Speaker 1 00:00:15 You are listening to right on radio on K F AAI 90.3 FN in streaming live on the
[email protected]. I'm Annie Harvey in the first part of the hour, uh, I will be interviewing Kim Heala about booth girls, which is a thoughtful multi-generational story of contested motherhood. Um, combining biography, oral history, history, and memoir. Um, in the final part of the hour, we will be featuring a legacy interview from our archive. So stay tuned for a surprise interview, goodie. Um, thank you so much. And now, hi Kim. Welcome to the studio.
Speaker 2 00:00:53 Hi Annie. Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 00:00:56 I'm so excited to be speaking with you, everyone. This is Kim Hyla, author of booth girls, pregnancy adoption, and the secrets we kept, um, a work of non-fiction, which is out now through the Minnesota historical society press. Um, Kim, could you tell us a little bit just generally about, um, the books kind of plot and key ideas?
Speaker 2 00:01:17 Yep. Yep. So the book, um, is both a history. I'm a trained as a historian. My PhD is in American studies from the university of Minnesota. So I'm a trained historian and an oral historian specifically. Um, so the book is, you know, partly about the history of booth Memorial hospital, which was a home and hospital for quote UNW mothers for 75 years in St. Paul. But it is also a very personal story because my mother was one of those UNW mothers who, um, got pregnant while she was in her junior year at the university of Minnesota. She was not married. This was of course a cause for great shame and embarrassment and stigma for her whole family. And so she ended up spending the last, Hm, maybe three weeks of her pregnancy at booth hiding herself away. She gave birth to her daughter, her first child, my sister in January of 1961 and surrendered her for adoption and kept that secret for 33 years until my sister found her in 1994. And then that's the point at which my brother and I learned about this, this kind of secret pass that my mom had. So the book really blends her story, this kind of my personal family story with this historical research into booth and into single pregnancy in the middle of the 20th century.
Speaker 1 00:02:38 Excellent. So you open the book with a discussion and description of the terms you use to describe, uh, the adoption process and kind of the social context around adoption. Could you tell us a little bit about the terms you've chosen and why those words in particular are useful?
Speaker 2 00:02:58 Yes, yes. That, that's a really good question. I appreciate your asking it and I, and it is at, you know, the first thing in the book, because language is so, so important. We know that from many settings, um, and I have found myself tripping over language many times in conversations yeah. About this book and about family mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, and I, I think the one thing that has become really clear throughout my work on this book is how complicated families are and how language gets implicated in that. Um, and, and if we just even think about, um, kind of the qualifiers that we often use when we talk about parents yeah. Or mothers in particular yeah. As it relates to not just adoption, but just a family. I mean, think about it. We have birth mothers, real mother. These are all in quotes, real mothers, biological mothers, adoptive mothers, stepmothers, unwed mothers, single mothers, natural, you know, it's just this complex, um, world of language and language, you know, has connotations of power and who has the right to speak for whom mm-hmm <affirmative>.
Speaker 2 00:04:00 So, and, and as we know, and, and I know you probably know quite well, um, that is all the more true in the world of adoption mm-hmm <affirmative>. So I do start the book by talking about I'm an adoptive mother, myself. Mm-hmm <affirmative> um, and I start by talking about, you know, the fact that the language surrounding adoption has a history as well. Mm-hmm <affirmative> as does adoption itself. Mm-hmm <affirmative> so when my husband and I were going through the adoption process in the early two thousands, we were educated about what is called respectful or positive adoption language mm-hmm <affirmative>, which emerged out of a concern, probably driven largely by adoptive parents. Mm-hmm <affirmative> who did not like to think of themselves, um, being referred to, um, or against, uh, the quote natural mothers. Right. Mm-hmm <affirmative> that a term that was used to refer to the women who had given birth to children and then CDER them for adoption and adoptive parents thought, well, what does that mean?
Speaker 2 00:04:58 Does that mean I'm an unnatural parent? So this respectful or positive adoption language emerged out of that mm-hmm <affirmative> but now there's been this follow up where we're hearing from a lot of adoptees and those birth mothers, and that is a term that is, you know, a very specific term that I'm using that is very contested mm-hmm <affirmative>. And a lot of, of those mothers who give birth to babies who are raised by others, do not like the term birth mother mm-hmm <affirmative> because they say it, it, um, portrays them as kind of incubators and, and has this connotation of that's all they were yeah. Was a, you know, the woman who, who served as a vessel to, to give life to this child, but then the adoptive parents named it mm-hmm <affirmative>. So I tried to both, um, as a historian acknowledge the terms that were in use at the time, like unwed mother.
Speaker 2 00:05:47 Yeah. Unwed mother is not a term we use anymore, but that was the term that was in use when my mom was going through this whole thing. So I used that throughout the book, but that's why that preface makes very clear, um, the reason I'm choosing that. So I'm trying to kind of thread the needle between that historically, um, accurate language mm-hmm <affirmative> while also recognizing that, those terms, illeg, legitimacy. Oh yeah. I never use the term without quotations to refer to a child born outside of web, right? Yes. But that was the, that was the language at the time was that these were illegitimate children.
Speaker 1 00:06:22 Oh yeah. Um, this is in no way going to be an interview about my own experience, but just because you mentioned just briefly, um, I really liked how you treated both, not using the, the phrasing or terminology of illegitimate children. Um, and additionally not using the phrasing of real parents or real family, like, um, many of my family members that I'm closest to I'm related to by adoption, and there's nothing unreal about them at all. Right. They've always been there for me and I really appreciated how this book, um, treated that topic. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:06:55 And, and it's so hard and it's so complicated and that the power of language and mm-hmm <affirmative> and deciding what term we use to refer to these various relationships or statuses mm-hmm, <affirmative> really depends on who's speaking. Yes. And who you're referring to and in what context yeah, because there's something important, you know, part of me just thinks, well, let's just call them mothers. Yeah. They're all mothers. Right. But, but in some context, it's important to know that I'm an adoptive mother. My mother was a birth mother. Yeah. You know, there, there are some important distinction distinctions that those terms connot as
Speaker 1 00:07:28 Well. Absolutely. So moving out of the language more into your process, you experienced many actual conversations with booth girls in this book. So, um, young women who, um, gave birth to children in the booth hospital in St. Paul, um, could you tell me a little about your process interviewing these women, what that experience was like?
Speaker 2 00:07:50 Yeah. These women were fantastic. First of all, I wanna just kind of acknowledge off the top of, at the top of this mm-hmm <affirmative> that, you know, I interviewed just a tiny handful of women. So seven women who had given birth at booth, and then two women who had worked with those young women when they were in residence. So one had been a nurse at booth and one had been a social worker mm-hmm <affirmative> um, and I found these women in a, in a variety of ways, one woman who was just so, so eloquent in, in telling her story, I met when I was talking about this project in its really early stages of research at St. Kate's I was teaching at St. Kate's at the time mm-hmm <affirmative> and gave this talk, excuse me. And she was in the audience. Oh. And she introduced herself afterwards and said, oh, and you know, I had my first child at booth as well.
Speaker 2 00:08:40 Oh. And I said, you know, thank you for identifying yourself. And, you know, I hope to, at some point be doing interviews, can I keep your name and number mm-hmm <affirmative>. And so she was generous enough to, to, you know, I don't know, it was probably three years later when I finally had funding to do the interviews. Mm-hmm <affirmative> I looked her up and she was perfectly willing to do the interview Uhhuh. Some of these women, I found, um, you know, through word of mouth or through, um, an announcement I had posted in an article, I published Uhhuh. Um, but they were all incredibly and amazingly generous Uhhuh in sharing their stories. And they're not easy stories. They're not easy experiences to discuss even all these years later. Yeah. It was very hard. Mm-hmm <affirmative> I told all of them why I was doing it.
Speaker 2 00:09:23 You know, I told them both about my mom mm-hmm <affirmative> having been in their position at one point and sometimes almost overlapping with their own experiences at booth. Yeah. And that she had died. Yeah. And that I couldn't ask her these questions. And so I was trying to find people to whom I could put questions that I had failed to put to my own mother. Yeah. And, and so they were very receptive to that. Mm-hmm <affirmative> I also told them that I'm an adoptive mother myself. I, I felt that was really important to be honest about that. Yeah. Because adoption is, um, you know, in certain circles, a, a controversial topic mm-hmm <affirmative> um, and there can be particularly with women of this generation, many of whom felt very pressured if not coerced to surrender their children for adoption. Um, I just thought it was really important for me to be really honest. So yeah. Um, but they were amazingly, amazingly generous in sharing their time and their stories with me.
Speaker 1 00:10:18 Great. Did you see, uh, as broad of a range of kind of emotions and reactions to those experiences, as you did stories themselves, like for folks who have read the book, I'm sure they know the variety of people that are included in there. And I know that for many people, um, especially at the time, uh, having a child outside of marriage was so stigmatized, like did a lot of people carry that shame and trauma in or, oh,
Speaker 2 00:10:46 Yes. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Many of them, you know, a couple of, a couple of these women, two of them knew each other. Oh. Um, not, not when they were at booth, but they had gotten to know each other in the years afterwards through their involvement in Cub. Oh yeah. Concerned United birth parents. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. And so they had already spoken publicly about their experiences. Mm-hmm <affirmative> as a quote on wed mother and you know, this kind of era of let's call it at least pressured adoption. Yes. Surrender. Um, but there were a couple of women who hadn't told their stories before at all. Oh, wow. And were talk, I mean, you know, perhaps their family knew about it sometimes not maybe necessarily. Yeah. And one woman in particular made it very clear that it wasn't for her anyway. It wasn't necessarily the, you know, surrendering her child to adoption that she carried with her.
Speaker 2 00:11:39 So painfully after all these years, it was the shame. Mm mm-hmm <affirmative> and the silence mm-hmm <affirmative> that had been, um, culturally imposed around that status of being single and pregnant in the middle of the 20th century Uhhuh and being, you know, hidden away yeah. At a place like booth. And she was a woman who, um, she and her father had tried to go, I think it was to Colorado, out of state to get an abortion and couldn't get it. Oh, oh, wow. Um, and so, you know, so there was a range of comfort mm-hmm <affirmative> in sharing their stories with me sometimes what, 50 years later. Yeah. More than 50 years later.
Speaker 1 00:12:19 Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:12:20 So, yeah. And, and, and it was, um, it was mostly that shame and stigma that they carried with them. I think
Speaker 1 00:12:29 In incorporating the interview content that you did the stories and conversations that you got from, uh, living people and integrating those with the, um, memories and memorabilia and diaries and experiences left by your mother. Um, what was putting those two pieces together? Like
Speaker 2 00:12:52 It was really interesting and that's, you know, that's why I had to do the interviews was cuz I couldn't ask my mom. So mm-hmm, <affirmative> interestingly, you know, in reading all the stuff my mom had written about this experience, she went back, she never did finish her degree when she got pregnant. Mm-hmm <affirmative> um, she finished it many years later after my father had died. Um, and came back to the university of Minnesota and finished her degree in creative writing mm-hmm <affirmative> and that's when she started writing about this experience with her first pregnancy. And so those are, um, and there were two main essays that she wrote that I have have incorporated into the book that lead off every chapter mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, but that's a one way conversation, right? Yeah. Can't ask a question of those essays. I can't couldn't ask a question of my mother because she had died.
Speaker 2 00:13:41 Yeah. But I could ask these women mm-hmm <affirmative> so it was a really useful way to put those together. Mm-hmm <affirmative> but I'm sure that, you know, I was still struck by some, I don't know how else to describe it as other than to say daughter blindness. Like I was implied in my mom's story too, because I knew the people she was talking about mm-hmm <affirmative> the parents that had seemed to treat her so badly were my grandparents right. Who I loved. Right. Who were nothing, but kind to me mm-hmm <affirmative> um, and I think probably, you know, I just, um, with my mom, um, was less objective in some ways, because I was part of the story. Yeah. Even if I came many years later. Yeah. Um, when I was sitting down with these women and interviewing them mm-hmm <affirmative>, it was a lot easier for me in a way to be like, Hm, I don't know how else kind of on their side, like if they were talking about their parents who perhaps had a harsh reaction to their pregnancy, you know, I was appalled on their behalf because I was in it with them.
Speaker 2 00:14:46 Yeah. I was sitting across the table from them and I was in it with them. Yeah. But when I was reading my mom, I'm like, well, wait, those are my grandparents. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:14:54 So it was
Speaker 2 00:14:54 Just, this was a really interesting question to think about mm-hmm <affirmative> um, because I'm implicated or, you know, I'm present in some way in my mom's story in ways that I wasn't with the women I interviewed.
Speaker 1 00:15:05 Yeah. Oh, fascinating. Another important lens. I think that the information in the book comes through is the way that social sciences are so heavily impacted by the moral ideas and cultural norms of any given eras mainstream. And I think that if that doesn't feel quite right to anyone, I would recommend they check out this book because, um, the way that the social sciences at the time talked about the patho, like pathologizing of unwed mothers, pathologizing, infer, wives, um, assuming degeneracy about women of color's ability to raise their own children, um, and kind of just total avoidance of consequence by white men who impregnated their girlfriends. Um, so could you speak to me about how you wanted to include that social science in the book and kind of how that social science much of which is not really regarded anymore to the same way is, um, shaped this project as it came out? Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:16:02 Yeah. I think that was critical. And I think it's a, um, you know, those realms kind of are popular mainstream cultural values and morals, and then the, the literature and the expertise that come with social science mm-hmm <affirmative> um, influence each other. Right. Yeah. It's not just a one way street so we can see, you know, I talk a little bit about entine young and her book, anybody who has done any reading or writing about these maternity home experiences of this time has come across. Entine young, who as a social worker who was studying and writing about on we mothers and, and how and why they became on we mothers mm-hmm <affirmative>. And she's the one who really, um, gave social science, the social science voice to this idea that they were, um, neurotic. Yeah. That they were psychologically imbalanced. They weren't feeble minded anymore.
Speaker 2 00:16:55 As they had been believed to be in the twenties and thirties, they weren't delinquent necessarily. They weren't fallen women victims. They were suffering from neurosis that could be treated. Right. So that's coming from this kind of psychoanalytic informed social science, and you can hear those ideas popping up in popular culture as well. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and in magazines, like true love mm-hmm <affirmative> in this Minneapolis and St. Paul papers mm-hmm <affirmative> so I think social science and kind of mainstream cultural values work in tandem, they reinforce each other in many ways. Mm-hmm <affirmative> but yes, you also, I mean, these, these experts, these quote unquote experts were part of the culture that they were studying. Yeah. And so they brought with them to their study, their own biases, biases, and assumptions and morals. And this was the era where that white nuclear, middle class family was supposed to be the embodiment of everything that was good and right about the United States mm-hmm <affirmative> it was the cold war mm-hmm <affirmative> was after world war II. You know, it was kind of this retrenchment of gender roles in the family. The family was the economic engine mm-hmm <affirmative> of, um, this recovered economy and that nuclear family ideal was so, so powerful. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and so damaging. Yeah. To so many people,
Speaker 1 00:18:19 I think something really valuable about this particular book covering this topic is that you take it from that historian's lens and you, um, include a variety of sources from newspapers to social science of the time, uh, to interviews with people and then bring in the context and vocabulary and kind of angle that we look at it from today. Um, and I'm sure a lot of writing will need to be done to unpack how we perceive a family at this time. That's right.
Speaker 2 00:18:44 That's right. Yes, absolutely. And I think, I think I appreciate you're saying that because, you know, I could have written this as just kind of a family memoir yeah. Book. Yeah. Um, that's not my interest. It wasn't my intent and I'm a historian. Yeah. And I think that one of the reasons oral history to me is so valuable, a way of learning about the past is that it brings together these really personal stories with the historical context. Yes. And they come together in a good oral history interview. So you, for me, mm-hmm, <affirmative>, I can't understand the past whether it was my mother's personal past or this whole kind of, you know, historical context. Yeah. Without the interplay between the individual and the collective, the personal and the, you know, the historical.
Speaker 1 00:19:31 Yeah. The historical context was also really helpful in the items you mentioned about how, um, unwed mothers of color, especially black mothers and native mothers were treated so differently than white women in this context. And while you are not, of course, able to speak to that experience as your family were not mothers of color, um, having the historical context of how things were treated differently at the time, I think provided for a valuable comparison and a good kind of way to see kind of how we got where we are. Yep. In terms of how families are set up.
Speaker 2 00:20:07 Yep. Absolutely. Uh, Ricky Solinger is a sociologist who has written a, a lot about reproductive politics mm-hmm <affirmative> and, um, in the mid nineties published, I think probably one of the first books about these maternity home experiences, this, this era called wake up little Susie mm-hmm <affirmative>. And she said that race was this single most important factor that determined what would happen to a woman who got pregnant outside of marriage and her child. Oh, that was the single most important determining factor about the options that were set up before them and what would happen to them. Yeah. And of course, you know, and I think, I, I say this in the book too, that this maternity home experience was by and large a white woman's experience mm-hmm <affirmative> but it was so by design, based on both these cultural assumptions about mm-hmm <affirmative> who, and what black and indigenous women could be as mothers, as well as what some very, you know, prominent, um, and racist white quote experts were saying, mm-hmm, <affirmative> about the sources of illegitimacy in those communities and how they were quite different mm-hmm <affirmative> than the sources and explanations for illegitimacy in the white community.
Speaker 2 00:21:22 So it was a huge, huge factor. You cannot separate race from any of this in understanding it.
Speaker 1 00:21:30 Yep. So to go back to the booth hospital and the booth girls in specific, um, the booth hospital, which was a salvation army project for those who haven't read the book, um, both accepted and provided shelter and vital services for unad mothers, but also perceived them almost by policy as kind of fallish women who need retraining, um, which is a pretty fascinating dichotomy in and of itself. Um, so could you share with me what interested or surprised you about that dynamic?
Speaker 2 00:22:04 Yeah. I, I think what what's important for me to remember, and, and this emerged from, um, you know, the surprise that I found while I was doing this research. Yeah. So I go into this project having read books like Ricky Solinger or Anne Fessler, um, the girls who went away and some other, other writers who have, have perhaps experienced this whole single pregnancy, you know, coerced adoption thing or studied it. And they were extremely and rightly so very critical of a lot of maternity home staff, a lot of social workers mm-hmm <affirmative> who were, you know, as they found whether through their experience or their interviews or their research who are horrifically exploitative of these young women really, um, harsh. I know that is true. I, you know, I, I, I believe the research mm-hmm <affirmative>, but what I found interesting was that none of these, again, tiny handful of women that I interviewed mm-hmm <affirmative> had too much really negative to say about any particular staff member at booth. Mm-hmm
Speaker 1 00:23:13 <affirmative> interesting.
Speaker 2 00:23:14 Yeah. They, you know, it, they, the one woman who was probably, um, the most resentful of the experience, you know, who, who was the one who said, yeah, they got me, they kept working on me. They kept working on me and they got me and they got my baby mm-hmm <affirmative> even she later in the interview said, yeah, you know, the stuff they were.
Speaker 1 00:23:33 Okay.
Speaker 2 00:23:34 Hmm. And so I think what's important for me to remember is that however critical and justifiably critical, we may be mm-hmm <affirmative> whether in retrospect, or even at the time of those staff members say the salvation army women who were operating a place like booth mm-hmm <affirmative>, um, in their hearts and minds, they often truly believed they were helping these young women mm-hmm <affirmative> and they were doing it to the best of their ability. Totally. That doesn't mean they weren't also condescending that doesn't also mean they weren't imposing judgment on these women. It doesn't also mean that they were pressuring them to a specific outcome that, but they, I think genuinely believed adoption was gonna be the quote best solution mm-hmm <affirmative> for those mothers and their babies, not to mention the adoptive parents out there. Yeah. And the two women I, I interviewed who worked with these young women that June Wheeler was a nurse at booth for five years.
Speaker 2 00:24:33 Mm-hmm <affirmative>, I, I would have loved my mother to have worked with June. June was wonderful. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and delightful and cared about these girls and spoke so warmly. And so lovingly of these young women, mm-hmm <affirmative> as did Margaret sites, who was a social worker for Ramsey county, um, you know, she also kind of eventually said, yeah, you know, I, I, I was influenced by the, the thought that was current at the time about adoption being the best solution. So maybe, maybe we, as a, you know, as a group of experts, didn't give them all the choice we thought we were. Yeah. But they really, really wanted to help these young women mm-hmm <affirmative> however, poorly executed. And in retrospect, however, um, you know, perhaps unhelpful, it turned out to be, I think a lot of them really genuinely did want to help them.
Speaker 1 00:25:28 Yeah. We're coming up on the end of our time here, but I really would love to discuss before we go, um, at the books end focus shifts to reunification and open adoption, both of which indicate at least something of a reversal from the previous theory that the birth mother and the child should stay separated because of the, you know, pathologizing of the birth mother. Um, do you wanna speak to kind of these experiences and how you think current practice and the more prevalence of open adoption, um, affects the system as a whole?
Speaker 2 00:26:02 Yeah, I think, um, you know, we have birth mothers and adoptees to thank for open adoption. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, um, you know, I think we have learned we as a, an adoption community have learned so much from these adoptees as they have grown up mm-hmm <affirmative> and, and claimed their own voices in talking about, um, you know, what has worked for them, what hasn't worked for them, whether they are same race, adoptees, or transracially adopted or transnationally adopted mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, I just think we cannot, um, honor and acknowledge their contributions to changes in the adoption system enough mm-hmm <affirmative> uh, and in the same way, way we have benefited from hearing from these birth mothers who formed organizations like Cub in the seventies mm-hmm <affirmative> who were the women who came along and said, you know, we were told that we were gonna, um, you know, give up our children to adoption and then put it all behind us and forget about it.
Speaker 2 00:26:57 Mm-hmm <affirmative> and they were the ones who said, no, no, no, no, that is not possible. We cannot forget that. And therefore, we should have more open adoptions if adoption has to be an option mm-hmm <affirmative> and there are certain circumstances in which it really does. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, there's always loss. There's always difficulty. There's always hardship mm-hmm <affirmative>, but in cases where adoption should happen or has to happen or is chosen to happen, ideally mm-hmm, <affirmative> better to do that with openness. Yeah. And of course, we still are seeing the ongoing battle to allow adoptees rights to their original birth certificate. It's still an issue. So I think we have made some changes. Mm-hmm <affirmative> um, I think there are many people who, and many examples and including one of your former guests who can talk about the ways in which adoption still reinforces and reflex class race and, um, kind of global inequities as well. Mm-hmm
Speaker 1 00:27:54 <affirmative> thank you so much. Uh, for those who joined us partway through this has been Kim Hyla discussing booth girls, pregnancy adoption, and the secrets we kept, Kim has been so wonderful to have you on the show. Thank you for being
Speaker 2 00:28:04 Here. Thanks, Annie. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1 00:28:06 Thank you. Um, and just a quick reminder for every hello. K F I friends, uh, you didn't think I'd forget about your calendar. Did you, I'm here with the what's happening calendar of literary events brought to you by the rain taxi review of books as always on, on Tuesday, July 12th.
Speaker 3 00:29:15 Okay. Professor of organizational behavior at the Yale school of management, where she researches social networks, social influence, and team dynamics, her new book, social chemistry, decoding the patterns of human connection shows how anyone can build a social network that will dramatically enhance personal relationships, work life, and even your global impact based on insights from neuroscience, psychology and network analytics. Welcome to write on radio. It's a pleasure to be here. So you open the book by bringing up a quote from Vernon Jordan, um, that he gave to a 2012 commencement address and explaining his network skills. It's a quote from Herman Melville. Uh, we cannot live for lives alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand visible threads. And along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results. You call this quote, a new lens that we can apply to the idea of networks. What did you mean by that?
Speaker 4 00:30:06 Yeah, I think that Melville quote so beautifully captures what I mean when I'm talking about a network far too often, I think people, when they're thinking about networks are thinking about networking, but our networks are really the enduring traces of our social interactions. And whether it's bumping into a stranger at the coffee shop or your more enduring relationships with your friends and your family members and your colleagues, the form and shape that those relationships take, and those traces have huge impact packs on your health, your happiness and your wellbeing. And what I also love about that quote in particular is it shows that your network not only has important implications for you, but also everyone around you.
Speaker 3 00:30:47 There's a metaphor you use in the book to describe how different social networks give rise to different properties. Like graphing diamonds, both are made from carbon, but the arrangement of their atoms create different properties. How is this similar to networks?
Speaker 4 00:31:01 Yeah. In much the same way that if you take carbon and you put it in one form, drive at a diamond, right? It's hard, it's clear. It's one of the most valuable materials on earth and you take those same particles or atoms, and you range them in a different form in flat sheets and you get graphite, it's soft, it's cheap. You can find it at kid's backpack. Our personal networks are very much the same. So if you take a work group and you imagine it's posed of the same people, if you arrange it in such that everyone's talking to each other all the time, and they're all deeply connected, you get a certain set of properties. You get trust, you get reciprocity, you can convey complex information, but if you take that same group of people and you split them in two groups with one person going between them, right, you get more innovation. You me get more creativity. And the same is true in our personal lives that we can characterize everyone's network based on one of three types. And by starting to understand what are some of these basic elements or basic structures of social interaction, we can think about how we can utilize our networks more effectively, whether that's to meet professional needs and professional goals, or to help with our personal fulfillment.
Speaker 3 00:32:11 You just mentioned the models now for the different networks we have. I want you to break this down for me. Uh, just maybe overviews for each type. Right now you break down different networks. People have into three models. There's, expansionists, there's brokers and there's conveners. What are they? And what are the strengths and weaknesses for each type?
Speaker 4 00:32:28 So we think about conveners as being one type conveners friends tend to be friends with one another. They spend a lot of time maintaining their social relationships. They have deep ties, but to a smaller set of people, uh, conveners in part, build this in part due to predisposition. So for instance, conveners are, don't like changing things at the last minute. They like more certain days, so there's psychological predispositions, but also our networks are formed by our stations and life. So conveners don't tend to move very often. They may have been at the same job for a long period of time and the benefit of this type of network in which your friends tend to be friends with one another. And there's a lot of depth to your social relationships is there's a lot of trust. There's a lot of reputation benefits. There's a lot of reciprocity. So conveners actually have felt fared quite well during the pandemic because of the emotional support that type of network provides. The downside though, is that they tend to live in echo chambers. So the networks tend of conveners, tend to be pretty homogenous, and they are really at risk for groupthink.
Speaker 3 00:33:28 What did you score for, for your type?
Speaker 4 00:33:30 I'm a broker. I wanna be a convener and I always try to work towards that network type, but I'm naturally a broker and brokers tend to span, span different social worlds. So for instance, a lot of my research is in medicine and on mental health. But I also spend a lot of time talking to people in computer science and talking to people in the business world. And because I tend to span these different groups that don't normally talk together, theoretically, anyway, my work should be innovative and creative mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, and that's really the benefit to a brokerage type network. And what's interesting about brokers is that they tend to be something called high self monitor. So when people are thinking about what determines what is the strongest personality department of a network type, they often think introversion versus extroversion matters, but it's actually something called high self monitoring. So high self monitors or chameleons, they can make impromptu speeches about things that they know nothing about. That's a high self monitor, which makes them a good broker. So I also fit the high self monitoring category. And the benefit rate is I mentioned it's, they tend to be more innovative. They tend to be more creative. The downside is they often face reputational penalties. People oftentimes distrust them, cuz they are somewhat of an outsider. That's one of the biggest drawbacks to that type of network.
Speaker 3 00:34:47 So I score as broker as well. And I, I definitely can see while reading it. I can see different parts of my own personality manifesting. Like I definitely see how this person is. And it was really odd and very, um, insightful about into myself. But you do have a point and this is your word we using the book brokers have, um, are overrepresent among people who are class, I think in the business world. Why is that?
Speaker 4 00:35:10 Oh, it's always terrible. When your words come back to bite you to be clear, I'm not in all right.
Speaker 3 00:35:17 Try, not
Speaker 4 00:35:20 Often Greta with suspicion. And this becomes because they in part, because that they're a part of a group, but they're not really part of the group. So they're not a part of this core convener network, but also because of this high self-monitoring people often see them as inauthentic. Um, and that chameleonlike character can oftentimes be off putting. And what we know from a lot of research is that you can, this can be overcome, but it has to be overcome by seeming or truly being empathetic and trustworthy.
Speaker 3 00:35:52 I was wondering if you can discuss, there's a point you bring up in your book of why is the quality of our social connections, a strong predictor of your cognitive functioning work, resilience and work engagement.
Speaker 4 00:36:02 So this is one of the most powerful things I think about networks is they truly do get under our skin. So when we're in a high quality interaction in which we're feeling a deep sense of connection, actual physical biomarkers change. So for instance, our cortisol levels drop, which is a, a SOC, um, physical signal of stress. And so we can actually measure heart rates, getting lower cortisol levels, getting lower when we're in high quality interactions. And because of that reduction in stress, many ways, because we're meeting a basic biological need and we feel less threatened, we can think better and we can engage more fully.
Speaker 3 00:36:40 You give an anecdote from teaching classes that people avoided giving their attention to your lecture. When the conversation turns to network saying, people just don't wanna think about people in their lives in a purposeful way. What's a reason for this.
Speaker 4 00:36:52 It, we have a strong moral aversion, which is completely understandable to thinking intentionally about our social relationships. One of my favorite examples of this is actually an experiment that was done by Tiana Kitara Rotman and her colleagues when they ask people to think about instrumental networking in particular. And when I say that is the idea that you're going to a professional event with idea that you're gonna get something out of it. And when you ask people to recall that type of interaction, versus for instance, a spontaneous social interaction. So I bumped into someone at a party and we ended up going on a date, that idea of being really intentional about relationships with the idea, I'm gonna get something out of it is really morally off putting. So in their experiments, what they found is it truly made people literally like wanna wash their hands more and washing away their ascends and we're completion task.
Speaker 4 00:37:39 If you showed them w blank S H they were twice as likely to think of wash versus wish. And what that's really capturing is this moral contamination that we feel truly dirty about the idea of being instrumental or purposeful about our relationships. Um, and importantly, that's in part also just due to this self focus. So the easiest way out of this is in, if you're approaching, one of these situations is to think about what can I give, or how can I be of service instead of what can I get out of that re interaction? And so that reframing can really help overcome this natural moral version that so many of us have.
Speaker 3 00:38:16 There's a great statement in your book about authenticity and misunderstanding and how it leads to complacency. Why does an unwavering sense of self get in the way of new challenges or getting bigger roles or bigger promotions in our life?
Speaker 4 00:38:29 Yeah, I mean, I think so often we're given this advice that we need to be authentic, and I think there are two confusing points about that piece of advice that can often be misleading in part, I think it, oftentimes people think about that means that you need to show everyone everything, and particularly in the workplace, like, I don't need to see your whole self, right? Like you can be authentic without showing me everything. Um, and being authentic is really about staying true to your own set of personal value. And the flip side is that that can also be inhibiting in the sense that if you think of yourself as being fixed, that you have one true, authentic self, and that doesn't change that really impeach your ability to learn and change and grow. And so I like to think about it, like we have multiple right authentic, true selves, and that it's really just trying to stay true and consistent to, with what you value rather than thinking about being fixed or rigid, or even fully open
Speaker 3 00:39:25 In my reading of your book. I really like this section where you discuss the, the value just giving in generosity in social relationships, how is the reciprocity, the fundamental building block of social relationships?
Speaker 4 00:39:37 Oh, that's a great question. So the norm of reciprocity really is at the heart of all of our relationships. And if you think about how trust, where trust comes from it often, most often comes through reciprocity. And I think one of the misconceptions when thinking people are thinking about reciprocity is they often think like it's a tip for TA. So I do for you. And then you do for me. But what we know about social relationships is it's first off, it's much better to think about what you can give than what you can get, which too hard to predict, right? A one to one transactional approach, but in thinking about this reorientation about thinking about giving, um, and then trusting in the process that those will come back to you, whether that's through the individual interaction or through your broader network. And that's one of the most powerful things I think about networks and reciprocity is you can have generalized reciprocity. So I may do a favor for you, and then you do it, you pass it on to someone else. And somehow it comes back to me. And that's the power of changing this reorientation about when we think about reciprocity, about it being about giving rather than a tit for tap?
Speaker 3 00:40:40 Well, a huge takeaway had from, from that piece in your book is that there's not just a matter of just giving, giving to something as a means to trying to build relationships, but there's multiple resources we can use in terms of what we give, what are those options we have, because it's not just a matter of giving physical objects. It could be time, it could be a skill set. It could be some kind of technical service.
Speaker 4 00:40:59 Yeah. There's so many things that we have to give and we can think about giving and far too often people think about resource exchange, but there's so much we, we can give, I think particularly during this time of the pandemic. So it can be as simple as I reaching out to someone and saying, you know, Hey, I heard this show on the radio and it made me think of you. And that gives a sense of belonging. And it gives a sense of connection. Even asking for help can be a powerful way of giving, asking someone else for help, gives them a sense of mastery, gives them a sense of purpose and it allows them to get outside themselves. So that's another powerful thing we can give, but arguably more than anything right now, I think we can give one another social connection. And in many ways that's more valuable than the resources we typically think of. When we're thinking of giving
Speaker 3 00:41:46 You bring up a study by Jeffrey Hall, the university of Kansas, where they, they found that it takes 50 hours to go from acquaintance to friend, then another four to become true friends with someone. And then it become close. Friends requires more than 200 hours. That's not the full story. However, why does simply just investing time in a relationship doesn't instantly transform an acquaintance into a friend supporter or ally?
Speaker 4 00:42:09 It's a great question. And I think it helps explain the mystery of why you don't feel particularly close maybe to a colleague you sat next to for four or five years that it's not simply the amount of time that you spend with someone. It's what transpires in that relationship. And part of that is about reciprocity. So, but it's also about self-disclosure. So how much do you really truly know about the other person? And that's one of the key foundations of social relationships is that there's a reciprocal self-disclosure. So I allow you to see a little bit about me and then you do the same. And through that, we truly get to know one another and that helps build trust and it helps build connection. Um, and it's through those investments, whether it's self-disclosure or reciprocity, um, or asking and giving help that really the bonds of relationships get their quality and their strength. It's not just simply how much time we're investing
Speaker 3 00:43:01 The infrastructure. Many companies are built around the idea that more social interaction result, more innovation studies have proven. However, this has been ineffective and often more offices are being less productive, less creative and less motivated. Why is this?
Speaker 4 00:43:16 Yeah, I think that idea that more interaction is better guided a lot of our thinking. Um, and this misguided notion, like if we, you know, off built offices or even downtown Las Vegas was built on this idea, right? If we can just get more people interacting, we're gonna have more creativity and more innovation, but more, are they more interactions sometimes just builds more complexity? And the truth is it doesn't take into account these fundamental structures that we need, nor does it take and to account the quality of interactions. And if there's one another silver lining during the pandemic, I think that this would be one of them that we become more, much more conscious, that necessarily more interaction isn't better. And that there's a lot of different benefits to different ways of structuring work or structuring social interaction.
Speaker 3 00:44:01 Speaking of interactions now, so one of that gets a bad rap is gossip it's. Uh, but according to professor Robert Dunbar gossip is what makes human society as we know it possible. What makes gossip essential to our lives?
Speaker 4 00:44:14 Yeah, I, I think this is a strength of convening networks is that they really benefit for gossip and, and professor Don Mars work, right. He's also shown just how much time we spend gossiping with one another. And I think it's close to 60% of conversational time is spent talking about someone else who's not in the room and why that's so important is it was critical to us being able to evolve into bigger social groups and part, because we need to be able to enforce basic social norms and know who's got our back. And without the ability to gossip, we have no idea, right? Who's likely to stab in the back. Who's likely to not be following the rules and be threatening the group. And so gossip in many ways has evolved because it's evolutionarily necessary. Why it continues, I think is a different matter. But I think it also continues because we still face the same fundamental limits on how big of groups we can be in without the ability to be able to monitor who's in it and what they're doing.
Speaker 3 00:45:13 So Google now tried to, uh, try to avoid this issue. They set up a, they set out to make the most perfect team. I was wondering to talk about the results from this experiment.
Speaker 4 00:45:22 It it's a beautiful experiment that was led by a former student, Julia Zaki. And she was curious about what makes for a more perfect team, right? Is it more social interaction that we were just toing talking about? Is it more gossip? And so what they did at Google is they studied pretty much every facet of teams that you could imagine. So who's in the team, um, what their background, what their skillset was like, did they have lunch together? How much time did they spend together? Um, what were their working arrangements? And out of all of these factors, what they found the single most important predictor of how well a team functioned was something called psychological safety, which has really been reframed by the person who developed it as being radical candor. So it's the extent to which someone feels like they can speak up without fear of reprisal.
Speaker 3 00:46:09 And my last question for you, what surprised you most while you were writing social chemistry,
Speaker 4 00:46:14 The pandemic,
Speaker 3 00:46:16 Did it help with your overall writing process? Did you help you consolidate the different ideas you wanted to put into the book? What, what changed for you? I guess, with the pandemic then
Speaker 4 00:46:23 I think the biggest thing about the pandemic is it really brought into focus. Just how important face to face momentary social interaction is. And I knew that in an abstract sense, but I didn't fully appreciate the implications it would have for me personally, but also for us as a society. And as I look for what the future will look like in moving forward, I think that more than ever, that the ability to reconnect has become clearer. And so in the importance of that, so it's, there's so much possibility and potential when we can all get together once again. And so I think that that perhaps is the happiest, um, outcome of the book is just realizing how important it is. And hopefully soon having the ability to actually reconnect with one,
Speaker 1 00:47:19 Hello, you are still with us on right on radio. That was my good friend, Josh Weber, speaking to Marissa king. And, uh, prior to that, it was Kim Heala speaking to us about booth girls. I am very excited to announce that it is pledge week here at K F a I, um, and that means that you can go to K F a i.org or call K F a I on the phone and at (612) 375-9030. Um, by calling, you can leave a donation at an amount that you are comfortable with that will allow us to continue making independent volunteer, run, um, programming that reflects how people are thinking and living here in the twin cities. And just wanna quick think, um, Kim, hah, as well as our other guest tonight, Marissa king, um, for your participation and to all you listeners at home, um, without your listens and donations, this show would not be possible. You can always check out your favorite past, right on radio episodes on our podcast. You can look on Spotify, apple podcast, wherever you get your podcasts and stay tuned for our friends. Bojo Minnesota.
