Staying afloat a little longer
An essay on empathy
They often say step into others shoes to look at things from their perspective. But what if the shoes don’t fit?
Communication issues between married couple have been beaten to death and to the afterlife. The wife complaining about husband’s laziness to watch cricket may have might as well have been included in the Bible. Even after spending half of their lives together, what leads to such insensitivity between couples?
In the traditional sense, the wife did the necessary step of putting herself in her husband’s shoes. However, their shoes were of different sizes. The wife imagined herself on a Sunday afternoon and watching television. She considered it to be a waste of a time and thought the husband to be an idiot for wasting a precious day. What she didn’t realise is her husband and his friends discussed cricket over drinks and compared fantasy league scores. His competitive nature would not let him lose, especially not to that clown Akshay.
What if the solution was not to put herself in his shoes? What if it was to consider what would a person with a personality and interests such as his prefer to spend his time? Would that have made for a more peaceful Sunday, by extending the hand of empathy? We look at the situation through our eyes, often forgetting there is a whole other person with their own history, preferences, and insecurities.
For a long time, I have found personality typing fascinating. Most find the idea of typing uncomfortable. It is viewed as a direct attack to their individuality and what makes them unique individuals. In a post ‘God-is-Dead’ world, individuality is worshipped as the new religion. Some of the more sceptical view it as baby steps to a new form of prejudice, by grouping people into neat little boxes.
For me, personality typing is a way to relate to people and their experiences. Personality typing provides a framework of understanding people. The framework helps us differentiate between what are simple preferences and what are genuine aspects of one’s personality. Does the favourite flavour of ice-cream really describe a person? I don’t think so. The reason for their disorderliness and procrastination, however, does. By understanding the reason, we can probably not call them a lazy fat ass every-time. They are struggling with their own demon of laziness. Criticising their behaviour does them no good except feed the demon. We don’t even have to fight the demon for them. All we have to do is recognise their battle and support them. So often, it is more than enough.
One of the greatest abilities humans possess is of abstraction. It is with the power of abstraction humans were able to perceive common threads of similarity amongst people. By abstracting common forms of worship, people organised themselves into religions. By abstracting skin colour, into race.
The division had benefits for everyone. For people within a group, it provided them with a sense of belonging through their shared experiences. For those outside, an opportunity to understand and relate to others.
It is said knowledge is power. Throughout history, this knowledge of other communities were exploited for one’s gain. However, There can be no light without shadows. If human atrocity was the shadow cast, it was cast by the shining light of empathy.
For all the progress made by rationality, humans are at their core emotional creatures. All art stems from the vision of an artist to share his inner thoughts and feelings. Without empathy, it would be impossible for the viewer to relate to the artist. All paintings would be meaningless strokes of colour, all music just pleasant sounds. In the movie, Before Sunrise, the protagonist Julie says, ‘If there was any magic in the world it would be in the attempt of understanding someone’. If understanding someone is the magic, empathy is the wand through which we cast spells.
It is a regular complain of how professions like teachers and doctors are underpaid while celebrities lead overtly lavish lifestyle. We can argue whether it is good or bad, but such is human nature. It shows the power of empathy and emotions. We value being inspired by music, being moved by paintings more than we value for our health.
There can be no love without empathy, for what is to love but accept the other for all their flaws. If one cannot understand their partner, they are in love with a fantasy, a delusion. So often people say they love because, but little do they realise, they love despite.
Does this mean empathy is the secret sauce to Nirvana? Some people believe so. ‘Eureka!’ they shout. ‘Look mom, I found the key to building a good society’.
While empathy is an invaluable component of personal relationships, it can not be a basis for the organisation of society. Radical empathy at a society level leads to moral relativism, where each opinion is valued equally. Where empathy taught us to understand and value other’s opinions, radical empathy takes it a step further to declare all opinions to hold equal value. This proposition of radical empathy is dangerous. If all opinions hold equal value, it essentially renders all opinions valueless. Where every opinion is valueless, how can a government take a decision when each decision is guaranteed to upset a section? Empathy for all its magic, is not scalable. We would love nothing better than a quick one-fix-fits-all solution to solve all problems. However, empathy is not it; nothing is.
Our brains are quick to label people into ‘good’ or ‘bad’. However, we forget life is difficult for everyone. They are trying their best to cope with it, the best they know how. The religious fanatic argues with an atheist not out of moral superiority, but because he wants to protect his values, which got him through tough times. It is convenient to call that fanatic irrational without realising it is not a rational issue, but an emotional one.
We all are slowly drowning in the great sea of life and flapping our hands to stay afloat a little longer. With empathy, we can probably stay afloat a little longer, together.
