Empathy in the Creative Arts

In response to the artist Dame Tracey Emin's answer during this interview (watch the clip on Instagram here): Yes she's right up to a point. It's true that:

1) an artist doesn't have to suffer emotionally in order to make art. For instance, my Face2Face Lesbians artwork series is autobiografictional, so it is based on personal experience but not based on any type of suffering I've experienced within a lesbian relationship. So art can come from positive life experiences too, it's not restricted to just suffering. And the positive message in my Face2Face Lesbians artwork is an essential part of the conceptual aspect of the art series: Lesbian relationships are just as romantic, positive and 'normal' as heterosexual ones. In that sense, it's relatable and an uplifting message for lesbians and lesbian couples around the world. It busts various depressing myths about all lesbians. 

Where I have depicted negative personal experiences of suffering homophobia and genderphobia from people within that art series, for example, in my 'IDAHOBIT: Our Bodies Our Lives, Our Rights' (May 2022 view it here), I've placed it within my positive life experience of being able to share experiences of such discrimination within my safe, empathetic, supportive relationship with a woman. 

It's also true that: 

2) Viewers can like art they empathise with and that speaks to their own personal experiences. 

I think that's especially true of autobiographical art. Although I have noticed that some people dislike art that reminds them of their own personal difficulties or trauma, preferring to relax and lift their spirits by escaping them through enjoying more lighthearted, happy aesthetic experiences that don't resemble anything with which they personally identify. 

However, when people are drawn to aesthetic experiences which depict negative life experiences they have experienced themselves, I suggest that their enjoyment of it is more about catharsis than empathy. The latter strictly speaking requires people to imaginatively and emotionally put themselves in someone else's shoes, enter into their mind and emotions, so they can imaginatively feel their way into how another person feels. 

Hence, I argue that empathy has the ability to bridge the solipsistic gap between different individuals' minds, thoughts and emotions. 

People can empathise even if they haven't had a similar experience. 

I didn't have Tracey's experiences but that didn't prevent me from liking her BritArt, her early autobiographical art. I went to an exhibition of her work at the White Cube (as well as other exhibitions of her art) and it made a deep impression on me which still lives on. It also inspired me later to cross-apply my philosophy research on empathy to the role of empathy in aesthetics, art, including BritArt and Shock Art, where empathy can be either encouraged or blocked depending on the style of the artwork. (For my abstract on this see here on my academia.edu profile.) 

But there's no overlap between myself and Emin other than we identify as artists.

I empathise, for example, with Frida Kahlo's works of art which are very impressive in a gallery partly because of their sheer size but I don't identify with her life experiences or even her overall identity which wasn't just Jewish. That doesn't mean I have never suffered at all in my life, nearly everyone has, but just not in the same way or to the same extent as Kahlo. So there's no overlap. The only overlap is identifying as artists. 

I empathised with Dolly Parton and the extreme poverty she grew up in living in the smoky mountains as one of 12 children in a tiny mountain hut but I can't identify with that. She had holes in her shoes while I grew up with perfectly fitted start-rite shoes. But that didn't prevent me from empathising with her and loving her songs. Furthermore, I didn't identify with the way she presented herself but it was Dolly, the kind-hearted, musically gifted, entrepreneurial woman that struck a chord within me not her glamorous feminine persona. 

I remember years back now when Anthony Price, during one of my supervisions with him on my dissertation on Empathy in Hume's philosophy (available to read here) asking me whether a Christian can empathise with a Jew about the Holocaust.

I said yes!  

So suppose a Holocaust survivor is talking about their immense suffering in a concentration camp, would listeners without that experience empathise and understand what the person went through?

Absolutely!

I went to the Freud Museum to listen to the story of a Holocaust survivor. It was a horrific story. I was moved to tears by her story, and it motivated me to vocally stand by Jews, Israel, and to fight Antisemitism. It also motivated me to extend my empathy dissertation to the Holocaust especially after being deeply moved by an event held at the Wigmore Hall to commemorate the Holocaust. 

So yes people love art and stories that help them with their own experiences but it's also vital that people empathise with those whose experiences are outside of their own.

And even those who have had an easy life hopefully empathise with those who have had a tough one. 

Thus empathy is a cornerstone of an ethical, humane society. Hence I expanded my empathy research into political and social philosophy (see here) and my larger, ongoing cross-disciplinary research project (project outline available here). 

I think I'm right in saying that about 100 millionaires have pledged money since Burnham became PM. That's empathy! That in itself would help Burnham's homelessness project. And it shows that wealth in itself doesn't act as an empathy blocker, or make people selfish. It is more dependent on the wealthy person's capacity for empathy, irrespective of whether they have lived experience of poverty themselves at some point in their lives or not. 

Empathic Approaches to Homelessness

In this Facebook video,  we see compassion and empathy at play in the Netherlands. It's also non-judgemental. And what a super idea these jackets are! They keep the homeless dry and warm on a wet night as well as protecting them from damp, cold winter nights.

And this isn't the only European country thinking up innovative ideas to help the homeless, such as, France which repurposes old trains into clean living areas with beds, lighting and warmth for the homeless to rest in instead of exhausting themselves sleeping outdoors. This keeps them dry, warm and safe. It gives them dignity.

France has also invented self heating food packs so the homeless can eat hot food whenever they like during the winter without the need for gas etc.

What does the UK do? It's made homelessness a crime since the 19th century (Vagrancy Act 1824)! So seeing the suffering of others doesn't produce compassion or empathy in and of itself, as we see in the UK. But it has in the Netherlands and France. So there must be another factor at play that is more fundamental eg a capacity for empathy. 

This is why the UK desperately needs a compassionate, empathic government, not one that just stresses people out with constant unnecessary sudden changes and warnings if everyone is not constantly paranoid about keeping up with the latest crazy idea. It's become a country that works at creating fear and poverty which targets just about everyone except itself. That's no longer a democracy. Yet we're putting up with it and, worse still, eyeing up something even less democratic to take over ie the Reform Party.

I'm baffled how people think. There's another option: the Lib Dems who were the traditional opposition to the Tories throughout British history, until Labour, with its left/right faction and an attitude problem towards the middle class, came about at the beginning of the 20th century. Let's face it, the Lib Dems can't do worse than the two main parties and very likely would do far better. They'll make the UK a saner, more decent, caring place to live in. The evidence is there! Any decent policy under PM David Cameron was not due to the Conservatives but to the Lib Dems!

J S Mill was right up to a point. You need an educated nation before handing out the vote to everyone. I would go further and say you need politics taught in schools. Voting is a huge responsibility that every citizen should be allowed to participate in but they're meant to do so because they're informed about the choice they're making before placing their vote. Some 16 year olds haven't even sat their GCSEs yet and, therefore, can't leave school. Furthermore, they're still minors until 18. So I don't understand why the UK is allowed to lower the voting age to 16, which implicitly means children can now vote in local and general elections. That's mad! These children's voting decisions will impact all of us, worse still! Yet the UK recently raised the safeguarding age in education, in particular, to 19 years old. That's nonsensical: 16 year olds will be voting and impacting the whole nation alongside adults of all ages, whilst still being considered minors in need of extra safeguarding measures for the next several years. 

Ideally, if you are going to start allowing school children to vote, then politics has to be taught as a compulsory subject in schools by teachers who are trained to teach it objectively, with compassion and kindness being the guiding principles, emphasizing democracy not dictatorships and totalitarianism. The latter is not an informed choice, it's a disaster that happens when something has gone seriously wrong.

Pleasure and Pain

This article, that I came across on TPM's Facebook page, titled 'When Pain Isn’t Painful' by David Bain is a long piece of writing that's not very informative. After reading it, you're none the wiser about the topic and where they're going with it. 

I gather this undated article is one of the 'popular articles' rather than academic articles that has grown out of a Templeton project on the value of suffering which took place during September 2013 - May 2016 with 2 team leaders, Bain (author of this piece) being one of them, a postdoc and maybe another 'skivy' PhD or below. See here for the project description. 

Suffering is a topic that holds no interest for me in and of itself. It's only relevant in relation to my project on empathy. It's something religious people have a 'thing' about.

John Templeton (a republican evangelical Christian) did as well, so this project has to have that conservative Christian evangelical bias to it, since all Templeton funded projects must be in accordance with his views. I gather that he thought it made you more compassionate, 'grow' as a person, and most importantly, encourage spiritual development. I disagree with the first two and don't care about spiritual development. 

Christians glorify suffering because Jesus 'suffered' at the end of his life. But not throughout his life!! Furthermore, heaven, where everyone wants to go, is suffering-free but hell is full of suffering but no-one is queuing up for entry to that one. 

QED no-one wants to suffer in this life or the next, whatever the latter is.

According to the project description, the Templeton Foundation funding (led by a family dynasty, passed from father to son to daughter) was intended to go towards papers, conferences, a monograph and setting up a centre at Glasgow University named: Centre for Affective Experience. Has it set up yet? Not that I can see. But Glasgow Uni is 'into' the 'emotions'. It's a 'thing' up there in Scotland.🙄 

But the University of Glasgow does have a 20 year long overactive 'Perceptual Experience Centre' run by Fiona Macpherson which combines the disciplines of: psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, philosophy, human - computer interaction and artistic practice.

So here are some of my own thoughts, regardless of the article and project:

Enjoying pain or not being bothered by pain is an abnormality. It's a condition. Your survival instinct is on the blink causing you to lack respect for yourself.

As far as I'm concerned there's zero value whatsoever in suffering.

If you think there's value in suffering then you're potentially a danger to yourself and others because you may well cross-apply the suffering to those around you. You'll see nothing wrong with causing suffering or watching others suffer. Indeed, you'll get a certain satisfaction from seeing others suffer, seeing it as normal. 

I don't think suffering itself promotes compassion. Prejudices remain. As we see with Israel: Zero compassion with the suffering of Jews but plenty for Gaza who, to a person, hate Jews and wish them ill.

As for masochism, I don't understand why anyone would want to be a masochist; who is really just an inverted sadist; or its opposite, a sadist. Both are extremely unhealthy and are a sign something is seriously wrong. Hence, those who engage in S&M are acting out a trauma which may give them release but it's short-lived and potentially very dangerous. There's an underlying, unresolved trauma that needs attention.

Pleasure is not just the absence of pain it's a goal in and of itself. I totally identify that life is about the pursuit of pleasure but pleasure can mean different things to different people. But it doesn't involve suffering for suffering's sake. Suffering happens but if it's imposed on you it is morally reprehensible. Otherwise you don't recognise abuse when it's happening to you which is a problem in itself.

Empathy Day 2023

 

Title: 'Wild Chimp Laughter' Sculpture by Gillie and Marc 2022

Title: 'Wild Chimp Imitation' by Gillie and Marc 2022

Happy Empathy Day 2023! 🥳🎊🎉🎊

If people developed their innate capacity for empathy towards each other, as well as towards animals and nature, including the environment generally, land and sea, then, and only then, will there be peace on earth, free from persecution, torture, hatred, bias and prejudice (including no LGBT+ conversion therapy and no political conversion [for instance pressuring liberal people to become conservative]; no forced/coercive religious conversion or a watchtower-style monitoring and ad-hoc attempts to force people to lead an extremely religious life). All this goes against freedom democracy, civil liberties and rights. 

Religion cannot and must not be exempt from this. Besides, religion should already have such ethical principles available to them within their religion. If not, it's not religion, it's something other than with an ulterior motive. 

My theory of empathy (within ethics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics in particular) is within a secular, humanistic, freethinking framework but religious people should have the resources within their religious ethics to understand it and cross apply it to themselves. 

These two public statues discuss the capacity for empathy in chimpanzees. They are part of a trail of 10 such statues around Kingston-Upon-Thames, which also form the basis for a general public discussion, including on social media, using the hashtags: #ChimpsAreFamily #LoveTheLast. 

The plaque for 'Wild Chimp Laughter' by Gillie and Marc 2022 (see top photo) reads: 

'Asher and Issac Males age 5 and 7 

Chimpanzees are capable of empathy and can even laugh. This has disproved a quote by Aristotle that "only the human animal laughs". It is important to understand these diverse emotions in other animals to know that it is not just us who feel and display emotions.' 

The second statue, titled 'Wild Chimp Imitation', also by Gillie and Marc 2022, has a plaque on which is written:

'Anya and Hugo Female and male age 14 and 4

Like us, chimps learn through imitation. They will observe the members of their communities, particularly their mother, to learn the necessary skills needed for their survival. They will also imitate emotions, showing a high level of empathy.'

Empathy Day June 9th 2022 (updated)

 Happy Empathy Day! 🎉🎊🎉🎊🎇🥳🥧🍰🧁🍬🍫🍩🍪🥂🍾🥳

This year's theme is: 'Empathy, Our Human Superpower', meaning "a special skill you can develop to transform your life, your relationships, and the world itself", according to the description given on the Empathy Lab website. So today I'd like to bring out two key concepts that I've always emphasized about empathy therefore I'm pleased they've been highlighted in this year's theme:

1: the human-based aspect of empathy

2: empathy is a skill anyone can develop 

Empathy is a key concept in Humanism. As a Humanist and Secular philosopher, I developed an Humanistic concept of empathy, within an Humanistic Ethical framework in my Philosophy BA Dissertation, which is the building block for this blog and my long-term research project on empathy. In this way, I was developing the value of empathy as a social and ethical superpower and skill for all human beings to develop within a secular framework. That way, empathy becomes an ethical and social theory that is accessible to everyone, regardless of who they are, and no matter what their religious or non-religious belief systems. Why's that important? Because I think that it brings about social cohesion and helps combat prejudice, discrimination and tribalism. 

For instance, one female Christian lecturer once said to me that Leibniz was more ethical than Spinoza because Leibniz was a Roman Catholic and the other one wasn't (Spinoza was Jewish). Although a bit later, during a conversation which included a woman Spinozist, she said that all her students liked Spinoza when she taught him. (How does that work?🤔) To which the Spinozist replied: I find they either love him ❤ or hate him! 😪 

Both Leibniz and Spinoza were 17th century philosophers and both had been excommunicated by their respective religions. The difference being that if a Catholic is expelled from their religion (by the then Pope) then they cease to be a Catholic and cannot function as one, can't attend church, cannot take sacraments and so on. Whereas, for an excommunicated Jew, it's specific to that one synagogue and its rabbis so you simply go to the one 'round the corner instead! So no big deal. It's  quite a common occurrence which is why most Jews belong to at least two synagogues. 

Anyway, the point being that her attitude is called tribalism because she still sees Leibniz as a fellow Christian four centuries later, therefore perceives him as the more ethical one, despite his excommunication by the then Pope. Why doesn't she extend the same empathy towards Spinoza? This is where empathy should step in. The lecturer should be able to enter imaginatively into how Spinoza might have felt and thought about how he was being treated by the synagogue and how his unfair excommunication didn't reflect his ethical principles or (Jewish) religious beliefs. She should be able to respond appropriately in an empathetic manner.

Empathy is important in society because tribalism causes bias, conflict and division between people so it becomes a society of 'them and us', which generates prejudice and discrimination, leading to violence against the targeted groups. We can see how Jewish communities and individuals are targeted in the USA and Europe due to rising anti-Semitism.

Empathy is an emotional skill that if children and adults of all ages don't engage and develop then it dehumanises people who aren't in your tribe and this then can spill into hate speech, violence and crime. It can corrupt societal cohesion enabling political leaders to descend into tyranny. In some cases, it leads to genocide because a lack of empathy demonises others. 

Empathy is open to all: it's not gender, race or age specific. It's not background, politics or religion specific either. This is why I answered yes to my supervisor's question: Do you think a Christian is capable of empathising with Holocaust survivors? It's also why, when asked by a current famous male philosopher, on handing him a copy of my dissertation post-degree at a regular Aristotelian Society talk series in 2016 we attended, if I thought empathy is something only women are capable of but not men, I replied no, it's something everyone can develop.

It did make me wonder though whether the concept of empathy doesn't struggle from being mis-understood as some soft, feminine, caring quality. But surely this would be a rather sexist assumption. I'm not sure why people would even associate it with women only when, ironically, empathy is not even popular in feminist theory/philosophy! 

Empathy is also often conflated with sympathy, which is very different. Empathy is feeling with someone whereas sympathy is feeling for someone, but in a more pitying way. Empathy breaks down possible barriers between individuals or people from different social groups and promotes understanding. Sympathy, on the other hand, creates barriers because it encourages people to feel superior to those they pity. This creates emotional distance between people and undermines understanding their minds and emotions, as well as their general situation. 

Empathy is a basic, innate psychological and emotional capacity that creates a cooperative society. A cooperative society is a more cohesive society, which promotes psychological well-being, and so good mental health and happiness. Empathy is known to actively reduce anxiety in people. For instance, when one person empathises with another, both the empathiser and the person with whom they are empathising feel calmer, less tense, less stressed, less anxious, and less distressed. Even physiologically their well-being improves too, because their immune system functions more effectively and their recovery from illness, should they suffer ill-health, is faster and more complete. 

There are, however, still many errors people make when thinking about empathy. 

One myth is that it's too difficult and asking too much of people. Understanding empathy neurologically is still underdeveloped but we already know that it's an innate capacity in all humans as well as within the animal kingdom, but nonetheless, it's something that can be trained and improved. It's an on-going process. There is no point at which you can stop and say - I'm an empathetic person, so job done! Life throws all sorts of things at people which can create empathy blockers in them or traumatize them which sometimes numbs them into a reduced ability to empathise. So it's a continual process of not just gaining empathy from a young age, but also encouraging, maintaining and enlarging the ability to empathise with others all throughout life. 

Another myth is that sympathy and charity is enough, without needing empathy. Some erroneously think religious ethics is a stronger, more stable basis than a secular, human-based approach, because it's based on a certain established, conventional interpretation of scriptural codes of conduct. 

Another myth is that empathy leads to over-identifying with someone, that the process is all too emotionally demanding, you'll become confused, lose your own identity, your own emotions, and conflate your life with theirs. Some worry that people lose a sense of who they are as they start to only see things from other people's point of view. In fact, it's quite the opposite: If you are over-identifying with the other, then you are not actually empathising with them because you are only empathising with yourself because you are seeing yourself in them. Hence, to empathise, you need to see the person as having  a distinct identity from yourself, no matter how similar or different they are to you. That way, you can empathise with them but without objectifying them as an other. 

In empathy, you can use your imagination to enter into what they must have felt and thought. You probably never can feel exactly as they do (or did) but it gives you the ability to experience it at least to some extent, giving you a type of empirical knowledge of others. But not in a cold, calculating, data gathering way, but through an emotional connection which will lead to ethical action, such as being less likely to behave unethically or in a dehumanising way towards others because you've broken down the 'them' and 'us' barrier, making it feel more real. Whereas sympathy cannot generate an understanding of other people, their experiences and events in history. So we are more likely to repeat bad history. 

One such example is the Holocaust - Is it sympathy or empathy people feel when learning about the Holocaust and listening to survivors' stories? I've always argued that Holocaust education will not be effective if all you engender is a type of sympathy for Holocaust victims whereby you feel sorry for them in an emotionally distant way and think - how terrible for them! However, if Holocaust education is designed to engender empathy then you have a better chance of achieving the right emotional response to what they have experienced and finally achieve the goal of humanising the social groups that were victimised: Jews, LGBTQIAPD, Roma, women, mentally and physically disabled, so that history is not repeated and globally one can live up to the motto of 'Never Again'. The empathic reaction to their suffering will stay with you, become part of your ethical and social outlook and lead to action, big or small, for instance, standing up for them against prejudice and bullying; and supporting who they are and their human rights. 

It is only when this is accomplished on a small scale, as well as more broadly, that the global community will be able to say 'Never Again', mean it and act in a way that shows they mean it. Empathy isn't tribal therefore it will extend to all genocides no matter where they occur or who the victims are. And this empathy will naturally extend to all marginalised groups irrespective of the degree of suffering and whether it's in a tyrannical society or a democratic one.

For related, detailed discussions on this blog, see: 

https://theroleofempathyinourlives.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-instinct-and-emotion-of-empathy.html

https://theroleofempathyinourlives.blogspot.com/2021/06/dignity-and-empathy-on-empathy-day-10.html

My BA Philosophy Dissertation Outline on Hume and Empathy

BA Philosophy dissertation Outline: © Liba Kaucky 2012 All Rights Reserved. The moral rights of this author have been asserted. Please do not cite or quote in research without the author's written permission. Emailed to supervisor Professor Anthony Price before Consultation Meeting (6th July 2012). Researcher ID: P-2484-2016 URL: https://publons.com/researcher/2202509/liba-kaucky/ ; ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1598-0833 

Here's my original outline, prior to the first meeting ie. dissertation consultation July 2012. 

The Concept of Empathy in Hume: dissertation outline 

Abstract

Introduction: Background / context:

• Briefly referring to influences on Hume and then acknowledging contemporary uses in feminist philosophy of Hume’s passages on sympathy involving what we now term empathy. 

• Hume’s ethics outlined 
• The passions / reason outlined 
• Calm passions 

Main body – 

Sympathy:  

• 18th century definition, philosophical definition of sympathy 
• In a variety / cross section of Hume’s writings eg Treatise, Enquiry, Essays etc
• Pivotal point in his ethics

The concept of empathy within Hume’s passages on sympathy, compassion, pity etc. Awareness of potential criticisms eg. cognitivist and how to respond to them from Hume’s point of view

My stance/ conclusion is that Hume is a non-cognitivist with cognitivist elements in his approach and hence he can respond to cognitivist objections. Calm passions and reason enhance each other (virtuous character). 

I wish to argue that sympathy is / functions as a calm passion.

Examples of reading material: 

Stanford encyclopedia, Internet encyclopedia of philosophy, Hume’s Morality by R. Cohon, Cambridge Companion to Hume edited by Norton & Taylor, Feminist Interpretations of Hume edited by Jacobson: chapters 7 & 8   

Examples of Articles:

Carse, A. L. - The Moral Contours of Empathy, Darwall - Empathy, Sympathy, Care, Snow, N.E. – Empathy, Slote, M – Moral Sentimentalism

Questions:

Word count excluding references / bibliography – 7,000?

Dissertation structure? ie. do I divide the main body into chapters and if so, roughly how many? ie. Do I divide my points into shorter chapters or less but longer?  

Do I need an abstract (very short) at the beginning of the dissertation?

How does the conclusion differ from an essay conclusion?

What do you expect me to have achieved by the first supervision?

What criteria am I supposed to fulfil in my dissertation?

Dignity and Empathy on Empathy Day 10 June 2021

Here's a comment I posted on Facebook in response to an article in a post I shared a while back (see links below):

👍🌈👍🏽👍🏼👍🏿🌍🌎🌏🗺

"But human dignity means more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose—a freedom that can be hampered by restrictive social institutions or the tyranny of the majority. The liberal ideal of the good society is not just peaceful but also pluralistic: It is a society in which we respect others' right to think and live differently than we do."❤

I would like to spring off from this and address a different issue that still, to my mind, involves empathy although I doubt people will have necessarily seen it that way. Data privacy and protection: Empathy means institutions should not store data on individuals who have passed through their doors be they as students, staff, admin, or others. An individual must explicitly consent to their data being stored. If an institution doesn't acquire this consent prior to storing data then they have to have a very specific, legitimate and explicit reason for doing so.

In fact, consent or not that's the way data must be processed. Frankly, I can't think of one good reason for storing any data other than the barest minimum e.g. name, degree, level attained, year attained, where degree attained.  Everything else is none of anyone's business! It certainly doesn't and shouldn't include your social media activities or a tale told by a so-called friend - not,  about you. Indeed, according to the 2018 GDPR, laws have been modernised and thus are more in line with the demands of modern life. It means that an individual has more control now over their data and how institutions/organisations use and abuse it. 

How does empathy relate to data storage? It seems a contradiction. Empathy is seen as an emotion-based response to someone or something occurring or one that has occurred. One example of the latter is the June 10 1942 Nazi massacre of Lidice, a village in the now Czech Republic, on the orders of Hitler, in retalliation for the assassination of the Nazi Heydrich. One should feel genuine horror that such an event as Lidice could ever occur and empathise with the suffering of those women, men and children. Of course, it's not possible to have the same feelings as those who went through the ordeal. However, it is possible, through an emotional and cognitive approach, to gain some identification with their suffering and feel a call to action. In that way, we empathise and demand #neveragain. However, if people have an empathy blocker then they fail to have the correct emotional and cognitive response to an event such as Lidice and are prone to repeat past atrocities. They fail to learn from history because they look at historical events without engaging their empathic response. To them it's merely a story from the past. The people within it are not real to them.

In a similar way, institutions storing data unnecessarily and inaccurately can seriously damage an individual's life and in that way it is a malicious act. How does malicious misinformation impact on someone? 🤔

No-one should hold extensive data on an individual so it should be easy to erase all data, especially if the institution/s did not let you know they were collecting every single detail about you from 3rd party tittle tattle to every time you talk to someone, your present and past jobs, your relationships, what activities you participate in, how you socialise, basically all information on you so that, in the end, you have zero privacy and can suffer discrimination based solely on such data. Profiling people to track and predict their actions and behaviour is beyond outrageous, appalling, ethically wrong and sinister! This discrimination can spread to all areas of your life. In this way, such unacceptable, malicious data can seriously disrupt your life so much so that you cease to be able to exist, which may well be the reason behind its invasiveness. Why attack Facebook for breach of data? It's no worse than some institutions which store data they shouldn't and can leave it insecure in such a way that people can access the data without too much effort. Not to mention it easily falls into unlawful processing, storing and accessing data. There are very narrow, strict rules about how and why companies and institutions (including universities) collect, store and use data. 

This is where empathy steps in. Why would an institution want to hold potentially damaging, false data on someone? One answer would be that they suffer empathy blockers whereby they are so entrenched in their own prejudices that they justify destroying the life of someone they envy or just dislike/hate. If you pan out from this, it is easy to see how an horrific incident like Lidice can occur. This is why Empathy Day is so important. It raises awareness of the role empathy plays in everyday life and without which the individual, society, and indeed the whole world is harmed and suffers. 

This has been made clear yet again when we have seen rich countries hoarding drugs and vaccines for themselves while poor countries have to do without until such time as a country or countries step in and help. Again empathy blockers prevent the rich countries from sharing their good fortune with the poor. This arrogance of the rich towards the poor exacerbates a lack of empathy towards others whereby you fail to identify with them and think that they should be like you and if they're not there's something wrong with them not you. A good example here is the idea of Universal Basic Income. Some rich politicians are against it because it'll make poor people lazy. If this isn't labelling theory I'm not sure what is! It's also a great example of an empathy blocker. On the contrary, it will give poor and/or disadvantaged people dignity and self respect which will enhance their self-esteem and they will flourish and be motivated to have the get up and go. Without the UBI they slump and feel dejected which can lead to serious ill-health costing the country more money than the UBI. It's hoped that well-off people will return their UBI to be recycled to those in need. In that way, there will be enough money to go round. It's called redistribution of wealth and equality. These good, old-fashioned socialist values enhance a society by creating the same opportunities and dignity for all. 

This leads on to yet another present day example, 'conversion therapy' aptly renamed by the Bishop of Manchester as 'conversion abuse' . June is #pride month during which we give visibility to the LGBT+ community. Why? Because the enormous amount of discrimination they are on the receiving end of is criminal. Their plight needs to be highlighted. Their human rights were won and should be respected. People, of all ages, need to be educated about the community that, albeit labelled a minority one is, nevertheless, one that has always existed and it's time it was accepted as such. This is why we hold this month. We also hold this month to think about all those LGBT+ people who have suffered violence or death due to hate. A hate that becomes a phobia that, like all phobias, needs curing. If you suffer a fear of spiders or open spaces you attempt to cure yourself of this phobia. 

What causes homophobia? Empathy blockers are the cause of much of the homophobia, intersex phobia, non-binary phobia and transphobia, and all shades in between. It's not religion, or psychotherapists or any other reason that brings about hatred towards LGBT+people it's the lack of having an educated empathic response. Empathy doesn't just happen it has to be nurtured, taught and given opportunity to flourish in order for it to be engaged at the right time in the right way. It's not just taking on another's emotion or being in their shoes, it's far more! It enables people to see others as being like them, as fellow human beings, and so wish to offer them a helping hand, sympathy, support, care that disables empathy blockers allowing empathy through.

On this Empathy Day, let's make an effort to learn about empathy and start to practise it in our lives on a daily basis. In this way, we respect people who are different from us and lead different lives allowing them the freedom to do so and to be happy in the lives they have chosen to lead. This means we also respect an individual's right to think freely without judgemental criticism so they can lead a meaningful, fruitful, flourishing and purposeful life. A society should aim to cultivate empathy so that it has happy, healthy and active citizens who contribute positively to it because they feel valued by it. And yes, society does exist and is composed of individuals who possess individual human rights. This is a good society.

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3345622795543204&id=100002865503250

https://bigthink.com/institute-for-humane-studies/what-is-human-dignity

The Instinct and Emotion of Empathy

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3346783428760474&id=100002865503250

Here's empathy in action. A young boy is riding his bike when ahead of him he sees an elderly woman in difficulty. Without thinking he jumps off his bike and runs to help. Seeing she has lost her purse he picks it up then slowly, patiently he helps her up the stairs. He refuses money when she offers to pay him for his trouble. The boy doesn't show empathy towards the woman because someone is observing him and, perhaps, judging him (Foucault discusses the effect of observation on behaviour). The empathy the boy displays comes from within him and is not motivated by gain.

Empathy is often described as putting yourself in someone else's shoes. But did this young boy do this? He didn't have time to see and assess the situation. He acted instinctively. In other words, empathy was part of him. Part of who he was. Part of his upbringing. After all, it's difficult for a lad to truly put himself into a much older person's shoes. He doesn't know what it's like to walk with a zimmer frame, walk with enormous difficulty and walk painfully, slowly. It's hard for him to appreciate the everyday challenges this woman has to face. So putting yourself into someone else's shoes can, at times, be almost impossible which is one of the reasons why many feminists disagree that empathy is a good basis for morality and prefer an ethics of care. However, I'm one of those who argues for empathy as the foundation for ethics and this video of a lad assisting an elderly woman in need illustrates my point very well: he's not losing his own sense of self by merging with her through over-identifying with her, or dispassionately doing his duty. And he's doing more than simply going through the routine motions of caring for her as a care worker might as part of their job. 

Although empathy has a cognitive aspect to it that helps us to understand others (which I expand on in my dissertation 2013), this lad shows another aspect to empathy which I didn't get to explore enough in my dissertation, namely the positive, emotional side of empathy. I say positive because some feminists discuss empathy as an emotion but focus on the seemingly negative consequences of it more than the benefits of engaging emotion. Whereas I think this apparently negative emotional aspect of empathy only occurs when empathy is conflated with something else e.g. emotional contagion/hysteria, pity etc. For my dissertation, see:

http://www.academia.edu/30107525/BA_Philosophy_London_uni_4yr_part_time_Dissertation_finals_2013_A_Feminist_History_of_Philosophy_Approach_to_Sympathy_and_the_Concept_of_Empathy_in_Hume_On_the_Possibility_of_an_Empathy-Based_Moral_Theory

also downloadable at: http://libakaucky.academia.edu/research 

The boy doesn't stand there spending time cognitively wondering whether and how he should help her nor does he completely understand the situation at first e.g. that she has lost her purse and can't reach it. He is not reacting according to knowing what it feels like to be her at this moment in time. He just runs to her instinctively knowing she's in trouble and needs a kind, gentle hand to aid her up the stairs. He even shows empathy to the extent that he doesn't ride his bike right up to her so potentially startling her or even accidentally stopping his bike too close to her and causing a mishap. He's there for her to help in whichever way she needs. He doesn't decide for her what he thinks is best, an attitude called Paternalism. For instance, telling her that going up those stairs with her zimmer frame is a bad idea and trying to persuade her it's best for her to take a flatter, longer route which she hadn't chosen for herself. The boy isn't aware of exactly what the problem is, he just knows she needs help and he's the only person around but he still lets her indicate her wishes and he acts accordingly. Her zimmer frame is more of a hindrance than a help at this stage because not only is it hard to manoeuvre it up the steps but it's also in the way of the purse she's dropped but he lets her use it nonetheless. His empathy involves emotional sensitivity to her and it shows he has emotional intelligence, which are positive ways to engage emotion while responding empathetically. 

You could argue he's showing care. But the care springs from empathy. After all, people can care in various ways. A can care for B by providing food and shelter in a way that A thinks is best (again, this could be carried out paternalistically). On the other hand, C can care for D by responding to D's needs (practical and emotional) not just by doing the minimum of food and shelter. Emotional needs are just as important so, for instance, C puts her arm around D to make her feel loved and wanted even though D hasn't asked her to. Nevertheless, C makes herself available emotionally then it's up to D to respond or ask for a hug. Whereas A doesn't put her arm around B because she sees no need to do so and B hasn't expressly asked her to so A assumes she's doing all that's expected. However, this can make B feel shy/awkward in asking for a hug. This simple (thought experiment) example attempts to show one of the ways empathy differs from care. 

I am aware that most feminists argue that this approach won't work with evil people. Hitler being the obvious example but there are many more examples, such as The Yorkshire Ripper. How does one empathise with them? Does it mean you must like the person you are empathizing with? No. Empathy doesn't mean you necessarily like them. Indeed, empathy means you understand what and who is evil, are quicker at identifying people who are 'evil' and are disinclined (emotionally, cognitively and on principle) to help them, unless you have to because it's part of your job e.g. as a prison worker. In this way, evil people lose support of others and are less likely to become tyrannical because tyranny relies on compliance of the many (something Arendt attempted to explain). Such compliance can arise from various factors not related to empathy e.g. hysteria; letting others skew your perception of other people and the truth; dehumanization; following the orders/instructions of others, perhaps unthinkingly. 

I am only talking about extreme cases here. So suppose, if you will, as a thought experiment, that German society, (or any society in the world that voted in a dictatorship) had actively encouraged, taught in schools and promoted in society the development of empathic sentiments. It could have enabled them to identify Hitler, (or any other dictator/ship) and his policies as politically dangerous, understanding and feeling (perhaps instinctively and on reflection) that he could kill people in droves without feeling anything and so, as a result, didn't vote for him in the elections I argue that empathy can lead to action and the lad in this video is a great example of this. Then, perhaps WW2, or any dictatorship around the world, would not have happened. 

Adorno argues that education, more specifically Holocaust education, is key to preventing a recurrence of Auschwitz. I think this education needs to be accompanied by empathy to be effective. Why? Because the ability to  feel an empathic bond with others will bring about what Adorno termed the 'new categorical imperative' a determination to 'never again' repeat an historical period in time when so much harm was caused to so many people. Without the emotions being engaged, children and teenagers (and adults) will fail to truly understand the horrors that have occurred around the world down the centuries e.g. The Crusades. To them, learning about the Holocaust will be a dispassionate exercise no more real than learning about the 1066 Battle of Hastings or the sum of the angles of a triangle. 

A lack of empathy leaves room for what Adorno calls "coldness" and people becoming "indifferent toward whatever happens to everyone else except for a few to whom they are closely and, possibly by tangible interests bound, then Auschwitz would not have been possible, people would not have accepted it." * Empathy, therefore, I argue, is not something we should leave to chance, thinking people either are or are not empathic. But rather it's something that needs to be actively promoted and cultivated.

Consider the following counterexample to an ethics of care. Suppose that you follow the ethics of care route - can you fulfil Adorno's new categorical imperative? You could, for instance, misconstrue Hitler's rhetoric for care. He cared about the German people which is why he believed they were the most important, the best people in the world. He cared about the Aryan race which is why he murdered Jews, Slavs, and Roma people. All in the name of care! He cared about German family life which is why he murdered gay people. All in the name of care! Hitler, you could argue, cared. But by care for one group of people (and paternalistically doing what he thought was in their best interests) he showed contempt and hatred for those he didn't 'care' about. I think this shows how care in the absence of empathy can become unethical, discriminatory, politically dangerous and even tyrannical. So care by itself does not fulfil Adorno's new categorical imperative  Or prevent coldness or indifference. 

Care can also be a selfish act. As Adorno argued (see quote above) it's a common perception that you only care about those closest to you, be they family and/or friends. This boy shows that such tunnel vision doesn't make people's lives around you better. It only makes your and your family/friends lives better. In which case, the elderly lady who can't pick up her purse or move her zimmer frame away from the first step will be completely unable to move unless her family or friends happen to come across her by chance and help her. Or she would have to manage to raise the alarm with someone she knows within that small group of people close to her - but what if she can't raise the alarm e.g. she can't reach her mobile, or doesn't own one, or they can't immediately come to help her? Or suppose she doesn't have a loving family? Or she has no family that can help? She would then be stuck there until someone comes along and responds empathically towards her.

Unless people can respond with empathy towards others outside of their little bubble of family and friends, then society cannot function ethically or be cohesive and cooperative. Everyone in society can be empathetic because it's a capacity that everyone can have, develop or regain if lost. 

Empathy is also a deep emotional feeling that bonds you to other people. It's that bond that means you are always ready to be there for others whoever they are, as long as, they are not evil and so a danger to others, society, and the world. After all, would you help a person who is being robbed or assist the robber to steal as much as they can and get away with it? I think, 99% of us would run to help the person being robbed. That's empathy in action. Again there's no time to think it through, it's instinctive. 

Empathy is an emotion that springs from wanting to make the world a better place. It cannot, by definition, side with evil. Just as the boy in the video runs to help the lady, so empathic people are hard - wired to promote a just, happy, kind society and world.

*Adorno, T.W. 'Education after Auschwitz' in 'Can One Live after Auschwitz?' A Philosophical Reader, edited by Rolf Tiedemann (2003) transl. by Rodney Livingstone and others 

Empathy in Sport – when will tennis #BeKind?

#BeKind is currently trending more than ever but it still seems to have not reached the sports world or sports press and media, or at least certainly not in a consistent and sustained way. For instance, take three current topics in tennis today:

One, Nadal had an awesome year last year which continued until late into the year, beyond the ATP tournament calendar. Not only did he pick up two Grand Slams by playing out-of-this-world tennis, but he also superseded Margaret Court’s record for the most amount of singles titles at one Slam by winning his 12^th French Open title. Nadal also surpassed Federer’s records by winning the greatest number of ATP Masters 1000 singles titles (35 to date) and by winning the most Masters 1000 matches among active ATP players, which he did on route to taking the Rogers Cup in Canada, his first title defence on a non-clay surface. In addition, Nadal helped lead his groups to two team tournament victories, first with Team Europe in the Laver Cup in September and then again with Spain in the Davis Cup on the 24^th of November, meaning he finished his tennis tournament year in a high pressure final for himself and his country, well beyond the ATP tour calendar year, an exhausting feat indeed by any player’s standard. He even received the Davis Cup’s ‘Most Valuable Player’ award while there! As if all that wasn’t enough, Nadal became only the 4^th man ever to end the year ranked number 1 for the 5^th time, although he’s the first ever to be year-end number 1 over a non-consecutive 5 year span. In so doing, Nadal even broke his own records, by managing to be year-end number 1 as much as 11 years after the first time he finished the year as world number 1 (2008); by being the first ever to regain the number 1 ranking by the end of the year 4 times over; and by being the oldest number 1, despite being only 33 years old. He even found time in his busy schedule to get married! Yet I had to constantly read and listen to negative comments about Nadal in the press and on TV, including criticisms of whether he would or could manage to keep winning, if it would be good for the game, and whining about why younger men (some of whom include Thiem who is not exactly an early career spring chicken at 26 years old) are not regularly beating Nadal by now. (That is like asking why up-and-coming 20 something artists are not Picasso already!) Nadal was even depicted at times as some ailing, aging, half crocked-up player who should be retiring by now, alongside Federer (who is 40 years old next year) as though they are in the same tennis wave. Why should Nadal stop pursuing his dreams and doing the job he loves while only a few years into his 30’s? Furthermore, Nadal is arguably the best ATP player of all time. He even holds the Career Grand Slam; Career Golden Slam; Clay Slam; Channel Slam; Summer Slam – have I missed any out? Surely he would be cutting his career short despite being generally fit and healthy enough to continue, especially at a time when he has surpassed some of Federer’s records and is on the brink of overtaking him on others. Nadal would have to be crazy to take his foot off the pedal or retire now! Nevertheless, despite Nadal’s superhuman efforts and achievements last year and throughout his career, negativity in the press and on TV came flooding forth during all of last year and is creeping into this year.

Two, speaking of age, Kim Clijsters has delighted tennis fans by making another comeback to the tour at the age of 36. I find her latest comeback rather inspirational, and I am relieved and fascinated to learn that I can identify with certain on-court difficulties Clijsters said she felt in her match against Muguruza in her first post-match interview. For instance, it took her longer to read her opponent’s shots and game, her ball striking and timing was less automatic and consistent meaning she had ups and downs in the match. Although she was capable of dominating her opponent, hitting hard, creating great angled winners and leaving Muguruza on the back foot, Clijsters didn’t manage to string it all together for long enough to win the match. I also noticed she got off to a slower start at the beginning of a set, than her opponent, and then improved as the set and match went on. I always assumed that these match difficulties were due to me being inexperienced on the professional tour and that such frustrations would evaporate once I’ve played enough years on the ITF. So I’m encouraged to discover that these experiences and feelings in competitive match play are perfectly normal and never go away, even when you are as successful, brilliant (in a variety of ways, including athletically, technically, physically and psychologically strong) and talented as Clijsters! Clijsters has many years of tour experience, including at the very top of the game, is a several time Grand Slam winner, has been number 1, can immediately play a full calendar of tournaments which she can pace herself in advance to play, can watch her opponents in advance to prepare her match tactics and has recently practised with top players (who could also become her future opponents), all of which helps every top player to perform their best in competitive matches. Given I had none of those advantages, I’m now feeling even better about how I played in matches and I have an even better perspective on my game, fitness and match efforts. Yet there’s always some article or quotes from past players questioning Clijsters’ abilities, depicting her as being too old with a dated tennis game which they predict will mean she cannot possibly keep up with the running speed and hard hitting of the current top players. I was disappointed that even Justine Henin, an incredible player in her own right, felt the need to deflate and underestimate Clijsters’ fitness, strength and talent before she’d even taken to the court for her first match in Dubai! Nobody knows exactly what Clijsters’ capacity currently is and could become once she settles back into life on the tour, so why speculate to the extent that one invents a hoard of obstacles and negative stories about her abilities and likelihood of success? Indeed, many negative comments and predictions did not even bear out in her first match back in Dubai this past week! She moved wonderfully around the court, coped perfectly well with the hard pace of ball coming at her and thumped the ball so hard herself I often saw Clijsters’ ball flying faster over the net than Muguruza’s! I’m enjoying her comeback immensely and couldn’t care less whether she wins a truck load of titles or not! Obviously I’d be delighted for her if she did, but success can’t always be measured in terms of world rankings and how many titles you acquire. Clijsters already has enjoyed a huge amount of success anyway and it’s impossible for her to overtake Margaret Court’s Grand Slam singles titles record so why quibble and find fault? It’s not up to anyone but Clijsters herself to determine what she does in her career and how or when. If she feels it is right for her and it is something she wants to do, then that is good enough reason for her to return to the tour! Clijsters says she just loves tennis. Surely that is something we can all identify with and should all be sharing with her, not criticising her for it! I’m sure she’s also a great role model for mothers who want to balance family life and several kids with working and doing what they love. Her comeback is a great story whether she wins any matches, tournaments, or not. Either way, she will encourage and motivate people with her journey, and that is something to celebrate in itself.

Between extreme ageism as soon as a player is emerging from their 20’s and negative media coverage of Nadal, Clijsters and several other players, it’s enough to make me return to competition matches! However, I’ll remember to pack extra ice cubes because, apparently, once you are in the over 30’s club, there are never enough ice cubes to help the 30+ older generation on tour recover fast enough to stagger out to play their next match! I don’t hold with this new-fangled trend amongst the young to take ice baths or stand frozen stiff in a whole body cryo sauna.

For my part, I’ve been feeling inspired by many players in their 30’s returning to match play and their love for the game, such as Sania Mirza, who has also returned to the tour this year and already won the WTA doubles title in Hobart. She has done so as a mother of a 1 year old son. On the other hand, Kveta Peschke, another inspirational player is, at 44 years old, quietly continuing her career as usual. On that basis, that gives Clijsters at least another 8 years on the tour. Me, I’m good for at least another 11 years! I’ve been irritated by people’s constant negativity and ageism about players and I couldn’t care less if people think I’m too old or question my abilities and chance of success! Having time away from the tour means your body suffers less continual wear and tear from the cycle of preparing for, playing and recovering from matches, so the body is less depleted from illness and injury than those who do not take any years out. Besides, I don’t identify with these claims that one gets slower or weaker in one’s 30’s – without a doubt, I am definitely much stronger and faster now in my early 30’s than when I played ITF matches in my early 20’s! I’d also be returning just as I was in my last match – single and child-free.

Three, it’s not just a love of tennis and great successes that the tennis world seems to struggle to celebrate when it comes to present day tennis players. The lack of enthusiasm cannot be explained away as some sort of jealousy or over-competitiveness acting as an empathy blocker towards them. The sad news of two past players fighting cancer last year has also come and gone in the news without any particular empathetic response from the tennis world. One, Schiavone, a Grand Slam winner who was on the tour for a very long time and was one of my favourite players, and one who I was lucky enough to see in tournaments. She has a great presence when you are in the same room with her! Her battle with cancer was clearly arduous, as is evident in her emotional message on facebook late last year when she explained her absence from social media. I wish we had all known back when she was diagnosed so we could support her through it. Two, Nicole Gibbs, a lower ranked player whose titles have been won on the ITF tour but has been ranked in singles as high as 68 in the world. She has fortunately been able to recover well enough and quickly enough from a rare form of cancer to return to the tour the same year. Indeed, I believe Gibbs is playing a singles match against Errani in Mexico as I write this.

Perhaps there should be a more flexible outreach system to assist players who have suffered traumatic life events, whether serious illness, physical attacks such as those experienced by Seles and Kvitova or personal problems, for example, Azarenka who is absent from the tour this year so far because of recurring personal problems.

What does a player of any sex have to go through or achieve before they are simply appreciated and celebrated for their achievements and/or efforts on and off the court? Have journalists and past players become so wrapped up in a culture of gossip, opinion pieces and unfounded speculation that the tennis world also fails to remember to empathize with the tennis players, famous or not, that they talk about or ignore in mainstream media outlets? Some people are dismissive of empathy and kindness as being, for instance, too wishy-washy, too emotional or sweet and nice, too much of a strain to maintain as an ethical standard, or prone to being too lenient in the wrong way at the wrong time with the wrong people. Men often assume empathy is some feminine trait while, ironically, feminist philosophers mostly, if not entirely, reject a feminist philosophy of empathy in preference to a philosophy of care. Much as I think an ethics of care can be important, I have always maintained that empathy is a prior condition to good quality and ethical care, thus empathy takes conceptual precedence to care. It is not to be confused with emotional contagion, as though we’d be merely catching the emotions of the players like catching a cold. Empathy is also something that everyone (regardless of their sex; gender identity) have a capacity for, indeed, it has even been observed that monkeys can display empathetic behaviour. If even animals are capable of empathy then what excuse can human beings plausibly provide for having a collective, social, empathy by-pass? If we want to live in a healthy society and create a healthy, happy tennis world, we all need to appreciate, respect and care for the tennis players by understanding them and their situation through empathy. And being kind doesn’t mean somehow gritting your teeth and saying something nice rather than saying what you are really thinking or feeling. Kindnesses and empathy are also not some ‘good girl’ social behaviour that girls and women should avoid in order to combat sexist social conditioning. They are standard, pro-social behaviours which all sexes and gender identities should engage in to help glue a psychologically healthy, knowledgeable, non-discriminatory, flourishing society together, complete with its worlds within worlds such as the sports world. So whether it’s within the sports world or not, #BeKind, and I’d add, #BeEmpathetic 

#EmpathyDay 12th June 2018

Today is the first established Empathy Day, after it was successfully piloted last year. EmpathyLab brings out the ways in which we can all become empathetic towards others through reading and actively engaging with those around us on a daily basis as well as motivating social justice in general. For me, empathy is the basis of ethics and social philosophy. As such, it's a vital skill that everyone needs to acquire in order for society and the world at large to function for the well-being of all. Without it we become judgemental, prejudiced, selfish, disconnected from others seeing them as different from ourselves and this separation can create a climate of fear and hate.  This hurts the individuals concerned but also hurts society as a whole.

It's not just other human beings we need to be empathetic towards but also animals and nature. Wollstonecraft in her novel, The Wrongs of Woman, when discussing the tyranny of her eldest brother, wrote:

'Extreme indulgence had rendered him so selfish, that he only thought of himself; and from tormenting insects and animals, he became the despot of his brothers, and still more of his sisters.'  

(Wollstonecraft, M. 'The Wrongs of Woman Vol I' p112 in Mary and The Wrongs of Woman, Oxford World's Classics, Oxford University Press, Revised Edition 2007)       

This shows that teaching children kindness to animals will help them learn empathy towards other children and people they come into contact with in the course of their lives.

Empathy with nature is only now becoming a recognized approach to ecology. Prince Charles was aware of this way back when it was reported he talks to plants. Back then it was considered wacky but as we saw in recent TV programmes, both the Queen and Dame Judi Dench share a passion for trees. Having empathy for nature is an important environmental approach because it means both children and adults value and respect nature rather than abuse and destroy it for financial gains.

So empathy creates a kind, loving, peaceful world in which everyone and everything thrives. 

"#Empathy is not a fluffy thing, it's an essential life skill. A child with strong empathy skills will go on to be a great parent, workmate and citizen. That's why #EmpathyDay matters."

 

Miranda McKearney's twitter @MirandaMcK  at 5:50 am - 12 Jun 2018

Empathy as key value in International Women's Day

Today, 8^th March 2018 is International Women’s Day. The fundamental values underpinning Women’s Day includes empathy among their list of 10 main values:  

“Justice, Dignity, Hope, Equality, Collaboration, Tenacity, Appreciation, Respect, Empathy,

Forgiveness”

For details on each value, see: https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Values

International Women’s Day captures the concept of empathy as being:

“EMPATHY

Seeking to understand others, caring for and valuing diversity, and appreciating difference are key to forging deep relationships to affect change. It's through the ability to understand and share the feelings of others that differing situations and perspectives can be grasped. International Women's Day calls for global understandings about the plight of women - the challenges faced, obstacles endured and changes desired for an inclusive and progressive world.”

This description echoes many claims I have been making throughout my research on empathy. I’ve brought out the importance of empathy for helping us gain a knowledge and understanding of others, overcoming the apparent barrier of understand others’ minds. I see an ethics of empathy as prior to an ethics of care because empathy is required for carrying out a good standard of care, hence empathy is the more foundational of the two. I have recently read an article which supports my view and includes the psychologist Carl Rogers:

http://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2004.99.302

This I found exciting because when I first wrote about empathy I didn’t know anything about Rogers on empathy because my discipline is philosophy so he wasn’t someone I heard mentioned. Empathy is not just putting yourself in another’s shoes it involves grasping the thoughts as well as feeling the emotions of the other so you are “Understanding the internal frame of reference of the other person, as well as the subjective way of decoding events…”¹. Hence, I think empathy is vital in interpersonal relationships. However, it also has a broad application, such as being fundamental to the way doctors should convey distressing news, known as SPIKES, where E stands for empathy². Psychology studies have shown that when doctors acquire a greater capacity for empathy, their standard of care for their patients significantly increases. Empathy is a concept that applies to both men and women because it is a capacity that can be learnt by either sex. So although I put forward a feminist ethics of empathy, my claims about empathy still hold true within the realms of society in general, independently of feminism.  

Nevertheless, as can be seen by the inclusion of empathy in International Women’s Day, empathy plays a central role in feminism and the fight for the rights of all women around the globe. This is one of the reasons that empathy is central to my feminist approach. I maintain that the concept of empathy is vital for inclusivity and progress in the world as it assists us in embracing every human being as valuable, regardless of diversity and difference. So I like how International Women’s Day has described empathy in a way that retains the balance of both keeping women’s rights as a main human rights concern (not subsidiary to other rights/issues) but without overlooking the importance of including and empathizing with women of all identities within the women’s movement.

The theme for International Women’s Day which starts today but continues all year round is #PressforProgress.

You can join me in pressing for progress by going to:

https://marchingasonefeministblog.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/international-womens-day-8th-march-2018.html

¹http://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2004.99.302

²ibid

Social Justice Day

Social Justice Day

Today, 20^th February 2018, is Social Justice Day around the world.

What do we mean when we talk about social justice? Why is it important?

I think this passage on the United Nations’ website answers both questions and summarises key features:  

“Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability.”¹

I like the fact that this description highlights that social justice is a foundational principle, rather than, for instance, an ideal or ideology. It also draws attention to the need to be vigilant wherever social injustice occurs, as well as the role of making continuous advancements to expand the realm of what constitutes social justice and how to address all those disadvantaged by societal prejudice and bias. This, unfortunately, includes a huge number of people in society if not the majority.

Women are not a minority group (historically women outnumbered men in the world, which is important in order to ensure genetic diversity, although this is no longer the case, there are currently more men than women²) yet suffer so many more obstacles in life than men, be it educational (the further along the education system you go the less percentage of women there are), or employment opportunities (far less and paid less and often do not match their ability or education and that is in addition to discrimination of women of child bearing age). Just these two factors alone place women in a far less stable financial situation than men. Women are considerably poorer than men, with few exceptions, throughout the world. This impacts on women when they reach mature years, because their lack of financial security when younger negatively affects their assets, savings, pensions and health so that, in old age, many women are on the poverty line which is totally unacceptable and is unnecessary in developed countries. Furthermore, women of colour suffer from the added obstacle of racial discrimination so they can be worse off than both white women and even men of colour. The picture I’ve painted above becomes even worse if you are disabled because the world simply isn’t constructed to fit you in whether it’s travelling on public transport or entry to most buildings where, for instance, there are steps but no ramps or the entrance is too narrow for a wheelchair. Educational and employment opportunities for disabled people are the lowest out of all groups in society. Hence, poverty is particularly acute for this group.

This is why it’s essential that feminism embraces and includes all women irrespective of their background and their additional identities. In other words, fully including women of all colours and (so-called) none, LGBTQ+, mature women, disabled women, women of all classes, religions, beliefs, cultures and nationalities and being sensitive to their diverse needs and experiences. United we may have a better chance of bringing about justice for all.

This does not even begin to show the full picture. We have a long way to go before we can say that there is social justice in our country or other countries around the world.

How does the above relate to empathy? It’s vitally important that we are sensitive and empathetic towards others and realize the hardships they suffer and do everything that a civilization should that everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, class, religion, or disability has a home, access to educational and employment opportunities which give them financial security and that they feel fully included in society. This isn’t pie in the sky but a fundamental human right and society benefits from it because it promotes physical, mental and emotional health, creates diversity which promotes ideas and creativity which in turn creates prosperity from which all benefit. It also reduces crime and social instability so bringing about an ideal state of co-operation and peace not just within a nation, which also includes respect and recognition of the rich contribution of indigenous peoples, but between nations too. Social justice brings about freedom, happiness, security and peace for individuals and as a collective.

¹http://www.un.org/en/events/socialjusticeday/

See also: http://www.un.org/en/events/socialjusticeday/background.shtml

²http://www.medicaldaily.com/female-population-has-always-outnumbered-males-historically-according-our-genes-304428

Empathy, Imagining and the Institute Of Imagination

This blog is about empathy which, I think, plays a vital role in the health of any society. It is something I've been interested in for a few years now and especially since 2012 when I started my philosophy UG dissertation on Hume and Sympathy and the possibility of empathy being a good base from which to develop an ethical theory. Although I looked at it from a feminist point of view, I challenged the prevalent feminist ethical theory which is based on the ethics of care. This blog is not a feminist blog as such because I have one exclusively dedicated to that, available at:

https://marchingasonefeministblog.blogspot.co.uk/

But feminism will play a part in my discussions here on empathy, which has now taken on a larger, broader scope than my dissertation allowed. For my dissertation, see:

http://www.academia.edu/30107525/BA_Philosophy_London_uni_4yr_part_time_Dissertation_finals_2013_A_Feminist_History_of_Philosophy_Approach_to_Sympathy_and_the_Concept_of_Empathy_in_Hume_On_the_Possibility_of_an_Empathy-Based_Moral_Theory

also downloadable at: http://libakaucky.academia.edu/research 

I then furthered this dissertation by applying the concept of empathy to politics within feminist philosophy. I wrote this as a PhD proposal in 2014, which is available at: 

http://www.academia.edu/30078762/PhD_proposal_A_Feminist_Interpretation_of_the_Role_of_Empathy_in_Political_Philosophy.docx 

also downloadable at: http://libakaucky.academia.edu/research

Since then, this proposal has become part of a larger independent research project of mine on empathy and hate speech, which is hugely topical at the moment. My project outline for this is available at: 

http://www.academia.edu/33174790/On_the_possible_Role_of_Empathy_in_Preventing_the_Vice_of_Hate_Speech_abstract_and_work_in_progress_2016-2017 

also downloadable at: http://libakaucky.academia.edu/research 

However, I shall not be restricting myself on this blog to just my ongoing research on empathy but rather, I'll discuss it wherever and whenever it crops up in society, the media, psychology, politics and so on. One such example I happened upon recently is the Institute of Imagination (IOI, London, UK) which supports the Imagination Matters which champions the idea that imagination is vital to children's health, education and creative development in many subjects, ranging from the arts to the sciences. It also shows that imagination is important for society as a whole and, as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan mentions (quoted on the IOI website), creativity and imagination contribute to various sectors such as business, education and culture. For more on this and the IOI see:

http://ioi.london/latest/mayor-london-joins-campaign-for-imagination/

Imagination is part of empathy because it enables us to see things from another's point of view. Indeed, Imagination Matters has an entire section on their website dedicated to empathy, see:

http://www.imaginationmatters.org/index.php/category/imagination/empathy/

As this section shows, empathy has a broad application to various aspects of life, whether it's to understand what your best friend is going through or what a Holocaust survivor endured. It also applies to the arts, as Dame Darcey Bussell, who supports Imagination Matters, points out:   

"As a professional dancer it is essential to put yourself into the shoes of others, to empathise with a feeling or an emotion, in order to connect truthfully with an audience."

"By truly trying to empathise with others and imagining not only how they might feel but also how our actions and movements might make them feel, we can strive to be the best of ourselves and help many." 

available at: http://www.imaginationmatters.org/index.php/2018/02/12/dame-darcey-bussell/