I used to revere empathy very highly, as one of the primary positives about this interesting species we find ourselves incarnated into. However, one thing I realized in recent months is that there is a distinction between what I call "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy".
I used to revere empathy very highly, as one of the primary positives about this interesting species we find ourselves incarnated into. However, one thing I realized in recent months is that there is a distinction between what I call "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy".
What I noticed is that within certain contemporary US tribes, having empathy for designated groups is not only respected, but mandated; while any sign of empathy for other groups is treated with disdain and distancing. What I realized is that this type of empathy has been turned into a weapon of the culture wars - unlimited empathy for our side, anti-empathy for other sides. Not too surprising since it piggybacks on the us/them tension. Chimpanzee males in a band do a of grooming each other and cultivating positive feelings - in order to recruit and retain allies in sometimes very bloody struggles with other groups.
What I've begun noticing is that this kind of "empathy" is always connected to a prescribed numbing of empathy for other groups, a flip side of the coin.
By universal empathy, I don't mean that we humans must universally empathize with everybody without exception - but if one can do so, it's not treated as a moral failure, but as a possibly hopeful thing. This is the kind of empathy which transcends tribal boundaries, and breaks affective logjams. When I see a former neo-nazi or KKK member who escaped from that mindset, typically the key was receiving empathy from someone they expected to receive hate from; their mindset thrives on being hated, that feedback has been incorporated into the mechanisms which sustain the mindset. Receiving empathy from somebody whom you are against and who you expect to despite you, can break the pattern.
So when some people think that empathy is not enough to bridge the gap of having had different life experiences, perhaps they have experienced giving and recieving mostly "tribal empathy", which indeed is by definition bad at bridging (tribal) differences. But by talkinng with people, by reading good fiction and non-fiction, one can indeed get some meaningful understanding of what it's like to live in somebody else's shoes. Imperfect, but it's always imperfect - it can still be important.
This is one of the cultural mutations which characterize "neo-progressivism" from liberalism or traditional progressivism - empathy has become substantially more tribal. Once upon a time, trying to understand how something looks from "the other side" was valued among liberal values; now to do so is suspect. Dogma has suppressed not only critical thinking, but any kind of universal empathy, which might undermine the starkness of The Oppression Narrative upon which so much neo-progressivism's power rests.
Empathy is indeed a key.
I used to revere empathy very highly, as one of the primary positives about this interesting species we find ourselves incarnated into. However, one thing I realized in recent months is that there is a distinction between what I call "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy".
What I noticed is that within certain contemporary US tribes, having empathy for designated groups is not only respected, but mandated; while any sign of empathy for other groups is treated with disdain and distancing. What I realized is that this type of empathy has been turned into a weapon of the culture wars - unlimited empathy for our side, anti-empathy for other sides. Not too surprising since it piggybacks on the us/them tension. Chimpanzee males in a band do a of grooming each other and cultivating positive feelings - in order to recruit and retain allies in sometimes very bloody struggles with other groups.
What I've begun noticing is that this kind of "empathy" is always connected to a prescribed numbing of empathy for other groups, a flip side of the coin.
By universal empathy, I don't mean that we humans must universally empathize with everybody without exception - but if one can do so, it's not treated as a moral failure, but as a possibly hopeful thing. This is the kind of empathy which transcends tribal boundaries, and breaks affective logjams. When I see a former neo-nazi or KKK member who escaped from that mindset, typically the key was receiving empathy from someone they expected to receive hate from; their mindset thrives on being hated, that feedback has been incorporated into the mechanisms which sustain the mindset. Receiving empathy from somebody whom you are against and who you expect to despite you, can break the pattern.
So when some people think that empathy is not enough to bridge the gap of having had different life experiences, perhaps they have experienced giving and recieving mostly "tribal empathy", which indeed is by definition bad at bridging (tribal) differences. But by talkinng with people, by reading good fiction and non-fiction, one can indeed get some meaningful understanding of what it's like to live in somebody else's shoes. Imperfect, but it's always imperfect - it can still be important.
This is one of the cultural mutations which characterize "neo-progressivism" from liberalism or traditional progressivism - empathy has become substantially more tribal. Once upon a time, trying to understand how something looks from "the other side" was valued among liberal values; now to do so is suspect. Dogma has suppressed not only critical thinking, but any kind of universal empathy, which might undermine the starkness of The Oppression Narrative upon which so much neo-progressivism's power rests.