Paul Bloom would have us do away with empathy. His reasons are several: it is a poor guide to action; it is biased; and it leads to all manner of bad outcomes including empathic distress, anxiety, depression, and burnout. If he is right, then by all means, nip it in the bud.
Once one adopts Bloom’s characterization of empathy, the consequences he enumerates are probably inevitable and certainly worrisome. He makes a reasoned and fair-minded case. To be empathic, according to Bloom, is to put “yourself in her shoes” and “feel her pain,” and the results can be undesirable.
There is, however, a subtle distinction that goes missing—namely, the difference between sharing a person’s metaphorical shoes and sharing his or her feelings. Although they are related, experiencing what a person feels is not the same as imagining being in her situation, which researchers call perspective taking. For Bloom, feeling another’s pain gets all the attention.
Bloom acknowledges that feeling another’s pain and grasping his or her situation are different psychological, and even neural, processes. But when he considers the painless kind of empathy—what “other people are thinking, their motivations, plans, what they believe”—he dismisses it as other than real empathy. He calls it “coldblooded.” It is the warm-blooded, feeling-someone’s-pain kind that concerns him.
If Bloom, however, were to see empathy as encompassing both feeling and perspective taking then there would be reason to preserve and promote it rather than give up on it. Sharing a person’s pain is all about emotion; walking in his shoes allows for the possibility of understanding his circumstances.
What do psychologists know about taking a person’s circumstances into account? Consider a well-established social psychological finding: the actor-observer effect. When people (called actors) are asked to explain their own behavior, they tend to look outside themselves and point to the influence of external factors: “I bought this house because it has all the best features—open-floor plan, a great office, a bar . . .” When an observer is asked to explain my behavior, she is likely to zero in on my personality or motivation: “She chose that house because she is a workaholic at heart and still likes to socialize.”
There is more, however, to the actor-observer effect than acknowledging that an action can be interpreted in multiple ways. Social psychologists see bias not, as one might think, with the actor’s perspective, but rather with the observer’s perspective. Why? Because observers tend to discount the situational influences that actually affect choices and outcomes. We often attribute another person’s action to her inner dispositions, when crucial situational factors were really at work.
Observer myopia can be corrected; all it takes is a formulation of empathy that incorporates perspective as well as feeling. Some years ago, researchers Denis Regan and Judith Totten had female undergraduates watch a videotape of a get-acquainted conversation between two women with instructions either to observe one of the participants or to empathize with her. For example, empathic observers were told “to concentrate on the way she feels while conversing” and directed, “In your mind’s eye you are to visualize how it feels to [the study participant] to be in this conversation” (emphasis added). Empathy worked wonders to correct the attribution error. When observers considered the perspective of the target as well as what she was feeling, they were significantly more likely to make situational attributions and less likely to make personality attributions for her behavior than were standard observers who were not instructed to be empathic.
It is hard to argue with Bloom’s contention that empathic distress is destructive. But real empathy is not only about shared pain. It is also about understanding a person’s circumstances—an understanding that might help us assuage others’ distress as well as our own. Joseph Lelyveld, former editor of the New York Times, captured this axiom while he was working as a reporter; it is an insight about empathy that, if adopted, would make us the “better people” Bloom envisions: “Every person is an expert on the circumstances of his life.”
LaFrance, Marianne. “Forum Response: Against Empathy.” Boston Review, 26 Aug. 2014, bostonreview.net/forum/against-empathy/marianne-lafrance-response-against-empathy-lafrance.
Marianne Lafrance believes that Bloom's perspective on empathy could be seen differently. She goes on to say that sharing a persons metaphorical shoes and sharing his or her feelings is different. Experiencing what a person feels is not the same as imagining being in his or her situation. She says this is called "Perspective Taking." She wants people to see empathy as feeling and perspective, she goes on to an example called the Actor-observer effect. This affect talks about the difference between an actor who might say they like a house, for a "big floor plan or a bar." While an observer sees it for the fact that the person is a workaholic but likes to socialize. She again just restates that it's not about shared pain but understanding someone's circumstances and understanding that it might help others distress with our own. Overall I agree with Lafrance's argument, I believe the way you have your mindset can be seen more as a perspective over a feeling. I think the biggest argument that could have been taken from this is, is perspective and feeling really that different? I believe it could be different because perspective is seeing how sad someone is and feeling their pain but not necessarily consuming their pain.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading Marianne Lafrance's response to Bloom. She uses the example of "walking in his/her shoes" as I did in my comment on Bloom's perspective. She states that experiencing the same emotions as another and imagining what that other person is feeling/going through are not the same. Lafrance says that Bloom, only "feeling another's pain" gets all of the attention instead what it actually is, perspective taking - where empathy is both seen as feelings and perspective. I agree with Lafrance's statement. Bloom talked about empathy as if it was only taking on another person's emotions, not looking into the bigger picture that people may just want a better understanding of an individual, their story/situation and what they're feeling without actually putting themselves through the experience. From my understanding, Lafrance is saying being able to understand what someone is going through or what they're feeling goes much deeper than the simple definition of empathy.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the comment from Mercedes Gerard - are perspective and feeling all that different? I also agree that it can be different, you can know/see how sad someone is and you can be sad with them, you are just not consuming and taking over every sad thought or amount of pain they experience. When you put yourself into the perspective of an individuals life, what do you see? You see what that person allows you to see, but is it at all what you expected? Does it hurt to look into their lives, is it too tragic that you want to look away? Maybe, but it helps you understand that person better. Who they are, what their life looks like, and what has made them who they are today. Everyone has a different perspective on life, but we're all living on the same earth, facing a lot of the same problems. And many people face problems that some couldn't even imagine going through. That is why empathy is important to me. Not a single person in this world will truly understand what a person's life has been like. There are many untold stories and experiences that a person will not share, so it doesn't hurt to meet people, get to know them, step into their perspective and show some empathy. Overall, it is important to be kind to every single person you meet. People never know what a person is going through or had gone through.