The dictionary defines empathy as the ability to understand another person’s feelings, experience, etc. and I believe that it is the single most important ingredient that is needed today as we humans progress to the next stage in evolution. To me, unless we can build more empathy into all of our different civilizations we will remain in a world that is failing to reach its potential. There are many reasons for this but I'm going to pick just a few in order to set the stage:
- The world is still dominated by the male of the species - In spite of significant gains in the past century or two, women remain as the underdog gender. Empathy is not one of the chief traits of the typical male of the species.
- Traits of the hunter gatherer remain - In the world of the rugged individualist, the rural environment, the hunter gatherer domain, there is little or no need for empathy. In fact, it is generally considered to be a liability.
- The zero sum game - Even in more evolved areas, where the ethos of the rugged individualist is not dominant, the concept of the zero sum game holds sway. Empathy has no place in the zero sum game. If you don't win, you lose, so the only practical way that any kind of empathetic behavior is helpful is in predicting the opponent's next moves, or in fooling them into thinking that you're weakened so you can catch them off guard.
- Lack of education - empathy does not come naturally to very many so it really needs to be taught, encouraged and nurtured in all of us. then it can become a tool for growing even more empathy, more understanding, greater co-operation and more growing together so that we can relegate the zero sum game to where it belongs, in sports.
There are those among us who actually have no natural empathy at all. In some cases this can manifest itself as a form of autism. In other cases it can manifest itself as sociopathic or downright criminal behavior. These conditions are clearly problematic because they generally lack the mechanisms whereby empathy can be taught or developed, some other coping mechanism is needed. I mention this here purely as a way of acknowledging that empathy is a real and tangible thing that has a strong influence on human behavior.
In a world that has the likes of Donald Trump in the White House and where diplomacy is being reduced to "the art of the deal" one does not need to look far to find examples of behavior that pushes empathy into the background and thrives on lies and uncertainty. That approach may work well when you're buying an area rug at the Kasbah, but it doesn't do anything to help create a stable and nurturing society. Personally, I would prefer to live in a stable and nurturing society. Naturally, as soon as I state my own preference I must immediately acknowledge the possibility, perhaps the likelihood, that not everyone would like to live in a stable and nurturing society. Fortunately for me, that very conflict provides me with a terrific situation that handily illustrates my point. How can a society survive the inevitable disagreements about the very nature of that society?
I believe that empathy is a crucial, possibly even the crucial, component in effectively meeting this challenge. First, let's consider the question of whether you would like to live in a society that is stable and nurturing. I think we can assume that not all of our fellow citizens will want a stable and nurturing society, perhaps they might prefer a conflict driven society where the fittest survive and the rest just have to get what they can manage. Classically this harkens back to ancient Greece, where the rivalry between Athens and Sparta was based on similar differences. Clearly this is a very simplistic framing of the example, but it does take us directly to the nub of the problem. Since we disagree on the fundamental characteristics of a desirable society, how can we find an equitable arrangement that gives both sides what they want? This is the simplest version, in reality it is a far more complex problem.
Now, assuming that we, as a group or society, currently occupy a finite amount of land, we come up against our first challenge. How do we divide the land? We know from history that, regardless of how we choose to divide the living area: street, neighborhood, village, town, county, district, country, continent, we will inevitably come into conflict regarding our living arrangements. Questions as simple as who controls what and how and for how long come up very early. The question then very quickly becomes, how do we even discuss that question? That is to say, how do we agree on the rules of the conversation that will set up the rules for sharing? There has to be some common ground somewhere. Several methods have been tried in the past, virtually all have involved violence or bloodshed of some kind and none of them have been satisfactory or long lived. We are a contentious species it seems.
Taking a leaf from the United States declaration of independence I think that all reasonable people can agree that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." it follows that we need to find a fair and equitable way to resolve those conflicts that will naturally occur in the course of human affairs, without recourse to violence and bloodshed. If one person is imposing their will on another by hurting or killing them, then they are, in all likelihood, depriving that other person of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we cannot agree on that point I see no point in proceeding, we should go directly to arm wrestling or pistols at dawn.
The solution to this problem that the founding fathers of the United States of America agreed upon was what they called the rule of law. They conferred certain special rights upon selected members of society that would give them the tools they would need to enforce the laws of the land. Naturally, they also created the mechanisms necessary to create and amend those laws. They also created a constitution, including a bill of rights, that aims to provide an underpinning and a framework to keep those laws from being unduly twisted or subverted. Their goal was to create a proper balance between the rights of the commons and the rights of the individual. They also included structure to prevent subversion of that goal.
The creation of the United States declaration of independence and constitution was a significant and notable step on a path that weaves its way back through history, through different civilizations and places in the world. It goes back through the Magna Carta taking ideas and inspiration from Roman, Greek and Chinese civilizations and beyond. It tells the story of the evolution of government and the relationship between the governors and the governed. It also tells the story of how man has wrestled with the problem of how to resolve conflict without the need for violence or bloodshed. The simple proposition that the strong impose their will on their weaker brethren was the basic starting point, but time has shown that it is not sustainable. An important part of why it is not sustainable lies in the fact that it does not promote the development of the "human organism" as a whole. The continued incidence today of situations where the strong impose their unjust will on others shows that there's still progress to be made, but we do continue to search for better alternatives. In the macro sense, the cult of the individual has proven insufficient to improve the lot of the group or to promote the development of the group over time. That is not to say that the role of the strong, driven, dominant individual has not had a place in the development of civilization, far from it, but as we have evolved and developed a sustainable social fabric, it has been more through collaboration and cooperation than through the strength or power of the individual. Nevertheless, history shows us many examples of strong individuals who have made significant contributions to the improvement of our society.
I believe that empathy is a crucial, possibly even the crucial, component in effectively meeting this challenge. First, let's consider the question of whether you would like to live in a society that is stable and nurturing. I think we can assume that not all of our fellow citizens will want a stable and nurturing society, perhaps they might prefer a conflict driven society where the fittest survive and the rest just have to get what they can manage. Classically this harkens back to ancient Greece, where the rivalry between Athens and Sparta was based on similar differences. Clearly this is a very simplistic framing of the example, but it does take us directly to the nub of the problem. Since we disagree on the fundamental characteristics of a desirable society, how can we find an equitable arrangement that gives both sides what they want? This is the simplest version, in reality it is a far more complex problem.
Now, assuming that we, as a group or society, currently occupy a finite amount of land, we come up against our first challenge. How do we divide the land? We know from history that, regardless of how we choose to divide the living area: street, neighborhood, village, town, county, district, country, continent, we will inevitably come into conflict regarding our living arrangements. Questions as simple as who controls what and how and for how long come up very early. The question then very quickly becomes, how do we even discuss that question? That is to say, how do we agree on the rules of the conversation that will set up the rules for sharing? There has to be some common ground somewhere. Several methods have been tried in the past, virtually all have involved violence or bloodshed of some kind and none of them have been satisfactory or long lived. We are a contentious species it seems.
Taking a leaf from the United States declaration of independence I think that all reasonable people can agree that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." it follows that we need to find a fair and equitable way to resolve those conflicts that will naturally occur in the course of human affairs, without recourse to violence and bloodshed. If one person is imposing their will on another by hurting or killing them, then they are, in all likelihood, depriving that other person of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we cannot agree on that point I see no point in proceeding, we should go directly to arm wrestling or pistols at dawn.
The solution to this problem that the founding fathers of the United States of America agreed upon was what they called the rule of law. They conferred certain special rights upon selected members of society that would give them the tools they would need to enforce the laws of the land. Naturally, they also created the mechanisms necessary to create and amend those laws. They also created a constitution, including a bill of rights, that aims to provide an underpinning and a framework to keep those laws from being unduly twisted or subverted. Their goal was to create a proper balance between the rights of the commons and the rights of the individual. They also included structure to prevent subversion of that goal.
The creation of the United States declaration of independence and constitution was a significant and notable step on a path that weaves its way back through history, through different civilizations and places in the world. It goes back through the Magna Carta taking ideas and inspiration from Roman, Greek and Chinese civilizations and beyond. It tells the story of the evolution of government and the relationship between the governors and the governed. It also tells the story of how man has wrestled with the problem of how to resolve conflict without the need for violence or bloodshed. The simple proposition that the strong impose their will on their weaker brethren was the basic starting point, but time has shown that it is not sustainable. An important part of why it is not sustainable lies in the fact that it does not promote the development of the "human organism" as a whole. The continued incidence today of situations where the strong impose their unjust will on others shows that there's still progress to be made, but we do continue to search for better alternatives. In the macro sense, the cult of the individual has proven insufficient to improve the lot of the group or to promote the development of the group over time. That is not to say that the role of the strong, driven, dominant individual has not had a place in the development of civilization, far from it, but as we have evolved and developed a sustainable social fabric, it has been more through collaboration and cooperation than through the strength or power of the individual. Nevertheless, history shows us many examples of strong individuals who have made significant contributions to the improvement of our society.
These days it is not hard to see that the application of the rule of law and the evolution of the legal system is going through some difficulties. It may well be true to say the this is not new and the law has always struggled, but I believe that although the rule of law is necessary for a civilization to flourish, it is not sufficient. I believe that although fairness and impartiality are necessary for the rule of law to function, they are not sufficient. Furthermore, I believe that this same criticism can be applied equally to all facets of the law, including legislation and enforcement. Simply put, the law has devolved from a search for truth and fairness into a system where the need to win has eclipsed all other considerations.
That is not to say that the search for truth and fairness has disappeared, but in the rush to "get results" and "create outcomes" by "being more pragmatic" money and power have pushed them into the background. Whether it's lawyers being paid criminal amounts of money because "they know how to win" or "close the deal" or retired legislators being paid ridiculously high fees so they will use their contacts and influence to lobby for special interests in the creation of laws and regulations it's clear that money has the upper hand. Money is a means to an end, it should never be the end in itself and it should never be the deciding factor in any legal or ethical questions. Money has no moral basis.
Fortunately, despite the influence of money and power, the legal system still functions reasonably well in most cases. This is testament to the people who manage to retain their ethical compass and even push back against the corrupting influence of the almighty dollar. Stories of the corrosive influence of money have been around for many years and are widely acknowledged and derided, but there's another force that is also making its presence known these days, let's call it ideology. To minimize potential ambiguity I'm going to define ideology as a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society share.
Nothing new here, ideology has been around for a long time, and is clearly an important driver in the worlds of philosophy, Religion, Ethics, law, politics and more. An ideology provides a framework for decision making at all levels of government, but lately it appears to have replaced evidence and truth as the most significant influence on decision making at the legislative level. I find it so ironic that the prevalence of ideology trumping basic human rights that was evident in the communist era, the very thing that drove Ayn Rand to formulate her own ideology, is now being applied by her acolytes, to the democratic process in the United states in the same way as the communists did. They appear to place their "small government", "lower taxes" ideology to the governmental process without regard to history, reason or even to common sense. For instance, the dogma of no new taxes and no tax increases is applied without regard to the clearly crumbling infrastructure of the country.
Common sense dictates that money needs to be allocated to the proper upkeep of buildings, roads, railways, bridges, ports, rivers and the like. Projects to perform these activities and tasks need to be funded based on need, not on some ideological theory. The methodology used to design these projects could possibly be decided based on ideological beliefs, even the priority could be weighed with ideology in mind, but the truth of it comes down to engineering. The goal must be unambiguous and the best method to get there must be well defined and properly executed. The success or failure of a particular project can easily be tracked and evaluated using proper facts and proper analysis. Success and failure in that realm are highly quantifiable and only ambiguous when interpretations of facts vary. Ironically, one significant driver is often cost, but that's a whole other discussion. I'm not implying that the process is simple, nor that funding is not a factor, I'm just asserting that the decision making process should not be as subjective as policy decisions that are based on ideological beliefs. This is where another concept enters the fray, the human Id. It might also be described as pride, stubbornness or tenacity, but whatever it's called it has the potential to be a very positive or very negative influence. I believe that in this context it is virtually always dangerous and can verge on the catastrophic.
There is no doubt, and history attests to this in full measure, that the injection of a strong, powerful, driven individual, generally with an outsized ego, into a project or process often ensures the successful completion of that project. This is generally a good thing, but sometimes the ego can overcome the objectivity that is so precious in this context. When the ego takes over the results can be far less desirable. As an example of both I will Cite Winston Churchill's role in World War II as the former, a resounding success, and his part in the landings at Gallipoli in World War I as an example of the latter, a colossal failure. This is diverging from the argument a little, but I can draw it back in by juxtaposing ego and ideology and noting that a movement that starts life based on an ideology can morph into a movement that can be characterized as a cult of personality. The third Reich is an example of such a transformation, starting from a racist and xenophobic ideology its became Hitler's movement, ultimately falling to defeat at the hands of the allies in 1945.
Political Ideology and empathy do not seem to be good bedfellows, in fact they appear to be frequently at odds with one another. How could the soldiers of the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other perpetrators of genocide through the ages have carried out their grim tasks without the fire of ideology to quell their empathy. One could argue that there are other factors involved, such as fear and cruelty and opportunism and that is a valid argument. However, I contend that it is the ideology that provides the glue to hold the other factors together. The truth is that whether the ideology is political, religious or racial in nature, when it trumps all other factors we should beware.
History is rife with ideologies of all kinds. Some have been long lasting while others have their day in the sun and then are gone from active duty, or perhaps they have reappeared after a while in a slightly altered state. Communism and Nazism are two of the political biggies from the last century that have, or had, been consigned to the scrap heap of history. They have, however managed to spawn several children in the process and their children live on. Some of these are true ideological children while others are more national in nature. Russia and China are nominally Communist, but the government in those countries bear little or no resemblance to the original concept of Communism. I the United States the pendulum seems to swing between Liberalism and Conservatism.
What we have now is a society, in many ways a world, that is becoming more and more extreme in its understanding of the way things should function. Conversation and discourse appears to be driving people apart, rather than leading to understanding and compromise. This is happening within Religious, Political and Social contexts. The conversation appears to be increasingly "I'm right, you're wrong" and "they're good, they're bad" without any desire for movement towards synthesis. We must endeavor to return to a world where conversation, dialog, debate is more about finding common ground than about proving that I'm right and you're wrong. To do that we need to build up our empathy quotient.
Fortunately, despite the influence of money and power, the legal system still functions reasonably well in most cases. This is testament to the people who manage to retain their ethical compass and even push back against the corrupting influence of the almighty dollar. Stories of the corrosive influence of money have been around for many years and are widely acknowledged and derided, but there's another force that is also making its presence known these days, let's call it ideology. To minimize potential ambiguity I'm going to define ideology as a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society share.
Nothing new here, ideology has been around for a long time, and is clearly an important driver in the worlds of philosophy, Religion, Ethics, law, politics and more. An ideology provides a framework for decision making at all levels of government, but lately it appears to have replaced evidence and truth as the most significant influence on decision making at the legislative level. I find it so ironic that the prevalence of ideology trumping basic human rights that was evident in the communist era, the very thing that drove Ayn Rand to formulate her own ideology, is now being applied by her acolytes, to the democratic process in the United states in the same way as the communists did. They appear to place their "small government", "lower taxes" ideology to the governmental process without regard to history, reason or even to common sense. For instance, the dogma of no new taxes and no tax increases is applied without regard to the clearly crumbling infrastructure of the country.
Common sense dictates that money needs to be allocated to the proper upkeep of buildings, roads, railways, bridges, ports, rivers and the like. Projects to perform these activities and tasks need to be funded based on need, not on some ideological theory. The methodology used to design these projects could possibly be decided based on ideological beliefs, even the priority could be weighed with ideology in mind, but the truth of it comes down to engineering. The goal must be unambiguous and the best method to get there must be well defined and properly executed. The success or failure of a particular project can easily be tracked and evaluated using proper facts and proper analysis. Success and failure in that realm are highly quantifiable and only ambiguous when interpretations of facts vary. Ironically, one significant driver is often cost, but that's a whole other discussion. I'm not implying that the process is simple, nor that funding is not a factor, I'm just asserting that the decision making process should not be as subjective as policy decisions that are based on ideological beliefs. This is where another concept enters the fray, the human Id. It might also be described as pride, stubbornness or tenacity, but whatever it's called it has the potential to be a very positive or very negative influence. I believe that in this context it is virtually always dangerous and can verge on the catastrophic.
There is no doubt, and history attests to this in full measure, that the injection of a strong, powerful, driven individual, generally with an outsized ego, into a project or process often ensures the successful completion of that project. This is generally a good thing, but sometimes the ego can overcome the objectivity that is so precious in this context. When the ego takes over the results can be far less desirable. As an example of both I will Cite Winston Churchill's role in World War II as the former, a resounding success, and his part in the landings at Gallipoli in World War I as an example of the latter, a colossal failure. This is diverging from the argument a little, but I can draw it back in by juxtaposing ego and ideology and noting that a movement that starts life based on an ideology can morph into a movement that can be characterized as a cult of personality. The third Reich is an example of such a transformation, starting from a racist and xenophobic ideology its became Hitler's movement, ultimately falling to defeat at the hands of the allies in 1945.
Political Ideology and empathy do not seem to be good bedfellows, in fact they appear to be frequently at odds with one another. How could the soldiers of the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other perpetrators of genocide through the ages have carried out their grim tasks without the fire of ideology to quell their empathy. One could argue that there are other factors involved, such as fear and cruelty and opportunism and that is a valid argument. However, I contend that it is the ideology that provides the glue to hold the other factors together. The truth is that whether the ideology is political, religious or racial in nature, when it trumps all other factors we should beware.
History is rife with ideologies of all kinds. Some have been long lasting while others have their day in the sun and then are gone from active duty, or perhaps they have reappeared after a while in a slightly altered state. Communism and Nazism are two of the political biggies from the last century that have, or had, been consigned to the scrap heap of history. They have, however managed to spawn several children in the process and their children live on. Some of these are true ideological children while others are more national in nature. Russia and China are nominally Communist, but the government in those countries bear little or no resemblance to the original concept of Communism. I the United States the pendulum seems to swing between Liberalism and Conservatism.
What we have now is a society, in many ways a world, that is becoming more and more extreme in its understanding of the way things should function. Conversation and discourse appears to be driving people apart, rather than leading to understanding and compromise. This is happening within Religious, Political and Social contexts. The conversation appears to be increasingly "I'm right, you're wrong" and "they're good, they're bad" without any desire for movement towards synthesis. We must endeavor to return to a world where conversation, dialog, debate is more about finding common ground than about proving that I'm right and you're wrong. To do that we need to build up our empathy quotient.
