Wednesday, January 3, 2018// The Statement
7C
Empath in the Wild: Empathy is for everyone
BY REGAN DETWILER, COLUMNIST
O
ver
the
course
of last semester,
I
wrote
five
columns
about
empathy — this one you’re
reading now is my sixth and
final one. I’ve written about
empathy in the context of my
Montessori elementary school;
I’ve written about it in the
context of Americanized yoga;
I’ve gone into
a
somewhat
philosophical
debate
about
whether
empathy
and
justice
can
coexist
with
one
another;
I’ve
discussed
empathy
in
the
context
of
sexual
and
gender-
based violence
and I’ve told
a
personal
anecdote about
how
self-
absorption
has
prevented
me
from
empathizing
with others.
Others
have
written
about empathy
from a variety
of
angles,
approaching
it
with
philosophical,
psychological
and
creative
nonfiction
lenses.
The
writer
Leslie
Jamison
approached
empathy
through
writing
autobiographical,
creative-
nonfiction essays in her award-
winning
collection,
“The
Empathy Exams,” which has
been circulating throughout
my fellow book-loving friend
circles
since
it
was
first
published in 2014.
These
examples
reveal
some of the varied ways one
can conceptualize empathy.
While all of these disciplines
— philosophy, psychology and
creative writing — are in some
ways very different from one
another, they have at least one
thing in common: They get
into the nitty-gritty, gnarled
intellectual
and
emotional
roots of what empathy is. And
sometimes,
their
findings
ask the question of whether
empathy,
feeling
what
somebody else feels, is even
possible.
While I think all of the
examples
I
mentioned
are
honorable
intellectual
explorations, they can make
the pursuit of empathy seem
like a daunting endeavor, and
therefore inaccessible. When
I see a 240-page book with
the title “Empathy: What It Is
and Why It Matters,” it makes
me think I need to know more
in order to truly understand
what empathy is. It leads me
to believe I should be thinking
about empathy in a more critical
way, that maybe there’s more
to it than just “stepping into
someone else’s shoes,” and that
I should be wary of my apparent
ignorance on the topic.
Sometimes writing a lot of
words about something can
make it seem more accessible
to people, and sometimes it
can have the opposite effect.
This is something I’ve spent a
while thinking about since I’ve
written a collective five columns
on empathy this semester in
efforts to spur self-reflection in
those who read my writing.
I
admit
some
of
the
arguments
that
empathy
is
actually
impossible
are
compelling. I find the argument
that it’s impossible to know
anything at all compelling, too.
Our perceptions of reality are
entirely subjective, differing
from person to person, so
objective truth is a myth. But
this doesn’t mean scientists
should
stop
conducting
experiments, or else we’d still
be dealing with the bubonic
plague.
I don’t think it matters
if
empathy
is
“ultimately”
possible or not. Like striving
to find out what’s scientifically
“true,” I think striving to
empathize is a worthwhile and
necessary endeavor. Moving
toward a more empathetic
existence means people step
outside themselves, and take
on a more collective mentality,
increasing the likelihood that
individuals act selflessly rather
than selfishly. While I admire
the
work
of
philosophers,
psychologists,
writers
and
other
specialists
who’ve
studied empathy, I think it’s
vital
that
intellectualized
versions of empathy can coexist
with a stripped-down version
of empathy that’s accessible to
everyone, not just the bookish.
Empathy,
in
the
most
basic sense, is feeling what
someone
else
feels.
It’s
taking a walk in their shoes.
It’s something that happens
in the brain that can lead to
empathetic actions. It takes
the “golden rule,” “Treat
others the way you want to
be treated,” one step further.
The empathetic “golden rule”
is, “Treat others the way they
want to be treated.”
Determining how someone
else wants to be treated can
be easy and it can sometimes
be hard. Sometimes it’s as
simple
as
saying
“thank
you” with a smile when a
barista hands out my coffee.
Empathetic action can be a
little tougher when someone
doesn’t want what I think
they want.
I may think
someone
walking several
yards
behind
me, exiting the
Union,
wants
me to hold the
door open for
them to walk
outside.
But
they’re kind of
far away and
they don’t want
to “make” me
hold the door
for
too
long.
They go from
walking to a
sort of trot, and
the expression
on their face
is
a
mixture
of
guilt
and
embarrassment
— for making
me
hold
the
door
for
too
long, on the one
hand, and for
having to do
this
awkward
jog thing, on
the other. They
might
have
preferred
I
never held the
door open in
the first place.
Practicing
empathy
can
be complicated. But I think
arbitrary
debates
on
the
definition of empathy and
whether it’s actually possible
can distract us from the
points that actually matter.
Empathy is something anyone
and everyone can practice,
and that it’s worth striving
for, even if it’s not ultimately
possible. At its best, empathy
can be an incredibly powerful
tool for justice, leading to
a more democratic society
where
everyone
tries,
in
earnest, to understand where
each other is coming from.
ILLUSTRATION BY MICHELLE PHILLIPS