This is an Open Thread / Coffee Hour and all topics of conversation are welcome. What is for dinner? How are you doing? What is on your mind. If you are new to Street Prophets please introduce yourself below in a comment. This Coffee Hour series is brought to you by Empathy.
The Empathic Civilization, by Jeremy Rifkin, is a carefully woven retelling of the story of the emergence of Civilization, with a look into our future. It is a compilation of new promising ideas gathered from biological science, cognitive science, ecology, and even philosophy that creates a prism to redefine ourselves. It is a hopeful book, in that it gives humanity a unifying narrative based on empathy.
The argument against empathy comes from Paul Bloom in his book, Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. Bloom is an Professor of psychology and cognitive science at Yale University so when I came across his ideas I felt it necessary to give him a fair hearing and read his book. I must say he did not change my views on the importance of empathy. But, I think he enriched my understanding of empathy and gave me perspective as to why it is not the magic cure for the world’s problems that progressives hope it is.
This article is continued after the fold. The comments for this article are are after community links and its sub thread.
Please limit community links to one per user because we want to encourage greater diversity of submissions of community links from different users. In the case of a needed fundraiser, either the member in need will write a diary or someone will do it on their behalf. That diary is then linked to in the comments. Please only post community links in community links comment provided.
The Empathic Civilization is a carefully woven retelling of the story of the emergence of Civilization, with a look into our future. It is a compilation of new promising ideas gathered from biological science, cognitive science, ecology, and even philosophy that creates a prism to redefine ourselves. It is a hopeful book, in that it gives humanity a unifying narrative based on empathy.
So central is empathy to this story, that to understand the book, one must have already agreed with Rifkin’s definition of empathy. Perplexingly, this is almost a chicken and egg problem. And, misunderstanding empathy is a hindrance to greater acceptance of these new ideas.
What is Empathy? Let’s start by saying Empathy is a contested word in the public arena. Liberals and Conservatives will disagree on the meaning. The typical conservative views empathy as having its origin in feelings and emotion, thus being of less value than Logic. As to what a progressive thinks of empathy,let’s just say that most cannot define it but they know it when they feel it. I think the power of the word empathy is diminished because the general public doesn’t acknowledge the same definition.
In politics, the high-level frames are moral frames. There are opposing conservative and progressive moral systems. Important political concepts are"contested," overlapping in some classic cases, but diverging in content depending on the moral system. Thus, vital political concepts like Life, Freedom, Responsibility, Government, Accountability, Equality, Fairness,Empathy, Property, Security, and so on are contested.
Daily Kos Article by George Lakoff: Disaster Messaging
Many Conservatives believe that the terms sympathy and empathy are synonymous. Although both words have their groundings in feelings, they are qualitatively different.But before I go in to the details of explaining the differences, let’s look first at what Wikipedia says.
The words empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably. Sympathy is a feeling, but the two terms have distinct origins and meanings. Merriam-Webster defines empathy as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner". Merriam-Webster defines that sympathy is when you share the feelings of another; empathy is when you understand the feelings of another but do not necessarily share them, as sympathy was defined by 18th century philosophers such as Adam Smith. Other social theorists cite this conceptualization in understanding another person's mind and reason, identifying it with other concepts such as "sympathetic imitation", "consciousness of kind", "role-taking", "simulation", and "identification", among others. - From Wikipedia: Sympathy.
The central idea of Rifkin’s book is that the potential to experience empathy is the distinguishing and defining attribute of humanity, and that empathy is driving force behind human evolution. A demanding book the author simply asks we re-think everything we know.
This book is a challenge to the Dawkins selfish gene proponents who believe that selfishness and survival of the fittest is at the core of our behavior. (I just got a new copy of the 40th Anniversary Edition and I’m looking forward to reading it again.)
Rifkin’s book will upset the cart on beliefs about the origin of morality and sin. This book will explain the limits of so called Enlightenment thinking, and where it fails. It even contains spiritual prose:
“We begin to sense the possibility that there may be a purpose after all to the human journey: that the deepening sense of selfhood, the extension of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains of reality and the expansion of human consciousness, is the transcendent process by which we explore the mystery of existence and discover new realms of meaning.”
Jeremy Rifkin, From The Empathic Civilization
Rifkin divides his book into three parts. In part one, Homo Empathicus, Rifkin borrows heavily from Lakoff’s and Johnson’s Philosophy in the Flesh to explain the physical, biological, evolutionary, and cognitive origins of empathy. But, unlike the more academic work, Philosophy in the Flesh, Rifkin’s treatment is more accessible and adds many new examples that have come to light in the last 10 years since the latter was published.
In part two, Empathy and Civilization, Rifkin adopts a different tone. He becomes a story teller, and the story assumes that the findings about Homo Empathicus are true. He creates a compelling story of the evolution of man and civilization through the prism of empathy. Rifkin’s value added, drawing from his own writing background, is linking each increase in empathy to an advance in communication and an increase in energy use.
The last part, The Age of Empathy, is a look to our future. Here he reviews the desperate shape we find ourselves in, with the impending collapse of our biosphere, and suggests we are in a race to find sufficient empathy to save the planet. Rifkin hopes that empathy will transform our conscious in time to head off the extinction of humanity. It was disappointing that he ended the book before suggesting in greater detail how to speed up this transformation.
I can find no fault with the facts and evidence Rifkin presents in his book. However, I think he short changed acknowledgment of many of the author’s works he drew from. This is not to say he did not mention their books in his extensive bibliography. He just could have done a better job of making sure the reader knew where the ideas came from.
Paul Bloom’s book, Against Empathy, also presents lots of facts in case studies, results from cognitive science research, and many compelling stories where the the limits of empathy are exposed. Bloom carefully explains that our personal sense of empathy of what another feels may not be accurate.
A sympathetic understanding is an imaginative attempt to sense another’s otherness without purporting to appropriate or own their existential uniqueness. The belief in a valid empathetic response suggests to me a form of wishful thinking that we are fundamentally knowable to one another – which we are not. Nor should we need to be. Our differences are to be respected and are what make us interesting. Bloom doesn’t go as far as this, but believes that rather than claiming emotional identification we should be cultivating our ability to stand back in order to provide a more rationally effective programme of care.
The Guardian: Against Empathy by Paul Bloom; The Empathy Instinct by Peter Bazalgette – review
What I found interesting is the overwhelming case Bloom makes that local empathy doesn’t translate well to global solutions. This theme of global versus local is an important topic that deserves much space to talk about than I can in this diary. I will be addressing it in future Street Prophet’s diaries.
The above photo effected me deeply when I saw it. It stuck with me for days. And I’m sure everyone reading this today was effected similarly. But consider what Bloom says about it.
Bloom is especially vocal on the need for a rational objectivity in political and social policy and the dangers attendant on decisions prompted by empathy because it is “innumerate and biased”. Empathy, he suggests, narrows our focus in a self-regarding way – there is sustained evidence that we empathise more with those that either resemble us or those we find attractive. The picture of five-year-old Omran Daqneesh, pulled from the rubble in Aleppo, prompted widespread breast-beating, but Bloom would be sceptical of this having much effect on our willingness to give aid to Omran’s equally affected – but unknown – fellow citizens.
The Guardian: Against Empathy by Paul Bloom; The Empathy Instinct by Peter Bazalgette – review
But, I’m afraid Bloom is right. Other than thinking about it for a few days I did nothing to help Omran’s fellow citizens. (Other than trying to elect more and better Democrats by contributing to Daily Kos.)
Here are two examples of Bloom’s thinking he gives in a Vox interview:
I’ll give a controversial one and then a less controversial one. The controversial one has to do with the role of empathy in our criminal justice system, specifically victim statements. In many states, not all, there are victim statements, and these victim statements allow people talk about what happened to them and what it was like when their family member died or when they were assaulted; these often determine sentencing.
Vox: An interview with Paul Bloom by Sean Illing.
Keep in mind the criminal justice system is complex and reflects a long history of common law and tort law. Further it is constrained by the Constitution of the United States and laws passed by local, state, and federal legislation. In other words a very “global” instrument.
I could not imagine a better recipe for bias and unfair sentencing decisions than this. If the victim is an articulate, attractive, white woman, it’s going to be so much more powerful than if the victim is a sullen, African-American man who doesn’t like to talk about his feelings. You suddenly turn the deep questions of how to punish criminals into a question of how much do I feel for this person in front of me? So the bias would be incredibly powerful. So that’s case one.
Vox: An interview with Paul Bloom by Sean Illing.
Pitting the “global” justice system against local testimony may or may not give justice for all concerned due to bias Bloom mentions above.
Case two is about Donald Trump. Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants and Muslims was often framed, particularly early in his campaign, in terms of the suffering of people. He would actually tell these stories. In his rallies, he would tell stories of victims of rape and victims of shooting. He would tell stories of people who lost their jobs. And he was appealing to the empathy of supporters, whose concerns extended mostly to their own tribe.
Vox: An interview with Paul Bloom by Sean Illing.
Trump is using a well tested and confirmed sales method of personalizing something “global” and complex in nature in order to sell his agenda, not achieve any results that are effective, just, or humane.