Empathy Revisited

It seems to be the flavor of the month, or perhaps the season, on the internet at present. As disagreements often are, this is about the meaning of words. When people are coming out against "empathy," they are not coming out against compassion, but they are being treated as such. It may even be true of some of the accused - there are still some social darwinists among us.

I can't tell you what everyone means.  I can tell you what I mean.  Empathy is dangerous because it is an imitation of compassion and generosity. Putting yourself in another chap's shoes might be a spur to helping him, and expressing your understanding to him might help him to feel less isolated and forgotten. Those are good things. But just feeling someone else's feelings is not actual help. For one thing, you may have it wrong.  You may think you understand when you actually don't. I am remembering the anti-war people who identified with the Middle-easterners hating Bush (or whoever) because they hated him too. Except Americans like Michael Moore hated him for unrelated reasons of their own, that the Middle-easterners were barely aware of.  He empathised, but it was false.

Then also, what if the material help is never produced? What if empathy just stops at the feeling? James 2:16 You shouldn't just say, "I hope all goes well for you. I hope you will be warm and have plenty to eat." What good is it to say this, unless you do something to help? Those I hear insisting on empathy seem also to be insisting that this must mean political response they prefer, else you are no Christian. Does that seem an unfair accusation, that I think that might happen?  It already has happened. A lot of energy from one side of that argument is spent in loudly condemning the other side as heartless and uncharitable. "You saw me hungry and naked, and cold, yet you did nothing." "But Lord!  Didn't we tell those others that they were hypocrites?  Didn't we tell 'em and tell 'em and tell 'em at the top of our voices that they were unworthy of you?"  "Yes, but they gave more than you. You spent your energy on self-righteousness."

There are those who will argue that private charity is not enough, we must influence those we can to behave toward the poor as they should, because it feeds more people.  It is more efficient. That is not a terrible argument, and I have some sympathy with it.  Justice in a land is important. Forced generosity and mercy is a bit trickier, as it involves giving away other people's treasure (like citizenship, a not inconsiderable treasure that belongs to the people to bestow). Yet even that might be worked around, compromised on, hammered out among those who disagree. I admire efficiency, and I admire us all be in this together. Yet if you are so big on the bare fact o feeding more people, isn't the free market the best engine we have yet discovered? It is imperfect and always will be, but is anything its match? The countries that have robust safety nets, such as the Scandinavians, are not especially socialist in all things. They make their money with strong work-ethic capitalism abroad and distribute that to their cousins back home. 

Balancing that can be a fruitful discussion. Bring it on. The US is already quite redistributative. How to target that, modify that, improve that is on the table. But if one side cannot acknowledge any good on the other side - and I have heard that in Sunday School classes and private conversations, it's not just the most extreme people on Instagram or YouTube - then they are clearly interested in something other than helping the poor. I think I know what that is, but leave that off for the moment. It is enough to point out that the phenomenon is there. If you reject some proven solutions out of hand, then something other that fixing things is your primary objective. 

Empathy is a way of convincing ourselves that feeling good is enough, because it focuses on what we feel, not what the other person needs.