Check out this video:
So here’s a pretty interesting video on the power of empathy based on the philosophy of Roman Krznaric (and various others). I don’t think we necessarily need to know a lot about Krznaric or the scenarios he talks about in the video to have a productive and interesting discussion about it. My favourite type of philosophy doesn’t necessarily involve reading heaps of philosophy and then critically analysing it (though there is certainly a place for this); it involves finding an interesting concept and running with it. So with this in mind I want to focus on the general message of the video: that is, that empathy can be the driver not only of knowledge of oneself, but also of radical and much needed social change, and specifically with the latter half of this message – if others want to take up the former ‘knowledge of oneself’ part go ahead!
Exactly how important is empathy to radical social change?
I think empathy is incredibly important to radical social change, because empathy helps us to understand things not only at a rational, academic level, but also at an emotional level; a level on which most humans live and which most humans strongly relate to. I think most of us would say that understanding is key to radical social change, and I hope to show how empathic understanding is an important component of this understanding.
There are plenty of situations in which a rational, academic understanding can only take us so far. Reading about wars, droughts, famine and various other instabilities throughout the world, for example, can sometimes seem a little surreal, a little detached from reality. The human impact of various conflicts is often (not always but often) lost in a sea of detail and numbers and that is a great, great loss. War, after all, is as much about the lost husbands and sons, the raped wives and daughters as it is about power shifts in local or global political systems. Empathy, I think, is key to understanding and really feeling the impact of such events, though in some ways it is also tho most difficult way to do so because it hits you HARD.
Yet, empathy is not only applicable in obviously emotional events like war.
Take a case concerning environmental issues: we can’t figure out how to change companies that pollute profusely without understanding why they do. Once we understand that part of the reason that companies pollute profusely is because polluting is cheap (monetarily, legally and ideologically), and that ultimately, companies are there to make a profit and fear losing support from various stake-holders, we can use this understanding to target campaigns that aim to change such practices. The most effective campaigns, in this case, are those that pander to the company’s desire to make a substantial profit, whilst still protecting the environment (note: these, may be the most effective, that doesn’t mean they are the easiest to create). Book learning can take us part of the way in this understanding, but I think understanding the needs, desires and particularly fears of companies on a non-academic, emotive level, requires empathy.
Empathy is not only a useful tool for those who have already decided to act (by informing their understanding of the situation); it can also be a useful tool for motivating people to act. It was one of the great catalysts of civilian protest against the Vietnam War, for example. When people actually saw what was happening in Vietnam on TV as opposed to merely reading or listening to radio reports about it, they were more easily able to empathise and sympathise with the troops and civilians involved. They comprehended the atrocity of war on an emotional rather than purely rational, academic level and this caused a wave of emotionally-driven protests predominantly in the USA but also here in Aus. Krznaric further evidences the idea that empathising, understanding and really feeling the impact of situations can be a great catalyst for action, in his discussion of the Anti-Slavery movement in the USA and UK. If we want to motivate people to take action on any given topic, one of the most effective ways of doing so is to appeal to their emotional rather than rational side (and this is not necessarily a negative thing!).
If we want to support radical social change we need to encourage people empathise with the victims of a give situation and thus encourage them to act, and then encourage them to empathise further with all the relevant parties in the given situation, so they will be able to decide how to act most effectively. Empathy is not the only condition necessary for social change (having the physical, economic and ideological security to empathise in the first place is also key) but it is clearly an important one. When Krnzaric asks, who should we empathise with? I think the answer is really, whoever we want to understand, whoever we want to interact with and make a difference toward. Empathy is important for radical social change. It is important in informing the understanding and thus actions of those who have already decided to act, and it is important in motivating people to act in the first place, both of which are important to implementing effective social change. That’s how I see it. What do you think?
Note: there is also a very significant and related issue regarding empathy’s role in making moral judgements, and I’ve hinted at here and there but haven’t gone into it in depth (I didn’t want to make this too long!). For those who are interested see Wilks, Colin. 2002. Emotion, Truth and Meaning. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. Particularly chapters 5 and 6. There’s a couple of copies in the Auchmuty Library.
Yes, emotional experience is definitely separate to rational thinking. Emotion is a product of our older brain and rationality came a lot later in our evolution when we developed our thinking prefrontal cortex. But I can see what Jack means when he says the dichotomy can be hard to find. Our thoughts can control or be controlled by emotion a lot of the time so the term ‘emotional intelligence’ is a tricky one because it is not a kind of intelligence you can have purely via rational understanding, and yet a rational understanding can certainly complement it.
I agree with you Tim that empathy is not altruism, I was following Katherine’s direction and discussing its use as a tool for altruistic social change and a certainly necessary requirement for compassion. Empathy being distinct from altruism is precisely why large businesses can capitalise upon it to make more money as opposed to doing good things for moral reasons.
As for Singer, I’m familiar with his utilitarianism and the child drowing in a pond scenario (I wrote a very long and tiring essay about it over the holidays!). Singer uses evidence from experimental psychology to reveal the resilience and irrationality of emotional moral intuitions. He finds that intuitions are responsible for the majority of moral judgments made in everyday life and that reasoning comes as an afterthought to make sense of the judgment. I think this is pretty obvious and agree that intuitions (such as this one that was common not too long ago: ‘white people are better than black people’) can be really dangerous if not challenged by those ‘afterthoughts’. But I think it is naive to say that we can train ourselves out of having intuitions altogether.
Singer demonstrates this himself when he observes that when the brain’s ventromedial prefrontal cortex is damaged, it causes emotional under-reactions to emotionally disturbing stimuli, increased likelihood to break the moral standards within the relevant context, and psychopathic tendencies. He is right, people with damage to this area do become antisocial and display psychopathic tendencies. But I think this is evidence in favour of intuitions, not against them! Yes, they are products of evolution. So are our hands, our eyes, and even our rationality. Without intuitions, we may as well be on the autism spectrum or be psychopathic. If to feel what is right is purely a biological capacity that disappears along with that one piece of brain tissue responsible for it… then let’s be really happy that we still have it! After all, intuitions can be trained. Singer himself would have trained his own sense of what is right and wrong using his fundamental moral principle that suffering should be minimised, utility maximised. Surely he relies upon his ventromedial prefrontal cortex when he responds with emotional disgust to the moral attitudes of men who buy expensive shoes instead of donating to UNICEF.
Whoops, got a bit sidetracked. To link this back to the theme of empathy: as much as empathy is a relic of evolution, I think it is necessary for moral action and compassion. Pairing empathetic understandings with rational ones can be conducive to positive social change/altruism just as pairing emotional intuition with a rational process can help us find answers to everyday moral problems.
***Underlying my assumption that morality is reliant upon emotion is my constructivist view of morality… but after our brains were given a workout in last semester’s course I’m sure Dylan and Katherine will smack me if I start a conversation about the constitution of morality (sorry guys!). We can stick to empathy 🙂
p.s. wikipedia suits me just fine!
Nice article article Katherine. My day job is distracting me from viewing the video and giving your thoughts lots of reflection but one thought that arises for me is that I don’t in myself get the dichotomy between rational and emotional. To a large extent I believe I have improved my emotional intelligence through intellectual learning. In others words I think I have gained more empathy from improving my cognitive capacity. Isn’t that why we say education paves the way for social change?
I agree with what you’re saying about learning helping with empathy, Jack.
However, I think there’s evidence of a dichotomy in the brain that could be roughly described as emotional/analytical.
For example, the tendency for people with asperges syndrome to be good at mathematics; chess; music, but find some social situations difficult
The cognitive ability of children with AS often allows them to articulate social norms in a laboratory context, where they may be able to show a theoretical understanding of other people’s emotions; however, they typically have difficulty acting on this knowledge in fluid, real-life situations.
(wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism#Asperger_syndrome_and_interpersonal_relationships)
Aside: are we cool to quote wikipedia? No one’s marking it…
There’s also the difference in functioning of the two hemispheres of the brain. If you want an entertaining summary of this, check out this TED talk from a neuroscientist that suffered a stroke:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Ash: I don’t think empathy and altruism necessarily go hand in hand. Empathy is a survival instinct. We benefit if we cooperate, so we evolve to do it subconsciously (eg mirroring body language, responding to facial expressions, and detecting pheromones – behavioural queues like this being the only option if we are going to ignore the introspective). That’s different to putting others first.
As Peter Singer points out, we would help a child drowning in a shallow pond at the cost of ruining a pair of shoes (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm). Is this a product of altruism? Or is it a complex weighing up of costs and payoffs, so primal I do it without noticing?
Singer and this video both point out the need for shared experience. We need to be close to the suffering to empathise with it. My tribal evolutionary history makes me inclined to empathise with the people around me – to a degree. Of course people weigh things up in the kid’s favour against a pair of shoes. But what if a person lost their own life to save the child? Would we have as many takers?
Empathy, but not altruism, is at work here. They just overlap most of the time.
I agree that empathy is just as (if not more) powerful for instigating social change as rational argument for most people. Understanding the positions of companies is absolutely necessary before attempting to lead them into environmentally greener pastures. What is interesting on the flipside, though, is that empathy is also being capitalised on by the very companies we want to find empathy for.
In the research for my thesis I have come across the recent obsession with empathy and compassion within popular psychology. Tonnes of research has gone into pinpointing the neural correlates of empathy on brain scans and there are now plenty of courses and programs out there which claim to increase levels of empathy in participants. Big companies have their employees complete such programs to maximise the efficiency of the business. One such course claims that even if we are being helped by an employee who is technically accurate, if they do not relate to or show empathy for us then “their lack of concern leaves us unsatisfied with the service they have delivered.”
Here is a list of this program’s objectives:
“At this program’s conclusion, participants should be able to:
-Explain why empathy is important to the organization.
-Describe how tone of voice, pacing, and other verbal cues impact a customer’s experience.
-Demonstrate the use of open-ended and closed questions.
-Use techniques for listening better to challenging speakers.
-Show compassion for disheartened, confused, and disgruntled customers.
-Develop an action plan to improve their empathy skills.”
http://businesstrainingworks.com/course-outlines/empathy-skills-training-course
So empathy is most certainly an effective tool that can be used to affect those around us, but not always for ultimately altruistic reasons.