“The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.”
It is probably beyond the abilities of humans to be fully empathic with others. We are each unique individuals with unique histories and experiences. We are not mind readers (and, most of the time, I am extremely glad of that). Thus, the ability to understand and share the feelings of another has to be, at best, a partial ability. Saying such does not mean that we shouldn’t do the best job that we can.
Most of our empathy is brought out by analogy. If we have suffered a severe illness, we have closely interacted with someone with a severe illness, or even if we know a person struggling with a severe illness — then we can empathize to a certain degree with those struggling with their own personal challenges. Is it possible to truly empathize without any knowledge of the effects of severe illness? I don’t know. If I take the definition word by word, I would have to say “no”. Perhaps sympathy is the best one can achieve but, once again, striving for the best we can do is always reasonable.
Although empathy is primarily an emotional response, it can have historical and knowledge aspects. Being aware of what families, or groups, have had to deal with over the years is often relevant to the ability to understand and share in the present. Often, only those within the group can truly understand the ins and outs of the group but, once again, we can do the best we can.
There are artificial divisions that can increase the difficulty in empathizing. The caste system in India, the ranks of nobility in those countries that still have such, or the amount of wealth or income in much of the world. My old blog — “The poor are from rich; the born rich are from Jupiter” — goes into some of the difficulties that people born within certain classes have in truly understanding, and empathizing, with people in other classes.
Is it reasonable to expect someone who doesn’t have a budget, or limitation, on shopping to be able to understand someone who has to keep a running total of what they have in their shopping cart to prevent an embarrassing situation at the cashier? Perhaps they have never set foot in a grocery store? Probably not. I suggested in my blog and I suggest here, a requirement for all to spend time in the Peace Corp might be of great help in supporting empathy.
We talk about the ability to understand and share — doesn’t everyone have such an ability? Except for psychopaths and sociopaths — for which non-empathy is part of the definition — I believe that most people have the ability and can enhance, and increase, it with continued use. Not all choose to go down that path. Some actively try to suppress their empathy and restrict the ability of others to express empathy. Much of this seems to stem from fear. Fears of inadequate resources — including food, jobs, and housing. Xenophobia is a more generalized fear of having empathy.
Murder, and authorized killing, is much more difficult if a person empathizes with the other. The first step in preparing for a group, or country, to go to war is dehumanize the opposition — to make them non-persons and to fully override any possibility for empathy. Most major world religions (I don’t know of any that do not but there is a lot I do not know) emphasize empathy (say that quickly five times in succession) — via some variant of what is called the “Golden Rule” in Christianity.
In the New Testament, the accepted words of Jesus indicate that the Golden Rule is more important than almost every other law or rule. It is not that large of a stretch to say that the Golden Rule is just a lengthy definition of empathy. Certainly, the parables and lessons of Jesus (on compassion, tolerance, and generosity) have empathy at their heart. Deliberately turning away from generosity causes many problems.
One may not be able to truly “walk in another’s footsteps” but we can all try.
No comments:
Post a Comment