,
26 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Kim makes a reasonable point here, so I'll try to give a reasonable response: 1/
1) The definition of empathy is contested and often confused. One friend who has studied the topic told me that the academic literature is filled with debates and discussions about empathy, sympathy, and compassion and the distinctions between them. 2/
2) This article lists 8 different contested definitions. theatlantic.com/health/archive… This is unsurprising because the word has only been in use for about 100 years. 3/
3) Edwin Friedman, a family counselor and rabbi, was sounding the alarm about the dangers of empathy back in the 90’s. Empathy is often “a disguise for anxiety…and a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” 4/
He attributes the prominence of empathy in the modern world to “the herding/togetherness force of an anxious society” which demands that its members adapt to the least mature members. Here’s Alastair Roberts (@zugzwanged) summarizing Friedman’s book: alastairadversaria.com/2012/01/14/sum…
5/
5/
4) In his recent book “Against Empathy”, Paul Bloom defines empathy as “feeling what someone else feels” (which is another way of describing the total immersion in my letter). Here’s an interview with Bloom where he summarizes the argument of his book: vox.com/conversations/… 6/
5) For Bloom, empathy undermines actual compassion and moral reasoning because it is inherently biased and hijacks our ability to consider the bigger picture. 7/
It’s like a spotlight that zooms in one person (or one group), feels what he/they feel, & then makes decisions to relieve their pain (which is now our pain) without taking into account what is best in a given situation. 8/
6) So if the definition is contested, why pick one definition and contend for it? The main reason is that empathy is often contrasted with sympathy and compassion, and found to be a superior way of helping. 9/
My understanding is that that’s how Brene Brown uses it in her work. She identifies the same ditches/temptations/problems that I do in my letters, but makes *empathy* into the virtue, and *sympathy* into the negative way of caring/helping. 10/
My contention is that it’s important for us to retain the biblical word and not elevate a recent word with a contested definition as the superior virtue. We don't want to think "Sympathy is okay, but empathy is way better," because then we'll misunderstand the Scriptures. 11/
We have a perfectly good English word for Christ-like care that weeps with those who weep and moves us to help those who are hurting. The word is compassion. Empathy simply confuses the issue. desiringgod.org/articles/moved… 12/
7) Now perhaps you disagree with those definitions. That’s fine. But part of the reason for writing in the way I did was to provoke thought about what we actually mean when we encourage empathy. 13/
How does empathy differ from compassion? What are its dangers? Are we aware of those dangers? Or, can we simply not imagine empathy being dangerous or negative (as many of those who responded to my article could not)? 14/
8) But even more than the word itself, the articles were meant to highlight a real phenomenon that is as old as dirt. It’s the use of pain and suffering as a tool to manipulate the kindness of others, using other people’s compassion as a weapon to steer them. 15/
For a powerful depiction of this type of manipulation in multiple forms, read Lewis’s the Great Divorce. A common thread among the ghosts is to try to use their suffering as a way of manipulating the solid Spirits (and their frustration when they cannot). 16/
They accuse the Spirits of being "heartless," of not being loving, of being proud and unfeeling. In other words, they accuse them of *not being empathetic.* 17/
Sometimes it’s those in pain who do this. More often in the modern context, it’s Advocates for sufferers who use the pain of others as a tool to silence those they disagree with. 18/
It was no surprise to me that those who reacted most strongly to my argument were those who have a particular concern for those who have suffered greatly. 19/
Convinced that my words might cause suffering people pain, they reacted with anger, mockery, derision, and denunciations. Some Advocates sought to make arguments against my position; I welcomed that and had a few fruitful interactions. 20/
Others resorted to ad hominem attacks, sneering dismissals, and poisoning the well ("Joe has been influenced by people we don’t like; don’t listen to him!") rather than reasoned argument. 21/
Or they used emotion-laden appeals based on the principle “if your words might cause distress to someone who has been hurt, you must not say them.” Ironically that is a direct appeal to the kind of empathy that I’m rejecting. 22/
One last thought: I know some are (rightly) concerned about attempting to correct the sufferer when they are in their lowest valley. They know that it doesn't work, and that it causes more problems. And I agree that correcting in the lowest valleys is often counterproductive. 23/
I wrote the first letter to address the tendency of insecure comforters to try to force people out of valleys by browbeating them with Bible verses. It's a real problem and I addressed it *first*. 24/
But my concern in the second is really for the comforter to maintain their Christian integrity as one who hopes in God in the face of someone who, in their distress and pain, demands a total immersion in their pain, or "you don't really love me." 25/
I'm addressing the temptation of the comforter to so identify with the pain of the hurting that they lose themselves in that pain. Call it maintaining boundaries; call it preserving self-differentiation; call it remaining tethered to Jesus & truth. That's the fundamental concern.
