and reason in the same way” so they all have the “same basic cognitive processes” and use the same cognitive tools for perception, memory, casual analysis, categorization, and inference (p. XIV).  Cultural differences only arise because they have been taught different things about the world and not due to different cognitive processes.  However, based on a comment from a new Chinese student, he set out on a course of reading literature by philosophers, historians, and anthropologists which disputes the universalists' views.  These fields asserted that cultures differ in their beliefs about the nature of the world, use different thought processes to understand and explain the world, and align their social structures and concept of self with their beliefs and thought processes. Nisbett’s reading in fields outside of his own (psychology) aligns with my own experience that my training in multiple fields has provided me with alternative ways of looking at issues. 

I am confused about two of his statements.  On page XVII, he claimed “If people really do differ profoundly in their systems of thought – their worldviews and their cognitive processes – then differences in people’s attitudes and beliefs … might not be a matter merely of different inputs and teachings, but rather an inevitable consequence of using different tools…”.  I’m not clear on what he meant by “tools”.  Depending on what he meant by “tools”, maybe people do not differ in the tools they use but rather in their application of such tools?  As human beings, each of us has a brain (a tool?) but use it in different ways (application?).  Later, on page XX, he stated “The social practices promote the worldviews; the worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes, and the thought processes both justify the worldviews and support the social practices”.  I think he should start with “thought processes”.  Also, I do not see how the “worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes”.  Don’t the thought processes dictate the worldviews?  I also think that he could have added that a reciprocal relationship exists between social relations, world views, and thought processes.  It may be hard to tease out which came first and may be a question of the chicken and the egg:  which came first? 

Nisbett claimed that the differences in perception, beliefs, communication, and thought processes between these two cultures dates back thousands of years and can be seen in the philosophies of Aristotle and Confucius.  They did not originate these differing approaches but rather they reflected their respective cultures. 

In Aristotle’s time, Greeks believed they had control over their lives as individuals.  With a focus on individualism, they believed in the power of debate and developed rules for debating.  They were very curious about the world, categorized objects within the world, created rules about them, and in that way tried to control their environment.  They also believed that the world is static. This type of thinking continues today in Europe and the USA.  Ancient Greece was a popular maritime trading location with people of different cultures arriving and having different opinions, so they had to develop a way to logically deal with all these contradictions.  Certain Greek occupations (hunting, herding, and fishing) do not require cooperation. 

On the other hand, the Chinese emphasized the collective nature of their roles in reference to their relationships, harmony with others, and self-control.  They did not feel controlled by others but rather willingly fulfilled their obligations to others in light of the various roles they played, for example child to parent.  Easterners believed that the world does change and has contradictions built into it.  Most Chinese, however, originate from the same Han ethnic group so they do not have to deal with such contradictions.  Much of China is / was farmland and farming requires cooperation (you do not have to like your neighbors but you need to work together).  This approach to life arose out of 3 philosophies:  Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism.  Today, this way of thinking continues.  

These different approaches mean that parents raise their children differently.  Asian parents emphasize interdependence whereas Westerners stress independence.  For example, Asians suggest what is best for their children whereas Westerners give their children choices so that the children make the decision.  In Eastern books the emphasis remains on relationships whereas in Western books it is on the action of individuals.  Parents also teach their children different verbal communication styles:  Asians emphasize a polite, indirect approach whereas Westerners push for a direct approach, which can sound rude to Asians.  These differing approaches result in misunderstandings, of course, not only in childhood but also in the business world as adults between the two cultures. 

With Asians belief in change and contradictions, they supposedly have difficulty with the logic of math.  However, Nisbett claimed that young Asians outperform their Western counterparts in math due to teachers’ training lasting throughout their career, teaching techniques, teachers spending more time on preparation than actual teaching, and students working harder because their capability is not seen as static.  This does not hold true for the older generations of Asians because literature, arts, and music were stressed during their time. 

In his concluding statements, Nisbett referred to social scientists ongoing debate about Eastern and Western cultures continuing to differ or converge with each other.  Nisbett believed in the latter.  He cited an experiment which prepped participants to act more like Easterners or Westerners regardless of their cultural background. 

I liked the title of this book:  it gave me a heads up on what I might expect about its thesis and peaked my interest based on my sociology training.  Overall, the book was an excellent reminder for me to consider, especially in light of people’s global movements, that those residing in any one country may have been born and raised there, born there and raised somewhere else, or travel around due to their jobs.  Through experiments in which participants are prepped to consider another culture’s thought processes, Nisbett shows that human beings can be flexible in their thinking.