Friday, November 25, 2011

Happy Thanksgiving

A couple nights ago at work, I had a discussion with a co-worker of mine who lost his son this past year, only to discover a few months later that his wife had an aggressive form of breast cancer. As I asked him about his holiday plans, he explained that scheduling conflicts would cause his wife to go through her chemo treatment the day before Thanksgiving without sufficient time to recover from the session before. The holiday would largely consist of him taking care of his recovering, miserable spouse. He explained that the worst part was watching. Physical pain and misery was something he did not mind enduring himself. But having to watch a loved one suffer was something else entire. I shook this good man's hand, promised him my thoughts, prayers, and support, and slowly walked back across the trailer yard. As I did, I could not help the rush of tears that came as I thought about the struggles of my friend and his family. I had to gain my composure and wipe my eyes as I made it back to the loading dock.

One may say that such interactions should make you grateful for all the things you have. To some extent, this seems to me rather obscene. It is as if one is to take the attitude "better him than me." Suffering is part of fallen nature, yet appears to be the most incomprehensible aspect of a world supposedly created and watched over by a loving God.[1] To be grateful that others are suffering rather than yourself is immoral in every sense of the word.



However, I highly doubt this is what is meant by the phrase "count your blessings." Gratitude is an emotion and attitude toward God, mankind, and life as a whole. It is a deep sense of appreciation for the very experience of life and those in it; an outlook bred out of genuine humility and awe. Numerous studies have been conducted that demonstrate the power of positive emotions. Negative emotions tend to restrict and narrow focus and thinking, while positive emotions broaden one's creative horizon. Positive emotions can also undo the effects of negative emotions, including the increased ability to cope with trauma. Studies indicate that as one's coping ability increases, so do positive emotions. "These findings suggest that, over time, positive emotions and broad-minded coping mutually build on one another, leading to improved coping skills and triggering an upward spiral toward enhanced emotional well-being."[2] Another study found that practiced gratitude led to "more progress on [participants'] goals, fewer physical complaints, more frequent physical exercise, more optimism, and higher overall well-being. So, feeling the pleasant emotion of gratitude in the short run led to more optimal functioning and emotional well-being in the long run."[3] This upward spiral can extend to groups and organizations due to the fact that witnessing moral behavior (e.g. helpfulness, gratitude, etc.) elevates and inspires others to become more helpful and gracious. Giving and receiving gifts, along with the associated gratitude, is "the moral memory of mankind. By mutual giving, people become tied to each other by a web of feelings of gratitude. Gratitude is the motive that moves us to give in return, and thus creates the reciprocity of service and counterservice."[4]

An interesting midrashic telling of Moses

notes that in the description of the first 3 of the 10 plagues in Exodus - the blood, frogs, and lice - it was Aaron rather than Moses who struck the Nile River and the sand, the sources of these plagues. Why so? Because the Nile...had protected [Moses] from Pharaoh's decree that all male Israelite infants be drowned at birth. Similarly, the sand - which had concealed the body of the Egyptian taskmaster Moses had killed...had saved Moses from Pharaoh's wrath and from prosecution and death. In gratitude to the Nile and to the sand, Moses did not want to be the one to smite them with his staff, and Aaron was delegated by God to do so. The moral the rabbis were conveying is that if one has to show gratitude even to inanimate objects, how much more must we show gratitude to humans who have benefited us?[5]

Gratitude is an essential quality that is too often forgotten and underscored. This Thanksgiving holiday, reflect on the love that makes the anguish possible, the friends and family that make life worth living, and the unique feeling of what it is to even exist. Be grateful for the blessings all around you by becoming a blessing to all around you.



UPDATE: President Eyring has a new article in the December 2011 Ensign entitled "The Choice to Be Grateful."


1. For reading on the problem of evil and suffering, see Truman G. Madsen, "Human Anguish and Divine Love," Four Essays on Love (Provo, UT: Communications Workshop, 1971); Blake T. Ostler, David L. Paulsen, "Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil," Revelation, Reason, and Faith: Essays in Honor of Truman G. Madsen, eds. Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002); Loyd Ericson, "'Which Thing I Had Never Supposed': The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Man," Sunstone 159 (June 2010); David B. Hart, "Tsunami and Theodicy," First Things (March 2005).

2. Barbara L. Frederickson, "Gratitude, Like Other Positive Emotions, Broadens and Builds," The Psychology of Gratitude, ed. Robert Emmons, Michael McCullough (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 156.

3. Frederickson, 2004, 154.

4. Aafke Elisabeth Komter, "Gratitude and Gift Exchange," The Psychology of Gratitude, ed. Emmons, McCullough (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 203-204.

5. Solomon Schimmel, "Gratitude in Judaism," The Psychology of Gratitude, ed. Emmons, McCullough (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 44-45.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Hip to Be Square

Last September, I wrote about Kenda Creasy Dean's research published in her book Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).[1] Dean's work was in some ways a sociological introduction to the emerging, American-based Christian culture (particularly of the evangelical flavor). This subject has intrigued me as of late, fueled by my various contacts with campus Christians during my undergraduate studies. The evangelical culture among college students ranged from the likes of Mark Driscoll to that of John Piper (though some would embrace both).

One particular college course featured a fair amount of Christian students, many of which gave presentations explicitly about Christ or Christian life. I was surprised not only by the amount of Christian-themed presentations, but the frankness of them (admirable, if not slightly uncomfortable). The body language, articulation, and dress of these fellow Christian students provided an interesting model by which to compare. Many were average in their dress and appearance. However, some embraced a counter-cultural fashion, talked about how their "eyes had been opened" by [insert freshman college course here] and how they were seeking a church that "accepted them for who they are." I've become increasingly aware of the strains of this Christian subculture in my community and specifically at the university. I've witnessed first-hand the mating of university subculture ideas with LDS doctrine in an institute class setting.

This is the very Moralistic Therapeutic Deism described in Dean's book: "No pretense at changing lives; a low commitment, compartmentalized set of attitudes aimed at "meeting my needs" and "making me happy" rather than bending my life into a pattern of love and obedience to God."[2] As Dean recognizes, "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism cannot exist on its own. It requires a host, and American Christianity has proven to be an exceptionally gracious one."[3] The two great commandments have been reduced from "love God" and "love thy neighbor as thy self" to "believe there is a god" and "be nice to people while feeling good about yourself." I was excited to hear Elder Christofferson quote from Dean's work in his excellent Conference talk last April:

"By contrast,” as one author declares, “the God portrayed in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures asks, not just for commitment, but for our very lives. The God of the Bible traffics in life and death, not niceness, and calls for sacrificial love, not benign whatever-ism."

I struggled for some time with the exact term by which to describe what I was witnessing in the university and institute, until I discovered that one had already been coined: hipster. What I had been observing was nothing short of what writer and journalist Brett McCracken calls hipster Christianity. In his book Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2010), McCracken takes great care to explain the hipster mentality and the way it has infiltrated the various Christian denominations. The very notion of hip invokes raw individualism, rebellion against the status quo, the maintainance of a "unique" public image, and immersion in present-day consumerism. He successfully describes twelve common types of hipster (for more detail, see his book):
  1. The Natural - hipness just flows naturally.
  2. The Newbie - the clingy, fickle freshman who saw a movie or concert that "changed his/her life" and "opened his/her eyes." 
  3. The Artist - the starving, bohemian artist.
  4. The Academic - the bookish intellectual. 
  5. The Dilettante - a fringe-lover who knows little of the actual fringes he/she embraces (I think "poser" would be an adequate alternative name). 
  6. The Mountain Man - unshaven, nature-loving, agrarian-nostalgic macho man (or possibly woman).
  7. The Shaman Mystic - supposedly in touch with the energies of the universe. 
  8. The Detached Ironic - witty, sarcastic class clown.
  9. The Yuppie - Patrick Bateman without the murderous tendencies.
  10. The Flower Child - born to hippie parents and stands in "solidarity with the poor and, well, everyone except the white bourgeoisie." (pg. 60)
  11. The Expat - traveling, humanitarian types.
  12. The Activist - the annoying protester who "raises awareness" of the "evils" of things like globalization.


A five-year project by the Barna Group found the six major reasons young adults leave church life to be 1) the overprotective environment, 2) shallow church experience, 3) the perceived antagonism toward science, 4) the supposed judgmental attitudes toward sex, 5) the theological exclusiveness of Christianity, and 6) believers' unfriendliness toward doubt.[4] Today's young Christian hipsters dislike the ultra-conservative fundamentalism of Pat Robertson's The 700 Club and instead favor more "liberal" theologians such as N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (I must have hipster tendencies). These hipsters prefer a postmodern approach to Christianity (something Mormonism certainly understands).[5] The Gospel becomes more important than the Church (echoes of Elder Poelman), dialogue replaces argumentation (this fits Joseph Smith's fundamental principles of Mormonism), and actions speak louder than words (this is key to all three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). These things require a more intellectually satisfying, pro-active Christianity (I'm all for moving past the gospel made easy! we often find in Sunday School classes). Unfortunately, many of these positive attributes are rooted in the recent reactions to modernity rather than any deep spiritual reflection; in political leanings and activism rather than Christian ethics. It is merely the manifestation of a culture obsessed with shock value and "edginess." In other words, it is a fad and, as McCracken wisely notes, "True relevance is not a fad."[6] Narcissism, alienation, rebellion, and a reduction to the visually stimulating are neither appropriate nor sustainable foundations for a modern approach to the gospel, despite being dressed up in flattering terms. "When I asked my undergraduate students to name the characteristics that best described their generation," writes psychologist Jean Twenge, "the two most popular answer were "independent" and "open-minded.""[7] Twenge's research finds that social norms and manners are increasingly cast aside, from stopping at stop signs to cheating in school.[8]

Big words, big protests, and big egos. These seem like the very products of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (and the surrounding culture in general, but that is for another post). The sad part, according to Dean, is that the churches are to blame: "Why do teenagers practice Moralistic Therapeutic Deism? Not because they have misunderstood what we have taught them in church. They practice it because it is what we have taught them in church. In fact, American teenagers are barometers of a major theological shift taking place in the United States."[9] Churches have made accidental Christian hipsters of their youth.



Fortunately for Latter-day Saints, Dean's research along with the National Study of Youth and Religion found that LDS kids are less likely to drink, smoke, and engage in risky behavior, while more likely to postpone sex (to age 18 instead of the average 16.5; 13% of Mormon teens identify themselves as not being virgins compared to the average 20%). "Mormon teenagers rank ahead of other youth in terms of spiritual vitality, hope for the future, and overall health and well-being." Dean also finds that Mormon teenagers are more likely than other teenagers to hold religious beliefs similar to their parents, attend weekly religious services, and talk about religious matters in their families. Religious faith is seen as "extremely important" in shaping daily life, demonstrated by the fact that Mormon youths participate in more religious practices than most teenagers and are more articulate about church teachings. Early morning seminary, family home evening, and two-year missions prepare Mormon children for adulthood. All in all, "Mormon teenagers tend to be the "spiritual athletes" of their generation, conditioning for an eternal goal with an intensity that requires sacrifice, discipline, and energy." As NSYR researcher John Bartkowski put it, "The story we tell about Mormon youth is not that all is well, but compared with other teens they're more knowledgeable about their faith, more committed to their faith, and have more positive social outcomes associated with their faith."[10]

Despite these inspiring comments, author and scholar Jana Riess correctly notes in her online review, "One complaint I have with Dean’s book is that she seems to assume that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism doesn’t exist in Mormonism, which it does despite the aforementioned high levels of religiosity." My aforementioned observation regarding hipster subculture and Mormon youth apparently was not far off. A recent article in The New York Times describes "a young generation of Mormons [that] has adopted a fashion-forward urban aesthetic (geek-chic glasses, designer labels and plenty of vintage) that wouldn’t look out of place at a Bushwick party." A trendy subculture has slowly developed in response to the former "bias against being 'cool' in the Mormon world." While every generation goes through similar stages, the period of what is known as "emerging adulthood" is getting much larger. I worry as to how long this desire to be "hip" will last with young Mormon adults and what effects it may have on the following generation (if any).[11] Instead of "finding ourselves" in come-and-go trends, we need to be rooting ourselves in Christ. "We will never truly be at peace with ourselves, comfortable in our skin, and happy with who we are, outside of the one who created us and calls us into his presence and eternal fulfillment," writes McCracken. "Here--in the service of Christ and with God as the center and core of our being--our identities become more fully realized than we've ever known. If that's not cool, I don't know what is."[12]

As members of the Church, we should always remember that it is hip to be square.   




1. Commenting on the recent Pew Forum findings, I half-jokingly wrote, "I can hear it now: "See! This proves Mormons aren't real Christians! If they were, they'd be scoring down here with the rest of us! Mormons reject Christ just like their atheist and Jewish friends!" Either that or something worse like the Mormons and Masons have infiltrated the Pew Forum." Ironically, another Pew Forum study finds that most non-LDS Christians identify Mormons as Christian. The category "White Evangelical" had the highest percentage (45%) of 'No's when it came to the question, "Are Mormons Christian?" My friend Daniel McClellan has some excellent comments on self-identification and Christianity in his online debate with James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

2. Dean, 2010, 30.

3. Ibid.

4. This should not be too alarming. As Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson of Baylor University explained in The Wall Street Journal, "The national news media yawned over the Baylor Survey's findings that the number of American atheists has remained steady at 4% since 1944, and that church membership has reached an all-time high. But when a study by the Barna Research Group claimed that young people under 30 are deserting the church in droves, it made headlines and newscasts across the nation—even though it was a false alarm. Surveys always find that younger people are less likely to attend church, yet this has never resulted in the decline of the churches. It merely reflects the fact that, having left home, many single young adults choose to sleep in on Sunday mornings. Once they marry, though, and especially once they have children, their attendance rates recover. Unfortunately, because the press tends not to publicize this correction, many church leaders continue unnecessarily fretting about regaining the lost young people." In other words, once they grow up a little, these church deserters often return.

5. McGuire's point about Nephi's vision is encapsulated in Terryl Givens, "The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelation," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10:2 (2001) and further expounded on in chapter 8 of Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). For a Mormon philosophical approach to postmodernism, see James E. Faulconer, "The Myth of the Modern; the Anti-Myth of the Postmodern," FARMS Review 20:1 (2008).

6. McCracken, 2010: pg. 234.

7. Jean M. Twenge, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled - and More Miserable Than Ever Before (New York: Free Press, 2006), pg. 24.

8. "In 1979, 29% of people failed to stop at a particular stop sign in a New York suburb, but by 1996 a stunning 97% of drivers did not stop at all...In 2002, 74% of high school students admitted to cheating, up from 61% in 1992. In 1969, only 34% of high school students admitted to cheating, less than half of the 2002 number. This continues into college; a 2002 survey found that 80% of students at Texas A&M University admitted to cheating...Not only are teens more likely to cheat, but they are resigned to cheating among their peers. In a 1997 survey, 88% of high school students said that chearing was common at their school. Three times as many high school stuents in 1969 compared to 1989 said they would report someone they saw cheating. Also in 1989, an incredible 97% of high school students said they had let someone else copy their work. The disregard for rules continues outside the classroom: in 2000, 26% of high school boys admitted they had shoplifted from a store at least once." (Twenge, 2006, 26-27)

9. Dean, 2010, 29.

10. Ibid., 51.

11. See the review of Christian Smith with Patricia Smith, Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults (Oxford University Press, 2009) in The Wall Street Journal. This book is on my extensive "to-read" list.

12. McCracken, 2010, 247.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Rand, Selflessness, and the Silly Undergrad

A relatively recent online debate grabbed my attention when an individual (who shall remain nameless) more-or-less claimed that the Austrian theory of economics was to be equated with Ayn Rand and her virtue of selfishness. While Rand's individualism and defense of capitalism certainly make her a fellow traveler among the Austrians, this individual had painted Austrian theory as nothing more than greed-fueled anarchism. Most likely unaware of the breaks Rand had with Rothbard's anarchism, Mises' praxeology, or Hayek's ethical foundations of traditional morality (it was consistently asserted in the debate that Hayek was some kind of anarchist), this critic of conservatism had no problem painting with a broad brush.[1] I explained that I have been critical of Rand's rhetoric regarding selfishness, yet pointed out that she basically redefined the term in an attempt to unload it of the negative baggage (whether wisely or not).



As Rand states in the introduction to her The Virtue of Selfishness,

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" To those who ask it, my answer is, "For the reason that makes you afraid of it." [2]

The use of the word 'selfishness' was largely for shock value, not to mention her extreme disdain for anything collectivist due to her experience as a youth in Russia.[3] After a fairly lengthy exchange, a separate post was made by this individual to "educate" me (a silly undergraduate, which I am no longer nor was at the time) on the meaning of altruism in contrast to selfishness. The definition of 'altruism' was provided, along with the notion that to support her form of altruism (i.e. wealth redistribution) was to be caring, moral, and (as her post implied) Christian. She further implied that support of the market system was inhumane, selfish, and spat in the face of Jesus Himself.

Ignoring the multiple problems that presented themselves throughout her barrage of ill-mannered responses, I wanted to address the relationship between selflessness and selfishness. Ayn Rand has had little influence on my worldview, in large part due to her atheism and Objectivism. While I can understand her appeal to market proponents, I have never quite understood the borderline obsession.


However, her comments regarding the "selfish" nature of serving others is interesting. Joseph Smith reportedly told Oliver B. Huntington that "some people entirely denounce the principle of self-aggrandizement as wrong. ‘It is a correct principle,’ [Joseph] said, ‘and may be indulged upon only one rule or plan–and that is to elevate, benefit and bless others first. If you will elevate others, the very work itself will exalt you. Upon no other plan can a man justly and permanently aggrandize himself’.”[4] On this, the late philosopher Truman G. Madsen wrote,

God, taught the Prophet, loves Himself in an inclusive way and hence "everything God does is to aggrandize His kingdom." Such love expands the "self" to include all selves, all life; and God, therefore, cannot be happy except in the happiness of all creatures. Call that "selfish" if you like. But notice that the opposite is a selfishness which seeks something in indifference to or at the expense of others. We are commanded to be selfish as God is. Joseph Smith taught that there is a law (not, if I understand him, of God's making but in the very nature of things) that "upon no other principle can a man permanently and justly aggrandize himself." This is the meaning of the Master's cryptic phrase: "Lose yourself...and find yourself."[5]

Using a version of "The Prisoner's Dilemma" game and fMRI, a team of researchers from Emory University found that activation in the reward-processing regions of the brain (i.e. nucleus accumbens, caudate nucleus, ventromedial frontal/orbitofrontal cortex, rostral anterior cingulate cortex) took place during cooperative situations. This data demonstrates that what is known as altruism is in fact intrinsically rewarding.[6] Related results were found in another study, which provided participants the choice of either collecting a maximum of $128 or donating to a variety of charities. Scans during the process revealed that "the midbrain ventral tegmental area (VTA), the dorsal striatum, and the ventral striatum were activated by both pure monetary rewards and decisions to donate..., suggesting that donating to societal causes and earning money share anatomical systems of reward reinforcement expectancy...This finding is compatible with the putative role of the "warm glow" ("joy of giving") effect, the rewarding experience associated with anonymous donations."[7] The fronto-limbic activity is connected to "more basic social and motivational mechanisms" stimulated by such things as "food, sex, drugs, and money."[8] Even without any evidence of direct material or reputation gains or reciprocity, charity is neurologically rewarding.

Author and neuroscientist Sam Harris defines morality as that which produces the well-being of conscious creatures. Drawing on studies of moral cognition, he recognizes the existence of a "reward component of genuine altruism (often called the "warm glow" associated with cooperation)" and that "we know from neuroimaging studies that cooperation is associated with heightened activity in the brain's reward regions." From this evidence, Harris concludes, "Here...the traditional opposition between selfish and selfless motivation seems to break down. If helping others can be rewarding, rather than merely painful, it should be thought of as serving the self in another mode."[9]

It is perhaps worth noting that research conducted by Arthur C. Brooks of Syracuse University (now president of the American Enterprise Institute) has shown those in favor of free enterprise and less government donate four times as much money as redistributionists (even when controlled for income), give more blood, and volunteer more hours.[10] Not only is free enterprise statistically linked with charity, but charity is statistically linked with reported happiness. When controlled for income, education, age, race, gender, religion, and children, "conservatives are, on average, 7.5 percentage points more likely than liberals to say they are very happy."[11]

With all the morally superior sneering that takes place on my debate opponent's wall, I wonder how she feels about being neurologically selfish in her altruistic pursuits. On top of that, I wonder if she cares that the ideas she advocates not only harm those she intends to help, but her own happiness and well-being also.



1. The principles behind policies are often more important than the policies themselves. In other words, just because Rand and other market-oriented voices came to similar conclusions does not mean that they hold the same principles for doing so. In his testimony favoring Robert Bork's 1987 Supreme Court nomination, Thomas Sowell explained how principles behind policies take on a life of their own. For further reading on Rand's relationship with economists of the Austrian theory (and her life and politics in general), see The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 6:2 (Spring 2005); Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). For an overview, see Reason TV's interview with historian and author Jennifer Burns.

2. Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (New York: Signet, 1964 [1961]), 5.

3. "It was a wintry day in 1918 when the Red Guard pounded on the door of Zinovy Rosenbaum's chemistry shop. The guards bore a seal of the State of Russia, which they nailed upon the door, signaling that it had been seized in the name of the people. Zinovy could at least be thankful the mad whirl of revolution had taken only his property, not his life. Alisa [Ayn], twelve at the time, burned with indignation. The shop was her father's; he had worked for it, studied long hours at university, dispensed valued advice and medicines to his customers. Now in an instant it was gone, taken to benefit nameless, faceless peasants, strangers who could offer her father nothing in return. The soldiers had come in boots, carrying guns, making clear that resistance would mean death. Yet they had spoken the language of fairness and equality, their goal to build a better society for all. Watching, listening, absorbing, Alisa knew one thing for certain: those who invoked such lofty ideals were not to be trusted. Talk about helping others was only a thin cover for force and power. It was a lesson she would never forget." (Burns, 2009, 9)

4. Quote and reference provided in this excellent post at Life on Gold Plates.

5. Truman G. Madsen, "Joseph Smith and the Sources of Love" in his Four Essays on Love (Provo, UT: Communications Workshop, 1971), 13-14. To clarify, I by no means am attempting to equate the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Joseph Smith.

6. James K. Rilling, David Gutman, Thorsten Zeh, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Gregory Berns, Clint Kilts, "A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation," Neuron 35 (2002).

7. Jorge Moll, Frank Krueger, Roland Zahn, Matteo Pardini, Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza, Jordan Grafman, "Human Fronto-Mesolimbic Networks Guide Decisions About Charitable Donations," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:42 (2006): 15624.

8. Moll et all, 2006: 15625.

9. Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 91-92.

10. Arthur Brooks, "Tea Partiers and the Spirit of Giving," The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 24, 2010). For a book length treatment of this subject, see his Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism - America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

11. Brooks, 2006, 110.