MUSHY LIBERAL VALUES, PART TWO: EMPATHY

When I was a prosecutor, I argued for the maximum sentence for a man who had kidnapped his ex-girlfriend at gunpoint in the hope of running off across the country with her and marrying her.  He thought he could make her love him through use of force, including beating her, threatening her with a gun, and holding a knife to her throat.  I told the judge that this guy was extremely dangerous because he completely lacked "empathy."  In other words, he completely lacked the ability to see a situation from the point of view of the other person involved.  The defense attorney then went off on how "inappropriate" it was for me to impose "feminist New Age values" like "empathy" on his client.

I thought this was a very odd tack for the defense attorney to take.  It was surprising because there was no basis for the defense attorney to assume I am a feminist or a liberal (although both are true).  It was further surprising because I had never before viewed "empathy" as some sort of mushy, ill-defined, feel-good value.  I suppose some people hear the word "empathy" and immediately think of Bill Clinton's hokey routine of "I feel your pain."   But I have always viewed "empathy" as a crucial skill for basic moral functioning and for effective functioning in the world. 

I suppose the term "empathy" could also imply acceptance or endorsement of the other point of view. But I don't use it that way.  I use it to mean "understanding" -- but "understanding" doesn't mean I think every other point of view is okay.  One exercise that I think is interesting is to try to understand where really alien groups are coming from -- like the neo-Nazis, for instance.  I think I can understand why some poor, alienated person might embrace a philosophy of inherent "Aryan" superiority.  That doesn't mean I think such a philosophy is a good thing (indeed, such a philosophy is completely opposed to the notion of empathy, since there is no room in neo-Nazism for seeing the humanity and point of view of people of other races). 

Except for some of the criminals among us, we all have empathy to one degree or another.  The question is how intentional you are about employing empathy in every situation.  Empathy is a crucial building block for basic moral functioning on both a micro and a macro level.  On a micro level, empathy may help me see that the person I am arguing with has a valid point.  On a macro level, empathy is the first step towards justice.  If I just think of myself and my own needs, why then, I could justify enslaving others.  I might even say that enslaving others is good not only for me, but for those who are enslaved.  Such an argument has been applied even to the extreme injustice of African-American slavery.  Such an argument has been applied to the colonizing of other countries.  Such an argument has been applied to the multitude of restrictions and constraints placed on women. 

I also view empathy -- far from being some mushy, meaningless, "New Age" idea -- as perhaps the crucial element of whatever professional success I have enjoyed so far.  Empathy delivers hard returns. In any working environment, empathy helps grease the wheels of interaction with one's co-workers.  I don't run around giving my boss meaningful, sympathetic looks, or clasping his hand and saying, "I know where you're coming from."  But I do try to think about what his worries, pressures, and concerns may be so that I can alleviate them and not add to them.  Whenever I interact with my boss, I think to myself:  (A) What is he concerned about? and (B) How can I make his life easier? 

For example, I had a big deadline recently for a motion for summary judgment in a case I am working on with my boss.   One day, my boss came in and started questioning me very closely about where were on the motion.  I, of course, gleaned that he was concerned about making the deadline.  So I acted completely confident, told him what I had done so far, told him my plan for completing the project, and asked him when he would like to see a draft so that he could look it over before it was submitted to the court.  It was important to act like I was completely in control of the project, and that I understood his concern about the deadline, so that he wouldn't worry.  Of course, I was like a duck paddling frantically under the surface of the water, because I had to scramble to get the thing done in time for him to look at it -- but, seeing things from his point of view, I thought it was important to reassure him as much as possible, rather than telling him how far behind I felt. 

As another example, at my last firm, a junior associate and I were both secretary-less for a period, and we both had to borrow the senior name partner's secretary who never seemed to have much work.  The junior associate just walked up to the senior partner's secretary and gave her work without even acknowledging the senior partner.  I emailed the senior partner, and asked him to if I could use his secretary and assured him that I understood that his work would have to take priority over mine.  When the junior associate and I compared notes, we found that the partner told her in a very snippy way that she couldn't use his secretary, whereas he was quite gracious to me and told me that I could use his secretary any time.  The junior associate said she didn't feel she should have to "kiss this guy's ass" just to get some basic secretarial support.  But from his point of view, he built this firm, taking on all the risks and all the burdens of doing so, and it would be annoying to have some little whippersnapper commandeer his secretary without any respectful acknowledgment of his position as the guy in charge.  I don't think he wanted his ass kissed; he just wanted some basic respect, and it wasn't burdensome at all to give it. 

Similarly, empathy helps getting things done with court clerks and secretaries.  Before I ask my secretary to do something, I try to figure out what her concerns or issues might be and acknowledge them.  If I give my secretary a particularly onerous or annoying task, it helps to say, "Hey, I know this is going to be really annoying and I am sorry about that.  I really appreciate your doing this."  I try to avoid giving my secretary last minute urgent projects at five minutes to five.  I find because of these expressions of empathy and appreciation, my secretary tends to be more inclined to stay late on those occasions when it is necessary, court clerks are more inclined to go the extra step to do whatever you need, and people in general are more willing to help. It costs very little to acknowledge the humanity and the point of view of the other people one comes across in one's daily life, and in doing so, one reaps significant rewards, far in excess of what one would get by charging in with a demanding attitude. 

Certainly, as a trial lawyer, I have capitalized on empathy to try to explain human behavior to my juries.  When I prepare for a trial, in a criminal or a cop case, for example, I view the underlying facts from every single angle.  Why did the victim behave the way the victim behaved?  Why did the  criminal behave the way the criminal behaved? Why did the cop behave the way the cop behaved?  What were they all thinking and feeling at the time?  If I can get them to explain it for me, I will.  If not, I will figure it out because the motivation of the actors involved is often the key to the whole case.   

In sum, empathy is a key value for me.  It is probably the key mode in which I try to live, whether in thinking through a case, interacting with others in all situations, and in drawing my conclusions about larger issues.  It is not play acting with tears in one's eyes to show sympathy.  It is an intellectual and imaginative, as well as a moral exercise, that is crucial to any endeavor that involves other people. 

Comments

[Jess]

What you're talking about here is, to my mind, the most significant divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives want to see black and white, right and wrong, and aren't good at shades of gray. When one tries, deliberately, to see all aspects of a situation, one realizes just how many shades there are - and that makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. My pet theory is, that uncomfortable feeling is one of the main reasons that political conservatives also flock to conservative religions, where they're told unequivocably what is right and what is wrong and how to get into heaven.

There are always exceptions, of course, but how many times have we seen individuals absolutely villified by the conservative right for their stance on, say, abortion, when the rest of their policies line up with what can be called the conservative agenda? Or how feeding the poor and clothing the naked is sometimes met with tirades about how the poor are poor because they just can't hold a job and therefore haven't earned a "handout?"

I don't know that there is a way to change this fundamental divide between philosophies, except one person at a time.

[chipmunk]

Clearly empathy must be a liberal feminist value. Why else would Ann Coulter go off on the "9/11 widows."

As for the defense attorney's reaction to your request that his client receive the maximum sentence, I'm reminded of the old maxim, "when you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; when you have neither the law or facts on your side, pound the table." It sounds like he was pounding the table.

[A Pang]

But isn't saying that there's a "fundamental divide" between conservatives and liberals, and saying that conservatives are like this and liberals like that, itself ignoring shades of gray?

[Richard]

The "problem" with liberal empathy as I see it is how it's applied. I believe in your girlfriend-beater case you applied it correctly, and more importantly, in the right direction, that is, against the beater for having a lack of it. This is not a typical liberal position, as quite often liberals will argue for empathy for the perpetrator. If I had been the defense councel I would have embraced your empathy argument and re-directed it toward my client, as all good liberals are want to do when it comes to bad people. You know, he’s poor, bad upbringing, hooked on drugs, fatherless, uneducated, no hope, etc. The liberal mind often does not know how to stop the empathy at the right point or to even see evil (unless it’s someone who disagrees with them). The problem with liberal empathy is that it is used to argue that everything is relative if you only dig deep enough. This is how terrorists oddly become “insurgents,” and illegal aliens become “undocumented workers.”

[The Happy Feminist]

Ah, but I think understanding of the perpetrator is important too. When I consider "empathy," I try to figure out where the perpetrator is coming form and why he acted the way he did. Depending on the circumstances, maybe I will consider some of these as "mitigating" factors that should give him a break on sentencing, or maybe not. But the understanding is still important.

What I remove from my definition of "empathy" is the idea of accepting or identifying with the other person's point of view. I will always try to understand and consider the other person's point view -- but I reserve the right to reject or condemn that point of view.

[Jess]

A Pang - it's part of the human condition to want to see things in absolutes, but I find that the political conservative movement has mastered the art of playing to that base value, while individual liberal politicians and those who are interested in politics end up on the defensive. The conservative movement as a whole is almost always "on message," unlike the political liberal movement which can be rightly called "flip-floppers."

People in general, however, are forced to identify with one extreme side or the other, and unfortunately I've seen the liberal side reduced to not much more than "anti-conservative" - mostly due to, I think, the way the media cover politics and our uniquely competitive society that seems to always pit one side against the other. Those who choose not to take sides, who I would argue constitute a majority, either burn out and disengage from the political process entirely, or flirt back and forth depending on the issue at hand. I'd love to see a third party of true moderates, who can see more nuance and blend the best of both sides - that, to my mind, would make up the "real" liberals rather than the reactionaries. The problem is that it is very hard to articulate politics in shades of gray, and therefore anyone who really tries ends up branded as indecisive or wishy-washy.

[ballgame]

This is not a typical liberal position, as quite often liberals will argue for empathy for the perpetrator.

Richard, I can't speak for liberals as a group, but as a progressive I see it as pretty straightforward. On an individual level, we should all be accountable for whatever crimes we may commit, but as a society it is in our interest to understand the forces which induce people to become criminals and to work to eliminate those forces (which are disproportionately poverty, abuse, neglect, and the devaluing of people — particularly men — who don't wield power over others).

Happy, I thought this was a great post. There are definite gender issues surrounding empathy. It is much more difficult to develop and sustain empathy when you grow up male in American society. Basically, if you're a boy, empathy just isn't a quality that's valued among your peers (by and large). Or, maybe to a be a bit more precise, its value is far far behind those of having a capacity for violence ("being able to defend yourself"), being cool, and being competitive. Developing a capacity for violence — a requirement which most middle class girls are still largely spared — is antithetical to developing a capacity for empathy for the average boy. I suspect that those who do develop both often do so by splitting their approach along largely gender lines (tough with guys, tender towards women) though this less typical than it used to be.

I also have to add that the lack of empathy towards men is the single most disturbing thing I find at blogs devoted to 'women's perspectives only' feminism.

[Marj (aka Thriver)]

Empathy is also a key value for me. Thank you for pointing out the fact that empathy is not some fleeting, "new age" fad.

On another note, would you be willing to link your articles on spanking for a blog carnival I'm hosting? It's the Carnival Against Child Abuse. Details are at my blog or Blog Carnival. Thanks for considering!

[The Happy Feminist]

Hey Marj, I would be happy too. It sounds like an interesting Carnival. Thanks for asking me!

[Chipmunk]

You want empathy for the wife beater you need to focus on his problems (unless you're trying to deny completely that he beats his wife). Why is he doing this. Is there a drug/alcohol problem? Intolerable work stresses? A history of abuse in his family, i.e., was his father and grandfather both wife beaters and that's the only way he knows how to relate to women? Absent father so that he doesn't know how a man is supposed to treat a woman; a mother who slept around? Other mental health problems. Mitigating evidence can build empathy for the wife beater.

Of course, it's not up to the prosecutor to make the wife beater empathetic. That's the defense attorney's position. If the defense attorney is only attacking the prosecutor for putting forth "feminist new age values" and not advocating for the client, the defense attorney is either trying to just collect his fee or close out a file.