On Empathy
I have spent weeks trying to write something arguing that empathy is the answer to everything. It’s really a nice thought–everyone is capable of being empathetic and everyone is empathetic in some way. Empathy helps me understand that everyone is working towards some end, whether I think that end is right or wrong. Those individuals believe the way they do because they think that it will better society or humankind. I wanted to show that recognizing empathy in every person is the key to healing modern partisanship. Unfortunately, I have come to the realization that it is not possible. Rather, some people are empathetic and some people really do only consider themselves in their political decisions. Despite this, I still believe that empathy benefits good policy. Not everyone has to be empathetic in order for empathy to be a good ingredient in policy-making. Here is how I came to that turn of mind:
Empathy may be defined as the awareness and sharing of another person’s feelings, experiences, and struggles. It is not just knowing that they have them, but putting yourself in the situation to feel them as others are feeling them. Empathy has been studied in political psychology as a vital characteristic difference between the two main political parties. Various studies–biological and self-reported–show more empathy and neural empathetic response in political leftists than rightist groups. Other reports say that political leadership is different based on the party which is in power, one emphasizing strength, power, and capability, the other emphasizing unity, inclusivity, and empathy.
Although empathy can be seen as a weakness, is it really? I argue, rather, that good policy is impossible without empathetic views from both sides. Those on both sides of our extremely fractured political parties must come to terms with the fact that everyone sees what they are fighting for as the "correct" way to make our society successful. This does not mean that everyone is capable of this reflection. I think there has recently been a turning of the tides in the severity and extremity of the parties and now more than ever, empathy should guide policy. I believe it is possible. Good policies can only be formed empathetically if all empathetic perspectives are considered.
Our democracy was designed to evenly consider everyone’s views. Everyone has a voice and a right to make it heard, no matter what they have to say. If you accept that empathy exists in most people to varying degrees and that everyone gives their perspective when they turn up to a ballot box or give a speech of advocacy (or anything else of the sort) then it is reasonable that empathy has already strongly affected our policies. Our government is a system of rules and policies with the emotion and empathy of millions of people being poured into it. Empathy is vital to those policies and rules.
I still think that both Republicans and Democrats show empathy, they just come from different angles and starting points. Empathy has lost meaning in policy because of mis-application; political psychology has defined leftists as those who have the most empathy.
Jonathan Haidt, American social psychologist and author, believes that rightists work from more natural, evolutionary morals. Their values guide their empathy. Most leftists, he believes, value almost completely different morals than rightists. I think this is false. We all have similar morals and values…never completely the same but most are the same to different degrees of importance. Leftists still value the “conservative value” of tradition and rightists still care about other people outside of themselves, their family or local area. I think the biggest difference is that individuals with these party differences have different methods of applying empathy to their values. This translates into the perceived discrepancy between the two parties. Not all people use empathy in their politics, but it is certainly not strictly based on political affiliation. But none of this means that empathy is bad for policy. Policies and legislation, considering Haidt’s definition of values for each party, are the balance between the empathy towards care and fighting oppression (liberal values) and the empathy towards tradition, faith, and patriotism (conservative values) are all represented in government and policy. If it weren’t for the other, just one side would be underdeveloped and unopposed.
As for the role of reason in all of this, Haidt says that reason is not the first thing the human mind focuses on when reacting to something, and instead it’s instinct. I do think he is right; it’s impossible for us to listen to reason before having an immediate emotional response to a situation or question. But we have the ability to reason immediately following that initial response, so why should we limit the emotional part of making decisions? Political decisions and policy would rarely- if ever- not benefit from lengthy consideration, allowing time for both reason and emotion to be processed. Paul Bloom, a Canadian-American psychologist who has written books opposing empathy, gives a different perspective. He says human beings are very rational. Bloom reassures us that he is not against goodness and kindness, but he doesn’t think it is useful or fair to step into another person’s perspective. He says everyone is biased and one is more likely to empathize with a person whose views they understand rather than the people difficult to relate to. He thinks we require emotions because moral judgements are influenced by these emotions, but we have a huge capacity for rational deliberation, and that this is superior.
So, according to Bloom, empathy appeals only to the emotional part of our thinking, and empathy is weaponized in politics. He emphasizes a more rational approach to judgements and says that some moral judgements should be numerical. Bloom believes that empathy is a spotlight…it places a spotlight on an individual and ignores what is good for the whole. Rather, Bloom prefers rational compassion, as it upholds more responsibility and bare numbers. He even says that empathy can be arrogant; one has no ability to really step into another’s shoes, so why pretend like they can?
I understand Bloom’s ideas about the dangers of becoming too emotional when it comes to policy, but I do not think we have a legislative system that will ever allow emotion to obtain and maintain a stronghold. With human empathy, we make policies that reflect human emotion and depth. It creates a system that is not numerical and not abstract. Take Bloom’s spotlight example; in my view, the spotlights of a billion people with different empathetic perspectives sheds light on the whole issue. It is not algorithmic, but neither is the way humans live.
In practice, our democratic system holds all of this in place. Empathy from one party is evened out by the empathy of the other party. Not every person is empathetic, but it surely cannot hurt our policy. It is valuable that humans have the ability to reason differently and from different starting points with empathy, as it gives us the balance of partisanship. It is not balanced right now; it has become extreme and overly intolerant. I will always admit that I am as partial to one of these sides as anyone else is, and I will not claim to be unbiased from that. I will also not claim that we have to allow that everyone’s perspective is right for our society. The important thing is that we realize most people are doing it out of emotion and a belief of what's true. Many people think that their perspective is the right one for everyone and will help the most people. Some people–arguably a growing number recently-- think less about the whole and more about themselves, but this can not scare us away from empathy.
I think we are in much more serious danger of deep and permanent partisan lines if we give up on empathetic policy. For example, the movement to close borders and not allow immigrants who are suffering in their home country to come to the US in a reasonable amount of time is not an empathetic idea. It has no place being categorized as empathetic in any way. This perspective has become more pronounced in recent administrations. Despite this, Democracy ensures that everyone’s emotions together make good policy. My realization is that empathy is for everyone–it’s practiced on both sides of the aisle. I have to accept that not everyone will follow this recipe for real-human policy, but at least I can emphasize how it is not harmful. Republican empathy for tradition and family values is just as important to the building of our laws and the upholding of our democracy as the Democratic empathy for care and progression. Without both, American democracy would fail. The answer, in my view, is a perspective shift on empathy and the admittance that we all hold similar values to different levels of importance.
