One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.
The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.
Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?
Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?
What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?
Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.
I have little in common, politically, with true socialists, and even less with true communists. However, I have yet to find even one person with whom I cannot agree with on something, even politically. I'll give you an extreme example: Hitler. While I disagree with his solutions pretty much across the board (I'm not sure on ALL of his positions so I cannot say anything absolute), There is one this which I think we would have agreed on. That is that in the 1920's and 1930's the economic state of Germany was... horrible, to say the least. Something needed to be done. That is pretty much the extent of what we would have agreed upon though, economically. With this in mind I shall attempt to address your questions.
Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?
Absolutely. Even if all you are attempting is to change their mind, you must have ACCURATE knowledge of the opposing perspective to have any hope of even having an intelligent conversation with them. Sadly, an "intelligent conversation" is not the goal of many on TV, social media, and even here on this board. Too often the goal is to "score points" by proving them wrong. But, even then you need to understand what their position
truly is in order to attempt to "prove" them wrong. More to the point of the question though, as a society I'm not so sure we do want to know. Simply because if we have a true picture of another perspective, and have an open mind, we must evaluate said position, and compare it to our own. When doing this, our position is challenged, and we may find our convictions to be flawed. Too many people want nothing do to with that.
Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?
Absolutely. In my opening example of Hitler, there is much of value. Mostly in the way of learning how to defeat this thinking when it is encountered, and in understanding how that part of history happened so we can avoid it in the future. Sadly, again, most people choose to only think about right here, right now. Thus, we continually make the same mistakes over and over again.
What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?
Simply put, if we closely examine other positions, we then compare them to our own. When this happens, even under the best of circumstances, we then must examine our own positions enough to decide if they are superior to another. Occasionally, we all know, we will find that our position(s) will be found to be lacking in some way. This is a difficult thing for most people to deal with. It becomes an internal struggle of sorts. We may even encounter a time when we must CHANGE our position because of some new fact, viewpoint, or other input. That too is difficult for most people. Most people, for whatever reason, avoid conflict (whether internal or external), it's a "self-preservation" mechanism that has served us well for millenia. However, in an intellectual way it has stifled human advancement and achievement.
This can be observed readily on college campuses across the globe. Few professors accept, and even fewer welcome, opposing ideas/views in their classrooms. It is my belief that this is seen as a challenge to their authority. Many times, nothing could be further from the truth. However, when one has been told over and over that they have a superior position (regardless of the validity) one tends to believe it, and sees challenges to that position as a threat. Take the most recent Presidential election as an example: Over the course of years (maybe decades) Clinton was told that she was great, that she was a force to be reckoned with (politically). So, when she lost (for the first time?) it was devastating to her. Quite understandably. She was, undoubtedly, told over and over that Trump was unable to beat her, it was her time. So, like any rational person, she went to work to discover why she lost. That is where the logic train stops, in my opinion, and instead of accepting that Trump ran a better campaign, as evidenced by his win, she started looking for ways that he, or "the system" victimized her, thus rationalizing her loss. To her, and many of her supporters, I am convinced, it wasn't that she lost, but that the election was, somehow, stolen. It's the only explanation, sense she "couldn't lose" to Trump. It could not be that his ideas were better, or that he ran a smarter campaign. It had to be sexism, or Russian collusion, or some other outside force she had no control over. In short, it simply could not be her fault, it HAD to be something nefarious. Therefore, she, and her supporters, had no need to examine themselves, or their positions.
