Those trained in the humanities and social sciences (not to
mention the rest of us) now have a new political topic to study and to argue
about. Musk recently took a break from downsizing the government to appear on
the popular Joe Rogan blog. He poured more gasoline on our political divide by
stating, “The fundamental weakness of Western Civilization is empathy.” The
meaning and application of empathy instantly became a new political lighting
rod.
The humanities (including religion, philosophy,
and history) focus on the interpretation and understanding of human expression
and thought. The social sciences (including psychology, sociology, and
economics) use scientific methods to study human behavior and institutions.
These disciplines have always played a role in understanding
politics; by studying the world views and personalities of political actors. Statements
and actions of our government officials are frequently analyzed in an attempt
to nail down the broader context of what they are thinking and how they will
act.
Utterances by President Trump, Elon Musk, Republican members of
the Cabinet and of Congress are continuously parsed for meaning. Previously, the
words of Democrats, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris,
underwent similar treatment.
Empathy can only be studied and discussed when its definition
and meaning is understood relative to similar concepts like sympathy and
compassion.
Sympathy “focuses on feeling sorry for someone else’s situation, while
remaining detached.” Here the common expression is “I am so sorry for your
loss” without a clue on how the grieving person actually feels.
Empathy “involves
an intellectual identification or understanding of someone else’s feelings and
experiences.” It invokes the common expression of “putting yourself in another
person’s shoes.”
Compassion “combines empathy with a desire to alleviate suffering.” A
compassionate person is motivated to take affirmative action to help someone
who is suffering.
A simple illustration that highlights the differences would be: Seeing the homeless man shivering in the cold,
I felt sympathy. Then I thought about how I would feel and empathized with his
situation. Finally, with compassion, I offered my coat to keep him warm.
Following Musk’s comments on empathy, its application came under
intense scrutiny. The Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at
Fordham University, Dr. George Demacopoulos, immediately shot back, “Has the Trump administration effectively
declared war on the most significant contribution of Christianity to Western
culture? Does it not realize that empathy is one of Western Civilization’s
greatest strengths? Will any Christian supporter of the administration publicly
criticize such an outlandish claim?”
Daryl Cameron, Associate
Professor of Psychology and Senior Associate at Rock Ethics Institute wrote
about the importance of empathy in Scientific American. “Many of us are
asking about the role of empathy in American politics…Empathy is a strength,
not a weakness. If we let ourselves become callous to other’s needs, we risk
losing sight of democracy and the importance of treating each other with
dignity.”
Joe Rigney is a theologian living
in Russia who agrees with Musk. He has written a book, The Sin of Empathy
that has gained popularity among some conservative Christians. His thesis is that “empathy is the greatest
rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21st century.” Rigney
believes that empathy is sinful because it “compels an individual to surrender
his/her mind to the emotional responses of others”.
Rigney’s followers believe that empathy has
been exploited by progressives to manipulate people into supporting causes they
would otherwise reject. For example, if people respond to Trump’s foreign aid shutdown by
talking about how children might suffer or die, they are exhibiting "toxic
empathy.”
In 2011, David Brooks wrote an important essay,
The Limits of Empathy, for the New York Times. After reviewing all the available
literature, Brooks decided that, “People
who are empathetic are more sensitive to the perspectives and sufferings of others.
They are more likely to make compassionate moral judgments.”
Greg Depow, a psychologist and fellow at the
Rady School of Management, University of California responded to Musk, “I study
empathy, Elon Musk gets it all wrong. From an evolutionary perspective, empathy
was foundational to the formation of society. Empathy
drives volunteer work and helping behaviors. It fosters connection, builds trust and
reduces conflict. Broadening empathy is the driving force that has moved us
from tribal bonds to religious ties, to nation states, and could eventually
move us to global cooperation.”
No former president has been analyzed more than
Abraham Lincoln. The political divide and violence he faced makes today’s
controversies appear inconsequential. In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s epic biography
of Lincoln, Team of Rivals, she makes it clear that Lincoln’s empathy
for hostile members of his cabinet and for those fighting for the confederacy helped
to end the Civil War and to build a lasting peace.
There are many measuring sticks with which to
compare the presidencies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden with that of Donald
Trump. No one would question that Obama and Biden were often empathetic in
their words and deeds and that Trump is not.
The two Democrats tended to place themselves in
the shoes of those suffering before speaking or rendering a decision. Trump and
Musk are transactional individuals who focus on results. They view empathy as a
sign of weakness.
As concerned Americans we should consider what
experts in the humanities and social sciences have to say about empathy and
leadership. Ultimately, we must decide whether empathy is important.
No comments:
Post a Comment