I was startled to read an article in The New York Times, back in July, that told me that lots of people apparently think that "empathy" is not a good thing. You can read all about it, if you'd like to - and not just by way of a newspaper article in The Times, either. Here, for instance, are three books mentioned in the article:
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "empathy" is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another."
I mainly write about "politics." I believe that the world we most immediately inhabit - a "political" world - comes out our collective efforts and that we are "in this together." We are NOT just a collection of separate individuals. While every one of us is an individual, the world that we have created and most immediately inhabit has been created through common effort and action. Again, we do it together. In a world like that (our world) empathy is not only "desirable," it is "necessary."
There are those, of course, who think that individuals are the only meaningful reality. For those who think that way, our "collective" existence simply doesn't exist.
I don't really believe that any thoughtful person denies that we are together in this world. I don't think that any such thoughtful person will really deny that we share, ultimately, a common destiny. The flash floods that took lives in Texas, back in July, were an example of what happens when Global Warming is ignored. We're all here on the one planet. We're not going to be here in the future - at least not living as we do now - if we all act as if the only thing that we should care about is what we, individually, want.
Empathy? We had better prioritize that! If we dismiss empathy as a "sin," and as "toxic," and if we decide that empathy is some sort of "irrational" commitment to care about others, we aren't going to meet the moment that is upon us.
As I said at the beginning, I was startled to hear that this is not, apparently, obvious to everyone.
I hope it is obvious to you - to anyone reading this blog posting today. The stakes are pretty high!
Image Credit:
https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/there-are-actually-3-types-of-empathy-heres-how-they-differ-and-how-you-can-develop-them-all.html
I am 100% a fan of Paul Bloom (note the subtitle of his book). I can't speak to the other two, but in my UCSC class we read (and critique) a selection from Jamil Zaki's The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy can be useful, but IMO (and Bloom's) it is NOT necessary, to create a more just, equitable, sustainable world. In fact, too much "fellow feeling" without reason can backfire (see "Jan 6, 2021"). And all the fellow feeling in the world won't matter if we can't logically analyze what's going on and logically work for structural change.
I hope you'll put Paul Bloom on your reading list!
Thanks for this recommendation, Derede - and for your commentary on my blog posting today. I do confess that I haven’t read Bloom’s book, but if you are in touch with him, please don’t hesitate to let him know that (whatever the substance of his book may be) the title of his book is quite off-putting, at least to me. Based on the title, he is “against” empathy. Really?
DeleteBloom’s personal definition of “empathy” is perhaps different from the definition used by Merriam-Webster, and cited in my blog posting: "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another.” Having a sensitive regard for what others think and feel, and have experienced, is anything but “without reason,” at least in my mind.
You’d convince our current president, of course, that we should not be concerned about others, and what they think, and what they feel, and what they have experienced, but I think we can only achieve positive structural changes in our society, and economy, and government when we “care” about what others think, and what they have experienced, and what they value.
I am not calling for acting “without reason,” on the basis of "fellow feeling,” which I gather you equate with “empathy.” I am just saying that NOT caring about what others think, feel, and have experienced is a sure way to miss our opportunity to bring real changes about. I haven’t read Jamil Zaki’s book, and am not advocating for whatever he may prescribe; I just think that being “against” empathy, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is all too evidently a current watchword of those currently in high office in the United States government, and I don’t think they're doing a good job.