I

n 
U.S. 
politics, 
the 

call 
for 
tolerating 

differences 
between 

people — based on class, race, 
ethnicity, 
gender, 
sexual 

orientation or most any other 
identity — has been assigned 
to the realm of liberalism, 
generally speaking. But when 
liberals have called for a wider 
definition of “hate speech,” 
people 
have 
accusedthem 

of intolerance. This idea of 
“tolerance” is connected to 
the idea of empathy. Liberals 
call for empathizing with 
marginalized groups — and 
therefore tolerating them — but 
when it comes to conservatives 
they make no such calls to 
action.

In the media, this issue 

of 
liberal 
(in)tolerance 
of 

conservatives 
isn’t 
new, 

but I believe the intensity 
of the problem has been 
underemphasized. The conflict 
between the call for more 
empathy and tolerance toward 
others, on the one hand, and the 
call for more restricted speech, 
on the other hand, exists on a 
philosophical level — it has to 
do with beauty and justice, two 
values that are most important 
to society.

Empathy 
has, 
from 
the 

beginning, been tied to the 
realm of aesthetics, the field of 
philosophy concerned with the 
appreciation of art, beauty and 
good taste. According to the 
Oxford English Dictionary, the 
term first appears in English 
in the work of Vernon Lee 
and Clementina Anstruther-
Thomson, two prominent late-
19th-century 
scholar-artists 

who lived together openly as 
lovers, friends and co-authors. 

In their most prominent book, 
“Beauty and Ugliness: And 
Other Studies in Psychological 
Aesthetics,” 
they 
define 

empathy 
as 
an 
“aesthetic 

sympathetic feeling.”

The emergence of empathy 

in the English lexicon during 
the early 1900s, in Western 
Europe, coincides with the 
rise of modernity and the first 
artworks famous for their 

ugliness. A great example is 
Marcel 
Duchamp’s 
statue 

“Fountain” (1917), which is 
literally a urinal signed with a 
pseudonym.

The viewer of a work of 

art can empathize with the 
artwork and find it beautiful 
— or empathize with a work 
of art and find it ugly. Theodor 
Lipps, one of the most famous 
scholars on empathy, calls the 
former “positive empathy” and 
the latter “negative empathy.”

While 
I 
can 
empathize 

with a work of art and find 
it ugly beautiful (or however 
else a work of art could be 
described), I argue that the 
work of empathizing is in itself 
beautiful. What do I mean by 
beautiful? Well, I don’t really 
know. It’s almost impossible to 

define as a word, as described 
in its really long entry in the 
Stanford 
Encyclopedia. 
I 

like to define the beautiful 
as something that “makes 
sense,” or speaks to some 
truth. Whether the thing the 
empathizer is trying to feel 
into is beautiful or ugly, the 
empathizer is still making 
sense of something.

But I can only empathize 

with 
someone if 
that person 
expresses 
him 
or 

herself 
outwardly. 
Once I can 
empathize 
with 
someone 
else’s 
emotions, 
I 
can 

determine 

whether those emotions are 
ugly or beautiful. Prominent 
art critic Arthur Danto claims 
an ugly work of art can still 
be artistically right, in that 
the work’s ugliness allows 
it to successfully convey the 
artist’s 
intended 
message. 

In the context of human 
emotion, I could empathize 
with someone and determine 
whether their ugly or beautiful 
emotions are valid.

Take, 
for 
example, 
the 

white supremacists and neo-
Nazis who protested this 
August in Charlottesville, Va. 
I can empathize with these 
people’s emotions. By this, I 
mean I can understand what 
it feels like to be angry or 
feel disenfranchised. I, by 
no means, am endorsing or 

condoning their actions, but 
the principles of empathy 
allow 
me 
to 
understand 

their 
emotions 
according 

to how they’re expressed. 
Simultaneously, I can reach 
my own conclusion that their 
intentions and actions are 
morally wrong and are an 
impediment to the furthering 
of equality and justice in this 
country.

I can empathize in the 

same way with Dana Greene, 
who last week knelt in the 
Diag for nearly 24 hours in 
protest of anti-Black racism, 
going 
through 
the 
same 

emotional and moral process. 
To make myself clear, I want to 
emphasize that the actions on 
the part of white supremacist 
and neo-Nazi protesters are in 
no way equivalent to Greene’s 
— the former incited violence 
and advocated hate, and the 
latter advocated for justice 
and peace. The process of 
empathizing allows me to 
recognize Greene’s emotions 
as valid because of the life 
experiences that led to them, 
and then reach my own 
conclusion that his actions 
and intentions are morally 
justifiable and align with 
my own vision of furthering 
equality.

If empathy is in itself 

beautiful 
and 
beauty 

furthers justice in the world 
(as I postulated in my first 
column), then I could say 
empathizing is a morally 
right thing to do. But in 
order to empathize, I must 
have someone to empathize 
with, which requires free 
expression.

Here, 
we 
reach 
the 

entanglement of empathy, 
beauty, justice and the right 
to free speech. Empathy 
requires 
individuals 
to 

express themselves, whether 
in the form of creating 
works of art, writing op-eds, 
protesting or engaging in 
other expressive activities. 
And empathy also requires 
people 
to 
receive 
the 

emotions of others, putting 
it at odds with calls for safe 
spaces, specifically on college 
campuses. When individual 
expression 
fits 
a 
given 

definition of “hate speech,” 
that 
expression 
becomes 

morally indefensible, unjust, 
etc.

The liberal call for more 

empathy seems to be at odds 
with calls for restrictions 
on hate speech and more 
safe spaces. What kind of 
expression 
is 
defensible? 

And who can be expected 
to “receive” the emotions of 
others? If we restrict certain 
forms of expression, are 
we limiting our ability to 
empathize with others?

To me, the answer is yes. I 

suppose the greater question 
is: What’s more just — allowing 
individuals to continue writing 
anti-Islam messages on the 
Diag, or restricting that kind 
of expression and approaching 
the problem of, in this case, 
Islamophobia, from a different 
angle — say, through more 
inclusive messages and greater 
cultural 
awareness 
being 

taught in public schools? While, 
logically speaking, restricting 
expression limits empathetic 
possibilities, it may be a 
necessary 
compromise 
to 

achieve a more just society.

2B

Managaing Statement Editor:

Lara Moehlman

Deputy Editors:

Yoshiko Iwai

Brian Kuang 

Photo Editor:

Alexis Rankin

Editor in Chief:

Emma Kinery

Design Staff:

Michelle Phillips

Hannah Myers

Emily Hardie

Erin Tolar

Emily Koffsky

Managing Editor:

Rebecca Lerner

Copy Editors:

Elizabeth Dokas 

Taylor Grandinetti

Wednesday, October 4, 2017 // The Statement 

Empath in the Wild: Free to feel BY REGAN DETWILER, COLUMNIST

statement

THE MICHIGAN DAILY | OCTOBER 4, 2017

ILLUSTRATION BY REGAN DETWILER

