Yes, you read that right. Against empathy-The very basic human emotion that makes you kinder, makes you feel the pain of others, helps you experience the world the way you think people do. How can this have a negative effect on anyone? And if not empathy, then what?
Suppose you come to me and you’re freaked out, you’re anxious. Do you really want me to get anxious too? Do you want me to empathize with your anxiety, not just understand, but feel it too? Presumably not. You want me to be calm. If you’re sad, you don’t want me to be sad too. Then you’ve got two problems instead of just one. You want me to sort of be uplifting, cheer you up, put things in perspective. That’s compassion, not empathy.
Empathy works like a spotlight-highlighting certain people and making their suffering salient to you. ‘Certain people’ is the keyword.
So if the world were a simple place, where the only difficulties one had to deal with involved a single person in some sort of immediate distress and helping that person had positive effects, the case for empathy would be solid.
But the world is not a simple place. There’s more than one person who’s suffering, more than one way to help and obviously, every action has consequences.
The main problem with empathy is that it affects our judgement which later affects our actions. How? Let’s take an example- Psychologists Deborah Small and Paul Slovic conducted a study to see how much money people would give to help improve the lives of some children living in poor conditions around the world. They divided them into two groups. The first group received facts and data- there were numbers and statistical graphs and statements about the everyday difficulties these children face. The second group was given a picture of just one of these children, her name, and identity. No facts, no data- just her and her life.. It’s pretty obvious which group donated more- You put a face, attach value and the wave of empathy takes over. This is called ‘The Identifiable Victim Effect.’
But think about it, even without a name and a face, didn't they deserve an equal amount of donations ? Especially considering that she was just a single girl and they were in groups of hundreds. This sets up a perverse situation in which the suffering of one can matter more than the suffering of a thousand. To the extent that we can’t recognise that the numbers are significant when it comes to such decisions- it’s because of sentiment, not reason.
Now you might say, “Okay, we are more inclined towards helping people when we know things about them. It still doesn’t explain why empathy shouldn’t be one of our core values.” But wait, there’s more.
Another problem with spotlights is that they only light up what you point them at. They are vulnerable to bias. Neuroscience provides many examples of how empathy picks favourites. Brain areas that correspond to the experience of empathy are sensitive to whether someone is a friend or a foe, part of one’s ingroup or part of an outgroup. They are sensitive to whether the person is pleasing to look at or not and much else. This happens subconsciously. It is scientifically proven that even juries are biased in favour of defendants who are innocent-looking or babyfaces- that strings the empathy chord.
These are some examples of how empathy leads us astray. But, still, you might worry that if we gave up on empathy, we wouldn’t do anything. We wouldn’t care about anyone or anything besides ourselves. This view reflects an impoverished moral imagination, a failure to recognise the other forces that can give us empathy’s benefits without all of its costs. I don’t deny the lure of empathy. It often just seems right to try to feel the world as others feel it, to experience their suffering vicariously, to listen to our hearts but is that what's needed? Too much empathy can lead to 'empathetic distress' where you actually end up dissolving all boundaries between you and another person
This was described by Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki as “a strong aversive and self-oriented response to the suffering of others, accompanied by the desire to withdraw from a situation in order to protect oneself from excessive negative feelings.” So essentially, you are in distress because someone else’s pain becomes your own.
However, empathy is always going to be a part of us. We are wired to care about people, wired to feel emotions, but to ‘feel with’ does not necessarily mean to ‘suffer with’ others. And the less we suffer ourselves, the better our response to suffering is. Empathy is limited. Just because it’s there, doesn’t mean it’s always required. An animal and human relationship isn’t based on empathy- you don’t take their perspective, you can’t experience their pain, but the relationship you have is still present- one that is founded on love and compassion.
As Adam Smith said-"When our passive feelings are almost always solid and selfish, how can active principles always be generous and noble?"
And I think perfectly sums up why empathy isn’t the best guide to live a good life. The secret behind genuine caring and altruism lies within compassion and not active empathy. Because in the end, it’s not about the biases you ignored or the number of people you helped. It’s the bigger picture- the greater suffering of all of mankind. The suffering that even if we try, we won't be able to experience the way they do. You won’t necessarily be helping them just because you feel what they’re feeling. So instead, you care about them, give them what they need and little by little, instead of their pain becoming your own, you’ll begin sharing the happiness.
- By Arohi Sachar
References-
Paul Bloom- Against Empathy
Kommentare