Empathy/Compassion

Hey, what do you know? No sooner had I begun work on this essay than it became all zeitgeisty. Writing in The Guardian on 8/7/23 George Monbiot said that empathy was a meta-skill, one of '...the overarching aptitudes - such as self-development, social intelligence, openness, resilience and creativity - that help us acquire the new competencies that sudden change demands.' And he pointed out that it could be taught.

But isn't it odd that it needs to be? Robin Dunbar (How many Friends Does One Person Need) defined what makes us human as '...the ability to understand the mind of another individual.' Maybe we're becoming less and less human.

In Dave Eggers' book The Every, about a giant tech corporation that takes over everything (thus its name), a character Meena says 'Every new generation purports to be more empathetic, and yet every new generation is less forgiving. And of course, with every coming year, technology ensures that no errors go unrecorded.' A moment's silence for me to give thanks that the stupidity of my developing years was pre-social media. I've been blogging for twenty years this year.

Rutger Bregman, in the exceptional 'Humankind' was less comfortable with empathy. Of its shortcomings he said, 'Empathy is a hopelessly limited skill... (it) 'misleads us by zooming in on the specific.'

I worked with a guy once who seemed to have no opinions or views of his own. I mean, he may have had but whenever you spoke to him you could usually work out who he had been speaking to immediately before. The best way to influence him was either to get the last appointment of the day or catch him in the car park but I don't know anyone devious enough to have done that. If it is possible, that guy had too much empathy. Great pastor. People felt listened to but nothing happened as a result most of the time.

Politicians on the campaign trail are usually manoeuvred away from people to whom they will have to show empathy. Being lectured by an ordinary member of the public will give a great TV news segment, particularly if you can't escape (Tony Blair outside a hospital), forget to take your mic off in the car (Gordon Brown and the bigoted woman) or will promise anything to get away (Boris Johnson), hide in a fridge (Boris Johnson) or lie about even the presence of cameras (Boris Johnson). Jeremy Corbyn is remarkable at being empathetic. People feel listened to. Say what you like about his politics he listens, with attention, and responds in a considered way. The presence of a TV crew doesn't much change who he is.

The massive numbers of people in the country mean that Blair could be given a tough time by an individual who had a bad experience even though more money had been invested in the NHS than at any time in the previous twenty years and that became the news. As one of my favourite proverbs goes, 'Mugging victims never believe the crime figures are down.'

This essay has been brooding for a while but was prompted by a piece written on Facebook by a former colleague Martin Little. I quote him at length:

'...neither populism or bureaucracy will ever really change anything. Populism is by definition facile because it denies the multifaceted nature of problems and reduces everything to a slogan to be sold. Bureaucracy doesn't ultimately work either, because procedures and policy documents only attack the problem from one level: information. And it's not enough.

'The only way to face problems is through relationships of trust between people. This is because relationships of trust are the only things that are in themselves multifaceted enough to stand up to the problems - and overcome them. Relationships are messy, contradictory, mysterious and impossible to contain by systems of control. But they are the only true power in the world.'

He wrote in the context of a current discussion about the leadership of the Church of England investing more in systems than people; managers than priests. It is not the job of this piece to take a view on that. But I responded that there may be some connection between the relationships/information axis and the empathy/compassion one.

Take a moment to think about the two words of my title. Have a go at defining them. What is the difference?

Before I went to the dictionary I did a bit of deconstruction. It looks as if we have the same part word at the heart of each - pa. Suggests a link.

I know pathos is Greek for the world of the emotions and em is to put in or into. Thus embark is to put people into a boat and employ is to put people into work. So empathy is to put someone else's emotions into you.

Com is Latin for with, suggesting we probably have a Latin word in compassion. Passion with. Sharing feelings. Something like that. That's my logic. We'll see. To the dictionary. I like Merriam-Webster online but often refer back to my 1964 Chambers Etymological English Dictionary to see what has changed.

On compassion, Merriam Webster says it is 'sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it ... it’s been part of the language since the 14th century, and comes ultimately from Latin com- and pati, meaning 'to bear, suffer'.'

It lists empathy as 'the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another.'

It adds a short paragraph, so it must be a much-asked question, on 'What is the difference between empathy and compassion?' It says:

'Compassion and empathy both refer to a caring response to someone else’s distress. While empathy refers to an active sharing in the emotional experience of the other person, compassion adds to that emotional experience a desire to alleviate the person’s distress.'

Compassion according to 1964 Chambers is 'fellow-feeling or sorrow for the suffering of another—usually a warmer feeling than pity ... ' It agrees with the Latin root.

Empathy is not listed. Very interesting and ties in with my secondary school experience.

Compassion is often used as a translation for a particular Greek word - splagchnixomai n the New Testament. When Jesus saw the size of the crowd who had followed him into the wilderness he had compassion on them so he began to teach them (Mark 6:34). When the Samaritan saw the man who had fallen amongst thieves he had compassion on him. So he showed him mercy and looked after him at personal cost (Luke 10:33). See also Ephesians 4:32 and 1 Peter 3:8 for the instruction that Christians should be so.

So compassion can be considered empathy tuned into action. 'Islam, Christianity, humanistic liberalism all have an imperative towards mercy; if we could separate the value from the vehicle that carries it, we could have a new ecumenism of human compassion.' (Richard Holloway)

Or, as Karen Armstrong wrote '...There is something wrong with any spirituality that does not inspire selfless concern for others.' (Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life)

I think life is much more complicated than utilitarianism (the greatest happiness for the greatest number). Sometimes we might all give a bit to alleviate the misfortune of the few. Come to think of it that is the principle of insurance: the premiums of the many compensate the misfortunes of the few. I'd like to suggest that numbers, systems and general information about things will enable that which is triggered by empathy to be targeted most appropriately. At that point, too much empathy in the room will stop the team taking the best decision using comments such as 'But what will <name> say?'

To generalise and controversialise; empathy would never have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima; compassion did.

Robin Ince says in 'The Importance of Being Interested' 'Sometimes, when talking to people who have suffered greatly, you need to accept their feelings, but also accept that the true cause of their suffering and anger was not you.' That will keep you sane, but it doesn't mean you can't do something to help. If you meet someone suffering and it moves you, try to help. If you can't, tell someone with more power and influence than you.

Politicians can put themselves above and beyond empathy, having heard its speeches, and do something on a far greater scale than the individual.

So Martin was right. It is about relationships. And the most important relationship is the one between the feelings and the thoughts. Empathy sees the specific problem from which might flow a compassionate plan and programme to solve it.