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