It's true that the 'narrative' around and against individuality is spun on both sides of the aisle (if such an aisle actually exists, outside of Westminster that is). It's fascinating to see how the word equality is used in different contexts. The focus on equality of outcomes is something that France's socialism, for example, extols. Ge…
It's true that the 'narrative' around and against individuality is spun on both sides of the aisle (if such an aisle actually exists, outside of Westminster that is). It's fascinating to see how the word equality is used in different contexts. The focus on equality of outcomes is something that France's socialism, for example, extols. Getting equality of opportunities right, meanwhile, is a harder gambit. And indeed, the full picture is more complex and nuanced, especially when you start to open the field of discussion to other countries and cultures. I've long marvelled at how France and the US share two capital tenets in Liberty and Equality, but with the latter have implemented a different, if not opposite, interpretation. Neither is perfect.
What a wonderful conversation going on here! Like everyone else, my life experiences shape my perceptions and viewpoints. It is important to keep in mind that that is not my truth, but my perception of it. This poem, written in 1887 comes to mind. Worth reading again, the importance is explicitly stated at the end.
That's a great poem, Dave. We all come with our biases, form our story. That's one of the reasons I've been focused on the concept of empathy. And it's not necessarily about being nice or submitting to the other. It's about understanding the other person's context. So much work to be done on that front ... and it takes effort and, per the comments above about the individual, removing our own ego in order to listen deeply (without judgment) to the other side.
I have long been an advocate for empathy, as perhaps the core of what makes our species worth saving - and the underpinnings of other emotions like love. And one can find rudimentary examples within, say, Bonobos.
More recently I have begun to distinguish what I call "tribal empathy" from "universal empathy".
What I noticed is that some ideologies prescribe a mandatory empathy towards designated groups, accompanied by a similarly strong mandatory numbing of empathy towards other designated groups; I first noticed this among my fellows on the left - professing empathy towards all members of marginalized groups was not only praised and status enhancing, but de rigueur - failure to do so in almost in every case was status reducing. But expressing any sympathy for how something might land for a conservative, or trying to fairly understand their motives as anything other than evil got one in trouble - you were NOT supposed to have any empathy for the bad people, and were stigmatized as disloyal if you did. In this case, the "empathy" draws upon the easily tapped 'us versus them' archetype or primeval motivations inherent in tribalism. Empathy of this sort can perhaps be seen among Chimpanzees, where a band of males grooms and supports each other, as a bonding before wars and conflicts with other bands. (Likewise for a band of soldiers - absent the physical grooming)
(After making this observation, I recalled an incident in an organization where a conflict was arising, and I talked and listened to somebody upset at leadership, resulting in de-escalation and a win/win compromise. But the other side of that dispute was really upset at me for "interfering" - they were about to bring down the hammer and looking forward to it. I was not being on the team, to listen and understand the other side)
Universal empathy is the kind that is voluntary, transcends tribe, and opens new doors. On youtube one can find, for example, former neo-nazis who have abandoned their old ways and become activists for keeping kids from falling into that - and it's always receiving empathy and understanding from a supposed enemy which turned them. There is no other side of the coin here - no requirement to numb out any empathy for the "other". This draws on other underlying roots than tribal empathy.
I'm no longer as much of a fan of tribal empathy. When I notice something posing as empathy, I look at the broader dynamic - is this emotion inherently tied to antipathy towards an outgroup, or not? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I like the kind of empathy you are describing; it gives me hope. But the tribal kind empathy comes with great costs in an over-polarized society.
So, riffing off your comments PGBR, I feel an internal conflict. On the one hand, I believe we need to allow for our sense of belonging to one or other tribe, yet do I also look to the need to practice empathy with "the others." In practical and highly pragmatic terms, practicing empathy will allow a negotiator to get a better deal. It can help make better products, improve design and customer service with customers. It also allows a sociopath to better control the victim. And on the 'tribe' front, it's worth noting that there exists a Close Communication Bias, where the people with whom you are closest, you may hear the least. For example, you cut them off and finish their sentences. The result is that the other doesn't feel heard. In any event, going back to my conflict, I feel we need to allow for the sensation of belonging ... to a tribe, a family, a group. If we are forced to love everyone everywhere all the time, we will not succeed. Life is strategic (time and resources are limited) and we have, therefore, to make choices. AND at the same time, this doesn't preclude an ability to reach out to strangers that don't look like us, listen deeply to the opposing sides of a debate... and reach across the aisle to recognize that some of their arguments and positions may well be better than your own... A messy line, but the one I'm keen to explore.
I can see a function for tribal empathy and for universal empathy. However, I believe that at this point in history, at least in my country, tribalism is both already dysfunctionally high and increasing, so I do not think it needs to be further enhanced; we are in desperate need for re-affirming our commonalities and reducing our us-vs-them mentality.
I will point out another facet of empathy, which I came across in a book on Bonobos long ago. Empathy is required for deception - one has to put oneself in the mind of another in order to know how to deceive them. One example of empathy was getting the keeper's attention when another bonobo was in the zoo moat at the time when water was being returned after cleaning. But another was a bonobo seen on video to observe that a lab assistant had not fully closed a door, but suppressing their reaction until the assistant had left, so as not to give away that fact. Any con man needs to be able to put themselves in the mind of their victims, in order to be effective.
It's true that the 'narrative' around and against individuality is spun on both sides of the aisle (if such an aisle actually exists, outside of Westminster that is). It's fascinating to see how the word equality is used in different contexts. The focus on equality of outcomes is something that France's socialism, for example, extols. Getting equality of opportunities right, meanwhile, is a harder gambit. And indeed, the full picture is more complex and nuanced, especially when you start to open the field of discussion to other countries and cultures. I've long marvelled at how France and the US share two capital tenets in Liberty and Equality, but with the latter have implemented a different, if not opposite, interpretation. Neither is perfect.
What a wonderful conversation going on here! Like everyone else, my life experiences shape my perceptions and viewpoints. It is important to keep in mind that that is not my truth, but my perception of it. This poem, written in 1887 comes to mind. Worth reading again, the importance is explicitly stated at the end.
https://www.poetry.com/poem/101535/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant
That's a great poem, Dave. We all come with our biases, form our story. That's one of the reasons I've been focused on the concept of empathy. And it's not necessarily about being nice or submitting to the other. It's about understanding the other person's context. So much work to be done on that front ... and it takes effort and, per the comments above about the individual, removing our own ego in order to listen deeply (without judgment) to the other side.
I have long been an advocate for empathy, as perhaps the core of what makes our species worth saving - and the underpinnings of other emotions like love. And one can find rudimentary examples within, say, Bonobos.
More recently I have begun to distinguish what I call "tribal empathy" from "universal empathy".
What I noticed is that some ideologies prescribe a mandatory empathy towards designated groups, accompanied by a similarly strong mandatory numbing of empathy towards other designated groups; I first noticed this among my fellows on the left - professing empathy towards all members of marginalized groups was not only praised and status enhancing, but de rigueur - failure to do so in almost in every case was status reducing. But expressing any sympathy for how something might land for a conservative, or trying to fairly understand their motives as anything other than evil got one in trouble - you were NOT supposed to have any empathy for the bad people, and were stigmatized as disloyal if you did. In this case, the "empathy" draws upon the easily tapped 'us versus them' archetype or primeval motivations inherent in tribalism. Empathy of this sort can perhaps be seen among Chimpanzees, where a band of males grooms and supports each other, as a bonding before wars and conflicts with other bands. (Likewise for a band of soldiers - absent the physical grooming)
(After making this observation, I recalled an incident in an organization where a conflict was arising, and I talked and listened to somebody upset at leadership, resulting in de-escalation and a win/win compromise. But the other side of that dispute was really upset at me for "interfering" - they were about to bring down the hammer and looking forward to it. I was not being on the team, to listen and understand the other side)
Universal empathy is the kind that is voluntary, transcends tribe, and opens new doors. On youtube one can find, for example, former neo-nazis who have abandoned their old ways and become activists for keeping kids from falling into that - and it's always receiving empathy and understanding from a supposed enemy which turned them. There is no other side of the coin here - no requirement to numb out any empathy for the "other". This draws on other underlying roots than tribal empathy.
I'm no longer as much of a fan of tribal empathy. When I notice something posing as empathy, I look at the broader dynamic - is this emotion inherently tied to antipathy towards an outgroup, or not? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I like the kind of empathy you are describing; it gives me hope. But the tribal kind empathy comes with great costs in an over-polarized society.
So, riffing off your comments PGBR, I feel an internal conflict. On the one hand, I believe we need to allow for our sense of belonging to one or other tribe, yet do I also look to the need to practice empathy with "the others." In practical and highly pragmatic terms, practicing empathy will allow a negotiator to get a better deal. It can help make better products, improve design and customer service with customers. It also allows a sociopath to better control the victim. And on the 'tribe' front, it's worth noting that there exists a Close Communication Bias, where the people with whom you are closest, you may hear the least. For example, you cut them off and finish their sentences. The result is that the other doesn't feel heard. In any event, going back to my conflict, I feel we need to allow for the sensation of belonging ... to a tribe, a family, a group. If we are forced to love everyone everywhere all the time, we will not succeed. Life is strategic (time and resources are limited) and we have, therefore, to make choices. AND at the same time, this doesn't preclude an ability to reach out to strangers that don't look like us, listen deeply to the opposing sides of a debate... and reach across the aisle to recognize that some of their arguments and positions may well be better than your own... A messy line, but the one I'm keen to explore.
I can see a function for tribal empathy and for universal empathy. However, I believe that at this point in history, at least in my country, tribalism is both already dysfunctionally high and increasing, so I do not think it needs to be further enhanced; we are in desperate need for re-affirming our commonalities and reducing our us-vs-them mentality.
I will point out another facet of empathy, which I came across in a book on Bonobos long ago. Empathy is required for deception - one has to put oneself in the mind of another in order to know how to deceive them. One example of empathy was getting the keeper's attention when another bonobo was in the zoo moat at the time when water was being returned after cleaning. But another was a bonobo seen on video to observe that a lab assistant had not fully closed a door, but suppressing their reaction until the assistant had left, so as not to give away that fact. Any con man needs to be able to put themselves in the mind of their victims, in order to be effective.
Empathy, in the wrong hands...