Empathy note #1: Reconceptualizing Security (on Interdependence Day)

As increasingly destructive capabilities become available to smaller and smaller groups, empathy and generosity are becoming increasingly precious and practical qualities in human relationship and in social policy.

“How to build a happy society,
happy human beings on this small planet?
We have to care about others’ well-being.”
— The Dalai Lama
in Portland, OR, May 12, 2013

Our security as Americans depends on our
ability to “crown our good with brotherhood,
from sea to shining sea” – which encompasses
the world.
— Tweet @TomAtlee June 29, 2013

Empathy – the ability to put ourselves in another’s shoes – has been an ideal of many if not most religions for millennia. Some call it compassion. Some call it love. Its moral imperative can be found in the numerous versions of the Golden Rule. In its most extreme form we find it in the admonition to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

And today, after thousands of years, empathy has become a practical necessity, a matter of enlightened – and even not-so-enlightened – self-interest. Many reasons for this could be cited, but here’s a major one that has yet to blossom in public consciousness:

The 21st century presents us with a volatile reality consisting of two elements:

On the one hand we find widespread resentment, shame, anger, injustice, domination, conflict, and suffering. This, of course, is nothing new. The new element that changes the whole game is this:
Increasingly powerful technologies of death and destruction are increasingly available not only to official militaries and police but to private individuals and small groups.

This combination of increasing suffering and increasingly accessible destructive power feeds do-it-yourself violence around our interdependent world – from organized crime and terrorism to unhinged lashings-out of disturbed individuals.

For hundreds of years, random and grassroots violence have been kept at bay in civilization by the state’s theoretically legitimate “monopoly on violence” as exercised by its police and military forces.

However, new technologies – from assault rifles and improvised explosive devices to chemical, biological, radioactive, and even more exotic forms of attack – are changing that. Top-down state force and regulation – while still one factor in healthy public order when governments are answerable to their people – are no longer the potent controls they once were since the people they are trying to control are increasingly able to render their efforts irrelevant. Significantly, military strategists now talk about “asymmetric warfare” in which grassroots militias are more than a match for well-armed professional militaries. And because grassroots violence can show up anywhere, it is becoming increasingly difficult to track and prevent, even while the seemingly necessary surveillance to track it undermines the foundations of free society.

This problem is not going away. Technological developments will continue to undermine the ability of centralized force to defeat grassroots and random violence. In 2000 techno-guru Bill Joy envisioned a worst case scenario made possible by converging developments in nanotechnology, biotechnology, robotics and computing power. He predicted that within decades small groups and individuals would become able to craft tiny self-replicating entities that could consume and rapidly destroy civilization and even much of the natural world. He suggested that such unconstrained technological developments would make human extinction inevitable – even though only a tiny proportion of the world’s population might be crazy, upset, or careless enough to unleash such destructive power.

In light of that extreme future possibility, perhaps we should be grateful that today we are dealing with mostly localized violent capabilities like plastic semi-automatic guns that can be made by anyone with a 3D printer and can slip through airport security systems.

But let’s step back for a moment. Is it not becoming clear that 3D printed plastic guns, asymmetric warfare, self-replicating nano-robots, master hackers and whistleblowers are taking us rapidly into a world where top-down regulation, policing, surveillance and security systems will simply not be able to track and control this complex and evolving threat? Is it not becoming obvious that giving up our civil liberties in exchange for surveillance-based safety will prove as futile as it is pathetic?

The writing is on the wall. We can no longer depend primarily on state force and surveillance – or even personal threat of force (as through gun ownership) – as our primary sources of security. The real problem – the deeper cause of threats to our security – the leverage point where we can make a real difference and transform ourselves and our world in the process – is the injustice and suffering in the world that feed insanity, inspire outrage, and kindle grassroots violence. That’s where our attention and resources would be most effectively invested.

The new direction we need is thus clear. The conditions for our security now depend – however paradoxically – on empathy, generosity, effective caring, and social systems that help people meet their needs, fulfill their best potential, and pursue their most passionate aspirations.

So, on this Interdependence Day 2013, let’s choose to help people everywhere have good lives. Let’s decide to make it easy for people everywhere to love us, no matter who they are. Let’s take seriously the idea that their fate is bound up with ours, and invite them to join us in that understanding and work together to make a world that works for all.

Coheartedly,
Tom

June-July Funding Campaign note: So far 17 people have supported us with $580 (+ $180 from a matching grant that will match all July donations up to $5000). Join them in supporting our work. Our target is $20,000. As you can see, we can use your help. Please donate now. It will make a big difference and your donation is fully tax-deductible in the U.S.

5 Responses to "Empathy note #1: Reconceptualizing Security (on Interdependence Day)"

John Abbe says:

July 8, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Here here! Regarding empathy, as I understand it the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes can aid one in having empathy but is not quite the thing itself. Empathy is the ability to be present with another (or oneself!) and having unconditional positive regard for them. It is greatly deepened the more fully one understands what they are saying or experiencing.

Further, I have found it very helpful to try to understand, and share with people, the power inherent in empathy. The most obvious way that this manifests is that the more we can hold others with empathy, and the more we can communicate ourselves in ways that tend to inspire empathy in others, the more fully we are able to tap the collaborative, power-with possibilities always nascent among us.

I see this is note #1 on empathy, and I look forward to reading what you have to add next!

Reply
1. Tom Atlee says:
  
  July 8, 2013 at 3:13 pm
  
  Thanks, John.
  
  I think your definition of empathy is a powerful one, especially for describing the state of an individual who wants to “be there” for another person in a direct encounter. Yet it is not the only definition of empathy. Browsing Google, I find these, for example:
  
  Empathy is the experience of understanding another person’s condition from their perspective. AND Empathy has many different definitions that encompass a broad range of emotional states, from caring for other people and having a desire to help them, to experiencing emotions that match another person’s emotions, to knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other. AND Empathy is the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
  
  For my purposes here, I like the “ability to put oneself in another’s shoes” definition – and its association with The Golden Rule – because it has obvious implications for public policy and social systems, as well as for human behavior. It can easily include your presence-based definition while embracing as well many other aspects of what people think of as empathy.
  
  I’d love to hear any implications you see your definition having for public policy and the design of social systems. That would be a great gift to this exploration.
  
  Reply
  1. John Abbe says:
    
    July 9, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    
    Someone can put themselves in another’s shoes, and still be unwilling to follow the Golden Rule, still hate that “other” enough to blow them up. So “unconditional positive regard” is at least a major way that empathy helps achieve security. I suppose another would be that even if I remain exclusively focused on my needs and wants, putting myself in another’s shoes might help me see that there will be blowback effects. This seems like a brittle sort of security though, since as soon as the likely blowback effects seem small enough I will go ahead and attack you. I’d love to hear other ways that empathy without positive regard can promote real security?
    
    Of course I have experienced that when people really put themselves in someone else’s shoes they’re more likely to have more positive regard for them, but it is exactly the question of their regard that is going to make them *want* to not harm them, not whether they did the shoe thing.
    
    (The “unconditional” part of unconditional positive regard is also key, because it is exactly when we are under conditions that tempt us to stop caring about someone enough to hurt them that it is most important that we remember that we would like to maintain or recover our positive regard for them. )
    
    As for public policy and social systems, parenting and education are full of opportunities to promote empathy in this sense of simple presence and unconditional positive regard. There is already quite a lot of work being done in this area, for example in many peer-run mediation programs in schools. But the overall attitude and structure of schools is probably even more important than having a particular program that tries to “teach” empathy. Do the teachers and staff respect each other, and the students? Similarly it is less important that parents talk about empathy with their kids and more important that they show it, especially to each other and their children, and in relation to people they do not like or are struggling with in some way.
    
    Leading by example by adding empathy to public conversations in government, media, etc. would also be very powerful. Imagine if in addition to the usual policy debates, candidates participated in a session in which they had to reflect their opponent’s position, and speak to what positive goal their opponent was trying to achieve with that position? This would imply the value of having empathy even for people we disagree with, and give everyone a chance to assess the candidate’s empathic ability. Journalists could be trained to humanize the “other”and frame things as all of us together facing challenges, rather than setting up us vs. them narratives where they don’t serve.
    
    Reply
    1. Tom Atlee says:
      
      July 9, 2013 at 3:19 pm
      
      Great response, John. Let me see if I can speak to the various issues you raise.
      
      Obviously there are various degrees to which we can put ourselves in each other’s shoes. Realizing that hurting people may well generate some kind of revenge or punishment from them is obviously a very shallow form of empathy, but it is at least something – and something sadly lacking from much of our foreign policy! So I’d be happy if we achieved that.
      
      On the other hand, anything truly resembling “putting oneself in someone else’s shoes” involves imagining what it is – or must be – like for them. That doesn’t require “unconditional positive regard”, but it does suggest that one’s “mirror neurons” are involved, that one is feeling and thinking some of whatever the other is feeling and thinking, and can therefore UNDERSTAND (to whatever extent) what they are going through and why they are acting the way they are. This is often achieved simply by sharing stories, stories from our pasts, stories we’re telling ourselves about “us” and “them”, stories of our visions or longings, etc. The resulting understanding is a precious addition to our human relationships, even if we don’t agree at all with what other people are thinking and/or feeling. It nevertheless will shape how we respond to them, most likely in some positive way.
      
      I think just short of “positive regard” we also see “witnessing without judging”. We can empathize with someone, sensing their pain, struggle, joy, etc., more or less clearly. And, as an added layer on that experience, we can judge – or not – their condition, attitude, behavior, etc. This is a cleaner form of empathy than mere understanding (especially understanding that still has negative judgments in it), while falling short of unconditional positive regard.
      
      All that said, I have no disagreement with your observation that empathy with positive regard – especially when it’s unconditional – can be extremely powerful. I have seen that power many times in my own experience, internally and in the life around me. It is a major resource for friendship and various forms of therapy, emotional release, and even deliberation.
      
      But I think caring – both the feeling kind and the active kind – can exist to varying degrees even in the absence of unconditional positive regard. And I want to help legitimize and make space for caring of all degrees, in both theory and practice. (While also noting that some forms of caring actually disempower or degrade the person supposedly being cared for – and this needs to be attended to, in both theory and practice.) Related to that, I think that the impulse towards The Golden Rule arises in us in direct proportion to our empathy, including all of the above. The nature of mirror neurons – which cause us to experience some of the emotions someone else feels – is a major factor in that.
      
      Our culture and social (political, economic, educational, journalistic, etc.) systems can help us shut down our mirror-neuron-inspired empathic feelings or can manipulate them so that we feel feelings that the manipulators want us to feel. Or they can help us feel such feelings in natural and healthy response to the situations we find ourselves in. You point out a number of cases where facilitating individual and interpersonal empathic responses – as from teachers or politicians – can support the emergence of a more empathic culture – and I fully agree with your examples.
      
      At the same time, I want to explore cases where the system itself manifests empathy or caring at a higher level than is manifested or felt by the overwhelming majority of people IN the system. For example, when we internalize the costs and benefits of a product into its price, the system generates fewer harms and more joys and life simply because it is cheaper to do so (in contrast to the way it is now). Or when we hold an empowered citizen deliberative council about a topic that affects millions of people, the participants in the council can be helped to experience empathy for those affected and generate policies and other responses that do less harm and more good, even if most of the population is oblivious or doesn’t care. In both these cases, those who design the system (the law or process) may feel more empathy than normal – or they may simply be doing it for practical reasons (such as, “it is cheaper to give immigrants health care than to pay for the diseases they spread if left untreated”). In any case, the systemic caring can be an independent variable from the caring of the society’s constituent members.
      
      Your example of the candidates’ forum where politicians have to reflect their opponents’ positions might be an example of a systemic intervention if it were institutionalized as part of all election campaigns (in a particular city, state or country). An experiment done in an Ashland Oregon mayoral race involved candidates listening to the public and each other and discussing what they heard, which had a bit of the energy you describe, although as far as I know it was only done once.
      
      At a cultural level we can encourage more movies or TV programs that feature productive empathy or caring in their characters or story lines as was done in the movie “Pay It Forward” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_It_Forward . Performances can also empathically exhibit diverse conflicted perspectives as was done by Anna Deavere Smith in her two one-woman performances about riots http://co-intelligence.org/S-multipleviewptdrama.html . Or we can promote broad viewing of productive dialogues between archetypal adversaries as was done by Maclean’s magazine in Canada http://co-intelligence.org/S-Canadaadvrsariesdream.html . These approaches lie halfway between individual and systemic empathy: they are whole-system cultural interventions that model or inspire individual empathy in the population as a whole.
      
      All these further “a culture of empathy”, about which I’ll be writing more in a future blog post. But I do want to clarify that my definition of empathy is broader than yours – for better and worse – and that your sense of empathy is at the more powerful and enlightened end of my inclusive and less focused spectrum of empathy.
      
      Reply
2. Tom Atlee says:
  
  July 9, 2013 at 4:34 am
  
  I just “accidentally” stumbled on a whole page of definitions of empathy. http://CultureofEmpathy.com/References/Definitions.htm which came from this fellow Mamading Ceesay https://www.facebook.com/mamading friending me on Facebook. The Culture of Empathy site would interest anyone interested in the subject; I’ll mention it in a post soon.
  
  Reply

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply