Read Full Transcript EXPAND
| CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here’s what’s coming up. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LYSE DOUCET, AUTHOR, “THE FINEST HOTEL IN KABUL” AND CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, BBC: This possibly the darkest, most difficult, most painful time, most of all for the young Afghan girls. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Four years since the Taliban waged war on girls’ education, veteran correspondent Lyse Doucet tells me about the decades that led to this entrenched reality. Then — (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, AUTHOR, “POEMS AND PRAYERS” AND ACTOR: I believe that belief is in short supply right now, and we need it. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: A mission to spread hope. I ask Oscar-winning actor Matthew McConaughey about trying his hand at poetry. Also, ahead — CHRISTINA CROSS, AUTHOR, “INHERITED INEQUALITY”: Perception really plays a role in driving these disparities. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: “Inherited Inequality.” Harvard sociologist Christina Cross speaks to Michelle Martin about her new book and challenging widely held beliefs about race. Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London. This week marks four years since girls were again barred from high school in Afghanistan, one of the Taliban’s first edicts after its return to power in 2021, reverting to the war on women they instigated when they were first in power. The orders that followed would take away women’s rights to hold jobs, to visit parks, even to speak outside their homes. But today, governments around the world are starting to acknowledge the Taliban’s authority. Russia has formally recognized its rule, while the UAE, China and Pakistan have accepted ambassadors. And the thaw is spreading to the US, which has met with the Taliban to discuss normalizing relations. It’s hard to imagine how this happened, but our first guest tonight bore witness to it all, from the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989 to the devastating fall of Kabul in 2021. International Correspondent Lyse Doucet has covered one conflict after the other. She was in Ukraine when Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, has walked in the camps of famine-hit Sudan, and most recently, she’s reported from the wreckage of an Israeli strike on Iran. But it was Afghanistan that became her second home. Now, Doucet is telling that story in a very interesting way, “The Finest Hotel in Kabul.” Chronicles 50 years of Afghan history as it unfolded within the walls of the Intercontinental Hotel. And Lyse Doucet is joining me now right here in the studio, BBC’s chief international correspondent and author of this great book. So, I think it’s just fascinating. We’ve crossed paths so many times, including at the Intercontinental Hotel. DOUCET: It’s so nice to be here. Yes. AMANPOUR: Why did you choose this device to write essentially a memoir? DOUCET: I was looking, Christiane, to do — to tell a story of Afghanistan through a prism, through a conceit, as they say in literature, that was familiar to people, even to people who don’t know about Afghanistan, who don’t want to know about Afghanistan. And I thought, who doesn’t like a luxury hotel? And I also wanted to try a different kind of storytelling, the kind that you and I do day in, day out when we tell the news. What do we do? We give people these snapshots. They’re true snapshots, but they’re only. And in places which have been plunged into war all too many times, what are they? People running to the hospital, people standing in the rubble of their homes, people wailing at the worst moments of people’s lives. But, of course, as you know, whether they live in Afghanistan or Ukraine or Sudan, Somalia, they all have to get up in the morning and find an everyday kind of courage and try to live a day with hope. And, of course, as you and I both know from spending so much time with humor and humanity. And so, the genre is called a narrative history, where it’s a living history, where the characters can come alive on the page. And I’m really hoping that people who — when they read this boOK. they will go — they will find themselves being immersed into an Afghanistan, into the lives of people who draw them closer to the country. AMANPOUR: You do have a really born of experience and being there optimistic viewpoint, which you’re expressing right now. I just, you know, introduced you with the horrors that the Taliban 2.0 are inflicting on women and girls. Again, it’s this misogynistic reality that’s now being accepted by the world. So, it is nice, actually, to go back and check into the reality there, and the humanity, and as you say, the humor. So, just going to read a few things. In the book. instead of warlords and presidents, you know, the book’s heart belongs to the star. DOUCET: And people we know well. AMANPOUR: Yes. Hazrat the housekeeper. She’s been there since 1969. Abida, the first female chef, lost her husband in a rocket attack. Amanullah, the idealistic young engineer. How did you earn their trust? How did you focus on them? Were they there, you know, in the times that you spent at the hotel? DOUCET: Well, I first arrived in Afghanistan, it was, you know, in the grip of the harshest winter in more than a decade. It was 1988. And as you know, it was in the depths of the Cold War, and it was a time — it was sort of, in a way, the Ukraine of our time. There was a Soviet-backed government in Kabul waging war against the Western-backed Mujahideen, and I suddenly found — got myself a visa, to a rare visa for — you’re smiling. Gold dust. We got a visa. Yes, OK. it’s Christmas Day, but I’ve got a visa. And I was there to cover the momentous pullout of Soviet troops after a decade-long invasion. And some of the people — and I talk about — I begin the book by, you know, any hotel in the world, how long will you be staying, madam? And I thought, I had this — I was gripped by this panic, like, is it six days, six weeks, six months? I stayed nearly a year in this hotel. And so, some of the people who worked there became friends. And so, Amanullah, you mentioned, who became the engineer, chief engineer, was the room service cashier. And there’s a picture of me and him in the book. And you’ll see that he found — And the Afghans, as you know, have this wicked sense of humor. He ended up doing cartoons of all the journalists who stayed in the hotel and depicting their little competitive streaks and going after the news. So, when I went — when I decided to write a book and went back to the hotel in 2020, I think, I met some of these characters again, and they have such an amazing memory. And I said — you know, very said, I’m thinking about writing a book. It will take a long time. So, I have to say that a few people said no because they were worried about the Taliban. They came from neighboring provinces where the Taliban were strong. But Hazrat, you know, the housekeeper, was very, very proud. And what I really liked, Christiane, was it’s this dignity we find in people who are almost crushed by war, but they still find, in the case of the Intercontinental, show up to work in their black, you know, little frayed black jackets and their white shirts. And when I first had a conversation with Hazrat, he actually mimicked the wealthy tourists in the early 1970s, the wealthy tourists who would come to Afghanistan, they’d glide across the gleaming marble floor, fling the white towel, and go down to the swimming pool. And of course, that was a life of ease and privilege, and he was just a 20-something, you know, all wide- eyed. And he still — well, he had to leave recently, but — and he still had that pride, and there’s a certain way of doing things. AMANPOUR: You know, it reminds me of the so-called Holiday Inn that we all stayed in as journalists in Sarajevo — DOUCET: Yes, in Sarajevo. Yes. There’s always a mythic hotel. AMANPOUR: No matter how awful and how, you know, poverty-stricken and lack of food and the siege and the bombing and this and that, they stayed there in their uniforms, and it became a journalist’s hotel. So, I think the concept of hotels is great. DOUCET: What is there for breakfast? Oh, Christiane, there’s only one egg left. AMANPOUR: That’s right. And a kind of maybe stale piece of bread. In any event, they did their best under the worst of circumstances. So, I want you to read from the preface, actually. You sort of set it up beautifully. DOUCET: And of course, before we begin, is that the hotel itself is a character in this, because it’s still standing. It’s a very Afghan hotel. History, good, bad, and bloody, was made within its walls. It became home to fashion shows and beauty pageants. Bikinis by the pool, vodka-soaked Soviet receptions, warlord rockets, a guest named Osama bin Laden, American election observers, Afghan female MPs, and Taliban suicide bombers. Its doors stayed open to every kind of political system, a peaceable kingdom, Soviet-backed communism, warlordism, Islamism, and a would-be democracy bankrolled by the West. Politics, like hotel guests, checked in and out. AMANPOUR: So, it’s beautiful. Firstly, it’s beautifully written. And secondly, you just immediately can picture it. So, well done. How do you — it’s a hard historical question, but can you sum it up in like 30 seconds? What took this nation from then to this completely failed state that it is now? DOUCET: Yes, Afghanistan was cursed by its geography going back to the days when Imperial Britain and Imperial Russia fought over Afghanistan to get access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. And then the Soviets then saw it as a prize in the — those heated days of the Cold War. And then, as you’ll remember, in the Cold War, all of the Americans and the Brits and others focused on was defeating the evil Soviet empire. And Islamism rose up, they backed the Islamists, Osama bin Laden rose, and there it became a kind of a petri dish for the kind of, well, it ended up in September 11th attacks in the United States, and out of that also came the Taliban. And then the West again intervened in 2001, not learning the lessons of history. And I think, Christiane, you talked about that this possibly the darkest, most difficult, most painful time, most of all for the young Afghan girls and women who find themselves being pushed into the corners of their home and not being able to live a life worth living. But this time it will have to come from within Afghanistan and most of all within the Taliban itself. I was really struck one time, on my last trip, that a founding member of the Taliban said to me, Lyse, 95 percent of the Taliban don’t agree with these harshest of edicts. But as you know, they say that the unity of the Taliban matters more than anything else. AMANPOUR: It’s a cop out. These are the people who are the most powerful. I know who’s saying that to me. DOUCET: Well, you met Haqqani. AMANPOUR: I did. I interviewed him. DOUCET: And you know him. Yes. AMANPOUR: Haqqani, he has the biggest militia, he could. But just for want of unity, they condemn their nation, 95 percent of them, to this kind of horror. And it’s a tragedy, it really is. But what I want to ask you and congratulate you is, “This Finest Hotel in Kabul,” your boOK. it’s been long-listed for the — tell me if I’m getting this right. DOUCET: Bailey Gifford Prize AMANPOUR: Yes, Bailey Gifford Prize for Nonfiction. You are many times awarded for your television journalism. But here you are being shortlisted for a literary work. But also, I’ve noted what you said about, you know, people are fed up with the news. So, you’re trying to tell the real story of the world, but in a way that doesn’t turn, you know, people into their glazed look. DOUCET: You know, one of the highest compliments was when a friend of mine, actually your American viewers will know her well, her name is Louise Penny. She’s a mega, mega best-selling author. She writes crime stories, she writes fiction. And she wrote a book with Hillary. AMANPOUR: Not with Hillary Clinton? DOUCET: Yes, yes, yes. AMANPOUR: There you go. DOUCET: Louise Penny, yes, a fellow Canadian. And she said she never hardly read nonfiction books, because she’s that kind of writer. And she read the boOK. and she came back and she said, Lyse, when I used to hear news about Afghanistan, I just thought about the news. You know, the hard, cold facts. But when I — after I read your boOK. when I heard news about Afghanistan, I thought about Hazrat and Abida and Mohammad Agha (ph). And that is the biggest — and I don’t say it to toot my horn, but you and I, aside from being in the same business of journalism, I think, if I can be bold to say, we’re in the same business of trying to make people care about stories, and when you commented how people — that the world has accepted, they’re not doing enough about the girls and women in Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: No, no, at all. DOUCET: And how can any of us accept that we live in this kind of a world? And I know you often raise these issues. AMANPOUR: I do, and I’m also like you, I mean, I believe in the humanity of the individuals, rather than tarring them all with a collective, you know, guilt of whatever governments who are ruling over them. On journalism, you’ve said that we’re fighting for trust in journalism. We know that audiences are dropping off, mainstream platforms, there’s a huge assault from the United States to illiberal democracies, as we know, you know, dictatorships and authoritarians, against us journalists. How do you think we can regain trust? If you think we’ve lost it. DOUCET: We do, we do. I think it’s — you know, often when I speak to journalism students, let’s say from a few years ago, I would say to the young journalism students that independent journalism will live or die in your generation, and you want to become a journalist, but you’re going to have to fight, not just to become a journalist, but for journalism itself, because as you say, not only are we fighting for trust, we’re fighting for the truth. As David Miliband likes to say, everyone can have their own opinions, but not their own facts. And I — AMANPOUR: He’s the president of the IRC. DOUCET: The IRC, former British foreign secretary. But the — I just think every day we have to get up and just do better. What is our job? Our job is asking questions. We have to keep asking questions of as many people as possible, and trying as best as we can to get closer to the truth, and it’s getting harder and harder. But if we give up on it, we give up on a fundamental pillar of our democracy, and if anything is clear from the time in which we’re living, the values we hold dear, that we have to keep fighting for them. AMANPOUR: So, again, we are living now in a world in which whatever we say about certain world events could get us canceled. It’s just happening everywhere. DOUCET: The whole discussion about free speech. AMANPOUR: That, but let’s just talk about Israel-Gaza. Incredibly difficult to actually tell the whole story without incurring backlash, and not only that, independent outside journalists are not able to join our heroic Palestinian colleagues in helping them cover what’s happening in Gaza. How do we — what do we say about that? How do we live with that? DOUCET: You know, this — they have this expression, and I’m sure you’ve heard of it a lot, even used it a lot, that they say the arc of history bends toward justice. And I keep wondering whether the arc of history will bend till we return to a place where there is in our system, not just rules, but rules that are observed, that there are — when there are rule makers that there are not also rule breakers. And now, you and I and many others in our journalistic tribe talk about how rules are now being broken on an industrial scale. You know, I’ve often said that we are in this Dickensian time, the best of times and the worst of times. Never have our institutions, our understanding of international law, our understanding of war and the brutality of war been so strong, but never has also impunity been so flagrant, so blatant. I mean, look at the U.N. secretary general, how many days he has to use his pulpit to talk — to condemn what’s happening in so many wars the world over. And I think it is a very troubled time. It is a really — it’s an urgent time for those of us who try to keep telling the stories, keep asking the questions, and keep searching for truth. That’s all we can do, Christiane, that’s our job. AMANPOUR: I agree with you, and we have to keep fighting no matter the obstacles. And there have always been obstacles, it just seems right now it’s really intense and everybody’s being careful about what they say, or at least a lot of people. So — DOUCET: But it takes leadership. You know, we’re journalists. AMANPOUR: Yes, for sure. Yes. DOUCET: And of course, it’s the — you know, it’s the world leaders who have to take leadership on these issues too. And our job is to hold them — AMANPOUR: And our own leaders. DOUCET: Yes, hold them to account. AMANPOUR: Exactly. We the foot soldiers are doing our best. But in any event, back to, you know, the greatest hotel in the world. I have to tell you, the last time I was there was 2001. DOUCET: It was probably the worst hotel in the world. AMANPOUR: Oh, my goodness. It was ugly. DOUCET: Do you remember those days of having to walk up seven flights of stairs to go on the roof? AMANPOUR: To get to the roof to broadcast the fall of Kabul from the Taliban, the victory of the allies, getting rid of Osama bin Laden, Al- Qaeda, et cetera. What gives you hope about, let’s just say, Afghanistan? DOUCET: If there’s — one of the many threads in this boOK. and Afghans know it well, is that in Afghanistan nothing lasts forever. That there is always a rupture, a change. Sadly for Afghans, it often went from bad to even worse. But there were moments, brief moments, but there were moments of hope. And when I speak with Afghans now, they can’t allow themselves, even though they will sometimes blurt it out, to believe that there is not any hope. How can any of us live in darkness? And for us, as just people who have been privileged to go there, who have benefited from — we used to always say about Afghanistan, hospitality over ideology. Even with the Taliban, even with the Taliban. And we can only hope for them, the many — I mean that moment when so many had to flee, leaving so much of themselves behind, dreams shattered and fearing they might even lose their country. They don’t want to give up on that. AMANPOUR: It is amazing. You see the same in Gaza. People won’t leave. People are not going to leave Israel. Peoples are going to stay where they call home. And they have to resolve these differences. The leadership really does. DOUCET: Yes. It’s not just a piece of land, it’s about who they are. AMANPOUR: Indeed. Lyse Doucet, thank you. DOUCET: But I’m a journalist, do I have to say, when are you ever going to write your boom. Christiane? AMANPOUR: Now, he’s the Oscar-winning actor who’s mastered the art of reinvention on and off screen. First known as one of Hollywood’s favorite romantic leads, Matthew McConaughey traded rom-coms for heavy-hitting dramas like “Interstellar” and “True Detective.” But it was his portrayal of a dying AIDS patient in “Dallas Buyer’s Club” that won him the Academy Award. Since then, he’s become a best-selling author with his smash hit memoir, “Greenlights,” and even teased a run for Texas governor. Well, now, in addition to starring in “The Lost Bus,” a new thriller about a California wildfire, McConaughey is turning his hand to poetry. He joined me to talk about how a lifetime of faith has influenced his new boOK. “Poems and Prayers.” (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Matthew McConaughey, welcome back to our program. MCCONAUGHEY: Good to be back, Christiane. AMANPOUR: You are becoming a prolific author. Certainly, “Greenlights,” your last one, became a best-seller. What is — is that kind of what led you to write a new one, this current one? MCCONAUGHEY: Well, I enjoyed the writing process of “Greenlights” so much and I didn’t have the confidence to write before then. And it was my wife who helped me write that because when I told her, I said, loOK. I have this treasure chest full of all these journals and, hey, when I die, do you mind looking at that and seeing if anything’s worth sharing? And she very graciously just gave me the middle finger and said, you do it, I ain’t doing it. So, she kicked me out of the house and I went off away with those journals, and for about three weeks alone and found some themes and some ways that I’d been thinking the same way since I was 15 years old at 50. And I started to write and I started to enjoy it. And I started to enjoy the Socratic dialogue and learning who I was and then putting it on the page in a way that translated and having people come up and go, it did translate, I was able to see myself in your stories. I knew I wanted to continue writing and I did. AMANPOUR: What was it that you were thinking about since you were 15? MCCONAUGHEY: Oh, well, the early — you know, 15 to 25 were the big existential young questions. Why, you know, who am I in this world? Why does the world work this way? Why do I exist? What’s the meaning of life? Is there a God? Does it matter what we do now to what happens to us tomorrow? How do I deal with forgiveness? How do I deal with guilt? How do I deal with grace? Where do I say the buck stops here? Who am I going to be? Who can I be? How much are my hands on the wheel? How much is it fate? All those wonderful questions. Who am I? You know, I’ve always been interested in trying to get to know myself as well as possible and get to know my own monologue, which I think is necessary for any of us if we want to go have a dialogue with others and the rest of the world. The “Poems and Prayers” came along because I found myself a couple years ago, Christiane, I’m getting a little bit cynical, too cynical for my taste. And I’m looking around at the evidence. I’m looking at the facts of the world and I’m turning on the news and I’m going, man, I don’t — I’m not seeing people and things happening to believe in. AMANPOUR: Yes. MCCONAUGHEY: And so, I started to objectify, started to get at people and things and not give people the benefit of the doubt. And I started to do that with myself as well. So, I got kind of first scared and then angry with myself. And I said, all right, if we’re not seeing evidence of the world and finding belief in that, let’s go to dreams and ideals and the pursuits of divinity and try to make dreams a reality. Let’s go to poems and prayers and believe in that and not forget — or forgive or say, no, those aren’t attainable. And let’s try and bring those down and make those a reality in my own life. And there’s so many people I’ve talked to that they’re looking for the same thing. They’re looking around the world and going, I’m not seeing a reason to believe around me. And I think obviously if doubt wins, we all lose. AMANPOUR: So, just to be clear, you are a person of faith. You’re a believer. MCCONAUGHEY: Yes. AMANPOUR: Yes, and spirituality. MCCONAUGHEY: Well, I would say religious. I’d go one step further. I believe in God. Now — and I’m working on this and I want to strengthen my relationship in that faith. But this book and what I’m writing about is not exclusive to only people that believe in God or not. I believe anyone out there who believes in their better self or their transcendent self or believes in their kids or believes in the future or believes in their past. Any philosophy that is, that as long as it’s not tyrannical and harming a bunch of people, oh, please, believe in that more. Double down on that, triple down on that, please. And I think if enough of us do that, that’s a real way to make a step forward as collectively, as humanity. AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, because we’ve got a couple of poems. I mean, obviously the book is full of poems and prayers, but there are a couple that we’d like you to read from. The first one would be Doubt Faith. If you wouldn’t mind reading that one. MCCONAUGHEY: Sure. Doubt Faith. I think that’s on 144. Doubt Faith. Yes. In this life, in our mind, through our eyes and on each day, doubt is logical and reasonable. Faith is not. Faith does not rid doubt. Rather, it carries us through it. May our faith outshine our doubt. AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it’s a bit of a manifesto, right? Would you say that pretty much sums up what you’re thinking throughout this whole book? MCCONAUGHEY: I believe that belief is in short supply right now, and we need it. It’s necessary for our own survival. And if we let the doubt win, we all lose, as far as I can tell. That math adds up. So, let’s find those things that we value in our life, the things we care about, the people we care about. And you know what, people that say, I don’t know what to believe in. A great place to start is go, well, who would you die for? What would you die for? Start there. And most everyone has something there. Start there. Double down on that. Believe in that more. Make that part of what you’re living for, and we can get out of whatever rut we’re in. AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you, because clearly, we’re speaking at a time when a lot of people all over the world, from your country to mine to further east and west, feel like they’re in ruts, feel a lot of doubt, feel a lot of being disconnected, frankly, existential issues. And, you know, religion also is a place where people can find purpose, find community, get out of their heads, if you like, of what’s coming at them down the road. Do you feel that that’s — I mean, do you see that, and do you feel that that’s — MCCONAUGHEY: I do. AMANPOUR: Yes. MCCONAUGHEY: I do. And again, even if you don’t believe in God, there are plenty of wonderful ethics that come from religious text that any agnostic would go, I want to follow that. I do believe it is a North Star where we can lean more into and dissect. What we have to, you know, watch out for is we like to slam the author, meaning, you know, whether the Ten Commandments should be in schools or not, I’m not going to say, but does anyone disagree with any of them? Now, they’re saying no, because the author do — there’s plenty of things in the Koran that we could all look at and go, yes, I subscribe, and I may be a Christian or I may be a nonbeliever. There are plenty of things in many religious texts that I think we should put up. But religion, we, mankind has bastardized religion along the way. I always like to bring this up. You know, the Latin root of religion is ligare, which means to bind together, and re, which means again. Now, a lot of people that I call — that I talk to, they say, no, I’m merely spiritual, I’m not religious. That’s exactly what they’re for. So, personkind, mankind, civilization, we bastardize religion. What we’ve done to it is not what I believe God was saying, that’s what I want you to do with it. So, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. There’s a wonderful — there’s a bunch of wonderful things that we can get from religion. And I personally think life is religious. Now, that’s me. You want to call yourself spiritual or agnostic, fine. But you do have something you believe in. I bet you do have something you die for. You do have something that you pursue that’s of value to you. And if you can double down on that, amen. AMANPOUR: So, you know, there are obviously a lot of religious people in the world. Some of them are hucksters, as we know. Some of them prey on vulnerable people. Others are wearing their religion on their hearts and, you know, using religion to justify their politics. But you — you know, you are religious, as you’ve told me, and you are best known for being an actor. I just wondered what it’s like on set. Do you communicate your religious beliefs, feelings, or this kind of really interesting conversation to fellow actors, or do you separate the two? MCCONAUGHEY: No, I talk openly. And I’m also not out — I’m not out pursuing conversion. I have these conversations and have many conversations with many friends of mine who would call themselves agnostic. We do not disagree on certain principles and the ways and rules of engagement in life with ourselves and others. I may get to the end and go, and therefore, God exists. But like when I heard Carl Sagan break down the universe for three hours, he did it, I opened my mind up, I listened, and at the very end, my line was I was going to go, and therefore, God exists. But what he said was, and therefore, God doesn’t exist. We didn’t agree on — we didn’t disagree on anything the first three hours. And what he did was built my faith up, but he — his point was, and therefore, God doesn’t exist. We had a wonderful laugh at that. Because we were so — it was beautiful how we got there. So, I have conversations on set with friends all the time. We say — I say grace with many of my agnostic, even atheist friends at the table who can find something to be thankful for in their life. I may start it off with, thank you, God. They may just say, thank you. Fine. AMANPOUR: Yes. No, I get it. Now, you have a new film out, of course, it’s called “The Lost Bus.” Your real-life mother is in it with you. What was it like? And also, your son. I mean, three generations of McConaughey’s. What was that like? MCCONAUGHEY: Well, it was wonderful. I never thought of that, never dreamed of it, never hoped it would happen, never tried to really make it happen. It was our director, Paul Greengrass, who cast my son, even though when I pulled his last name off the reed that he had on camera, he got it on his own without his last name. And then my mother, who Paul needed to cast someone for my mother, he goes, what about your mom? I said, well, she’s 93. She actually just fell — butchered her tailbone. She’s in a wheelchair. He said, that be perfect for the part? I said, well, let me get her in front of you first. And he goes, yes, give me something on camera. I said, mom, give me a minute on why you love being a mother. She sends an eight-minute video. He looks at it and goes, great. She’s it. That’s who I want. So, all of a sudden, I’m on set with my mom and my son. And the other night, I must say, we had — we premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, to be between those two, as a father to my son on the right and a son to my mother on the left, who’s 93, and to see them beaming, one just getting started, one feeling great relevance in doing this in her life, was a wonderful bridge and place to be for myself. AMANPOUR: And do both those generations sandwiching you, are both of them religious, your mother? And does your son have the same feelings as you? MCCONAUGHEY: Well, my son is the most considerate young man I’ve ever met. Where does that consideration come from? Partially who he is and who he was when he was born, but also, I’d like to say that Camilla and I can take some credit for what we learned in our household of how to be individuals and understand who you are and also stand up for things but have compassion for yourself and how you treat yourself as I used to treat others and vice versa. I think they’re conscientious young children. I’m not going to go so far to say for my son, oh, he’s religious. I’m letting him navigate the definition of that for himself. I’m pretty — It feels nice as a parent when your kids go out of the house and come back into the world and people that they engaged with when you weren’t there, come back and tell you great things about how they were, how they behaved, how they were kind or they were considerate, how they were a leader, da, da, da, da. You go, oh, OK. it seems to be working. Now, my mom, we grew up on — you know, she’s — no one forgives themselves quicker than her. She says every night, I said, mom, what’s the secret to being 93 and so happy? She goes, I go to bed with a list of 25 things that I regret every night. The best thing is I wake up in the morning and I forgot them all. AMANPOUR: That is good. That is the advantage of age. I like that. MCCONAUGHEY: Yes, yes. AMANPOUR: Listen, you also have some other, you know, issues in your book. You talk about disinformation. And here’s one idea that stood out. In our age of politics, you write, A.I., plastic surgery and high frequency fix- it-in post deep fake deceptions, I often find myself walking away from all the knowledge and reality, more confused, more frustrated and less well advised than I was before I consumed it. It is actually hard these days to find your — you know, your true north, your sort of guiding star. MCCONAUGHEY: Yes, I was talking to a friend yesterday and he says he believes we’re in the age of disorientation, you know, and to orient ourselves in this changing world and open up the news and see what A.I. is doing and the human jobs that it’s taking and the human jobs that it’s promised to create. But we’re still saying, OK, which ones are those going to be? It seems to be we’re definitely in a time in history, even maybe more so than the Internet that in the industrial revolution that we are about to redefine how we engage in life. And so, how do we orient ourselves in that? You know, and how do — where you don’t know if something’s real or not. If the questions of what’s truth or what’s a fact are more up in the air now than ever. So, that can be that can be painful. It can be confusing. And we have to wonder, where’s my place in it? And what do I rely on? What is real? If you give a damn about reality, that’s another question is something that’s virtual, just as real. Those are more questions that we got to answer. So, you know, what can we trust in? You know, and again, I’ll go back to that thing, if it’s hard and it is hard, ask yourself who or what you die for. Look at that. Double down on that. Nourish that. Thin that garden a little bit more. And that can help us at least keep a compass. That’s a good nourish start. No matter where the world goes and where we find orientation in it. AMANPOUR: You know, some people would say, you know, they would, I mean, maybe not die for, but somehow do everything for the American dream. And you talk about that, too, in the book. And you cover, you know, that with a lot of big issues. You talk about patriotism and about the American dream. You say, so, whether you think it’s a dream or an illusion, if nothing else, it’s the best nightmare available. What do you mean by best nightmare? MCCONAUGHEY: I heard that term, I believe, from a friend of mine in Europe about 15 years ago. Wow, at least it’s the best nightmare going. And I was like, ah, what an interesting way to think about it. And it’s base — it’s an indirect sort of baseline compliment. But for those of us, and myself included, when we start going, oh, it’s all BS. There’s no system. Capitalism doesn’t work. Socialism doesn’t work. Communism doesn’t work. Because all politics is all bull. You know, every country does. That slippery slope that can start to take away all belief. I go, well, you know what — and I talk about this in the poem, “America Yet,” about America as an idea. It’s a constant pursuit that will never be achieved. We just have to stay in the race and stay in the chase to progress in the right way. Best nightmare going, it’s a bit of a tongue-in- cheek going well. If you look around, I’m going to say they’re all nightmares. Pick the best nightmare. It’s kind of like saying, well, if you don’t believe in heaven, at least make a move to get further from hell. AMANPOUR: Unfortunately, we are living in a bit of a nightmare scenario, you know, right now all over the world. I want you to read for me, if you wouldn’t mind, from Regulations, the other poem we’ve chosen. MCCONAUGHEY: Sure. Regulations. Listen to yourself. Hear yourself. Learn yourself and mind. Measure yourself. Train yourself. Referee yourself in kind. Negotiate yourself. Invest yourself. Multiply yourself in scale. Administer yourself. Accomplish yourself. Dare yourself from hell. Own yourself. Exchange yourself. Pay yourself back. Yes. AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you, because we started by you at 15 asking all those existential questions, including who am I, do you know who you are now? MCCONAUGHEY: Oh, that’s a really fun question. Do I know who I am now? I’m doing the best to wake up every day and feed the things that do seem to satisfy me for longer periods of time. I have found and built a life where I have investments that are non-negotiable, starting with family. And, you know, I still have to watch over leveraging myself and getting too many campfires. I think we all do. You get too many campfires, you know there’s something that — get rid of some campfires and put more wood on some of the original fires that really mean a lot to us. I know what things mean to me in life. I have a lot of meaning in my life. I have a pretty good threshold when I feel like I’m getting away with it and I’m skirting on the edges. I need to pull myself back. But I still want to take risks. And I look forward to getting up each day, even if I’ve got a host of problems I’ve got to solve in front of it. And it’s easier to know who you’re not than who you are. But I have a pretty good sense when I look around me of reflections that tell me who I am. AMANPOUR: Well, that’s a wonderful place to be. Matthew McConaughey, thank you very much indeed. MCCONAUGHEY: I enjoyed that. Look forward to the next time, Christiane. AMANPOUR: Me too. Good luck. And I look forward to seeing “Lost Bus.” MCCONAUGHEY: Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Next, rethinking widely held beliefs about racial inequality. For decades, scholars have drawn a strong link between high rates of single- parent households and the disadvantages faced by black Americans. Well, our next guest is challenging that idea. It’s all in her new book, “Inherited Inequality.” Harvard sociologist Christina Cross joins Michel Martin to explain how viewing systemic disparity through a different lens could help these disadvantaged black communities. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Professor Christina Cross, thank you so much for joining us. CROSS: Thanks for having me. It’s great to be here. MARTIN: You know, your book is kind of a myth buster, I guess, if I could call it that, because you really challenge some of the things that we have just sort of come to accept as part of kind of social policy or family policy. You say that, you know, you open the book by reflecting on your own childhood in Milwaukee, where the two-parent family was kind of held up as the antidote to all manner of ills like, you know, poverty and crime and so forth. And one of the reasons that that struck me just to begin with is that I think that there’s sort of an attitude that African-Americans don’t talk about issues like this among themselves, like this sort of an outside-in conversation. And so, the first thing that I noticed was you say that this was kind of a commonly discussed theme in your childhood, you know, at church and your family members. Can you just talk about that very briefly? CROSS: Yes. So, I, like you mentioned, am from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and I grew up in a working-class community there. And many times, I would hear folks at church, at school, within my neighborhood sort of trying to grapple with many of the challenges that we were facing and trying to understand what really was driving some of the issues within my community. And often, family structure in particular, single-parent families came up as part of the narrative. And a lot of times the story was that our community was better off when we had higher rates of two-parent households and that, unfortunately, there had been a change with an increase in single-parent families, which was, among other things, a really important factor in driving some of the challenges we were facing. MARTIN: But here’s where your book takes an interesting turn. You write that, Americans have great faith in the power of the family, and in particular the power of the two-parent family. We imagine this domestic idol to be a haven from the harsh realities of the outside world. And the way we rhapsodic, it’s easy to assume that most Americans see the two- parent family as a great equalizer. And you say you were raised to believe in this, and growing up the adults regularly invoke this family structure as a solution to a host of problems facing our low-income African-American community. So, that’s the first thing you say, that look, there’s a reason that so many of us continue to hold fast to the idea that, you know, two-parent families are advantageous. It’s true. I mean, it’s just common sense. But one of the central findings here is that the negative effect of single motherhood on child outcomes is weaker for African-American children than for white children. And the well-being of black youth from two-parent families is substantially lower than that of their white peers. When is the first time that that finding became clear to you? CROSS: Well, it was about a decade ago for me when I was working on my dissertation research. Like any good graduate student, I wanted to explore what we already knew about the topic of family structure before designing a project of my own. And one of the things that I found relatively hidden in the data was this striking finding. I had found that several researchers had uncovered that the negative impact of living with a single mother was smaller for African- American children. And, of course, I was really struck by that, given the conversations that I had been hearing since I was a child. But also, what I knew more generally, 80 percent of white Americans and 70 percent of Hispanic Americans and 60 percent of African-Americans all agreed that African-Americans have a harder time getting ahead because of differences in family upbringing, specifically family structure. So, this a consensus or a widely held idea that was at odds with what I was finding in the data, which made me explore more. That finding was about single motherhood consensus or a widely held idea that was at odds with what I was finding in the data, which made me explore more. That finding was about single motherhood, and I began to wonder about the flip side of the coin. What is it like for African-American children when they grow up in two-parent families? Do they reap the same rewards? MARTIN: Do they reap the same reward? So, do you want to take — can we take those sort of separately? What’s your theory? Why is it that growing up in a single parent household is more damaging to white kids than to black kids? Why do you think that is? CROSS: That actually became the focus of my dissertation research, and I began to test some theories that had already been put out in the world, but they were at that point speculation. There were two in particular that I decided to test. One of them focused on extended families. So, we know that, in general, African-Americans tend to be more deeply embedded in their extended family networks. They’re much more likely to live with extended kin or to live close to them, and they engage in significant amounts of support exchange. And one of the theories suggested that African-Americans more deeply embeddedness in this extended family actually served as a protective factor, sort of buffered against some of the negative consequences of single motherhood. MARTIN: I think kind of anecdotally, a lot of us have seen that, you know what I mean? And it also explains the way that sort of legal structures kind of work against black families. Like, for example, this whole business of people registering their kids in out-of-boundary schools, like schools where they don’t live but maybe their grandparents live. And then you look more closely at it and you think, oh, wait a minute. The grandparents function as another set of parents. Like the grandparents might have the kids Monday through Friday, and the parent has the kids on the weekends because that’s a better school. And then people look at that and think, oh, you’re doing something illegal. But for them, it makes sense. It’s normal, right? CROSS: Yes. And actually, that’s one of the things that I have explored in other areas of my research, how some groups just do family differently. And it’s much more common for African-Americans to involve extended relatives in routine child-rearing tasks and even to share households some of the time or all of the time with these extended relatives. But if we focus so much on the nuclear family, we will miss that, and we can make it actually much harder to support these families. MARTIN: And you’re saying that the corollary to that is that white families, that’s less common. It’s less common, like the focus really is very much sort of the nuclear family and that if a single parent doesn’t have that, it becomes much harder. CROSS: Well, they’re much more likely to live further apart from other relatives. And actually, in my study, I found that many single parents, white single parents, reported less satisfaction with the amount of support they were receiving from their extended relatives. MARTIN: Interesting. OK. So, then let’s take it the other way, which is to say that black kids who live with two parents don’t seem to reap the same benefit as white kids who live with two parents. Why is that? CROSS: Well, to understand this, I think it’s important to understand why living in a two-parent family is generally beneficial for children in the first place. And it’s because parents have more monitoring and time to spend supervising children, but they also have more money on average. So, in general, children in two-parent families have access to more resources. Well, unfortunately, one of the things that I found in my data is that black children who grew up in two-parent families have drastically fewer resources, in particular economic resources, than white children who grew up in the same type of family. Their household incomes are about 60 percent of that of white two-parent households, and their family wealth is just a quarter, 25 percent. MARTIN: Why does that matter? Why does that matter, that the gap in wealth and assets, the money that exists because of, you know, your house or your investments and things like that? Why does that gap matter so much, in your opinion? CROSS: Well, wealth matters so much for being able to give people a sense of economic security at any point, but especially during moments of downturn, right? You mentioned the recession earlier. Having wealth can make all the difference in being able to keep your home or not, and being able to afford to send your children to a quality school, and being able to provide children other advantages as they try to establish their own independent household. There are many parents who offer their children help with down payments to own homes, which, of course, allows for a greater and earlier accumulation of more wealth. So, you can sort of see this compounding advantage from having access to more assets and having higher levels of wealth. MARTIN: Are any of these findings surprising to you? CROSS: Well, yes, actually. It was already concerning to find that black children from two-parent families had drastically lower academic and labor market opportunities than their white peers. But what I was really struck by, and what I did not expect to find, is that black children in two-parent families had outcomes that were more similar to their white peers who lived in a single-parent family than to their white peers who grew up with both parents. MARTIN: Why is that? CROSS: Well, it goes back to these resource disparities that I mentioned before in large part. But actually, I found that for some outcomes, economic resources had less to do with what was going on, but things outside the home also come into play. So, one thing that I found is that black children in two-parent families were two to four times more likely to be suspended or expelled from school than their white peers. And they had very high suspension rates compared to any group. Well, economic resources only explained a small fraction of what was going on there. But what I also found is that when it comes to their behaviors, they were not different with respect to how they showed up in the classroom. But there’s been a ton of research to show that black children’s behaviors are often perceived to be more negative and disruptive in a classroom. And so, then we think about how perception really plays a role in driving these disparities in school discipline. MARTIN: What are some of the things that would actually in your — based on your findings, actually make a difference for families? CROSS: So, it is true that when black children grow up with both parents, they tend to experience advantages. And they do tend to have improved outcomes. It is also true, unfortunately, that they still lag behind their white peers in the same family structure. And my findings indicate that much of that has to do with these wide gaps in economic resources. And so, if we really want to turn the tide, we need to be thinking about how to bolster family resources. Instead of making cuts to key social safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and Children’s Health Insurance Program, we could be thinking about ways to help families to stay afloat during these challenging times by increasing that amount of aid. Another thing that people are really surprised to find out is that TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which we just commonly refer to as Welfare, its budget has not increased since it was created in 1996. So, nearly 30 years ago. And when we think about inflation since that time, we really start to see that this program is falling behind in the amount of support that it is providing to families or what we thought was adequate even 30 years ago. So, even just thinking about trying to make sure that that funding keeps up with inflation. There’s also been different strategies that we’ve seen that were effective recently that we could have continued. I think about the expansion of the child tax credit during the COVID-19 pandemic and how that lifted tens of millions of children out of poverty. And it really made a difference in increasing economic resources for families. Why can’t we continue to do that? We see that it works. MARTIN: I’m imagining that some might look at your findings and say that this takes people off the hook. that people should exercise personal responsibility. And that sort of blaming outside forces for your kids’ lack of success in school and things of that sort just doesn’t — is unhelpful and kind of perpetuates a sort of a lack of sense of personal responsibility. What would you say to somebody who made that argument? CROSS: Well, the thing about my book is that I’m looking at people who’ve done it, quote/unquote, “the right way.” They’ve done what society said we should do in order to guarantee our children’s success. And yet, they have not found their children in a position to actualize those same dreams of success. Unfortunately, their children don’t have access to the same opportunities. So, this goes beyond the individual. These are parents who have managed to stay together for decades. I follow children from birth through young adulthood, and they provided a stable home for their children. And after doing what they were told was supposed to guarantee them a bright future for their children, they still have to endure additional barriers. This not simply about individual responsibility. Individuals, of course, have choice and agency, but they’re also facing significant constraints. MARTIN: Professor Christina Cross, thank you so much for talking with us. CROSS: Thank you for having me. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: That’s it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London. END |