Virtues & Vocations, Part 22: Is Empathy a Threat?

Episode Topic: Is Empathy a Threat?

How can "feeling with" others trigger tribal solidarity?  Move beyond moral platitudes to decode how empathy is weaponized, and discover a more rigorous path toward the common good by learning to "go visiting" others' perspectives. Challenge your instincts and slow down to interrogate empathy's role in our polarized world.

Featured Speakers:

• Jennifer Szalai, New York Times

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/35ee8b.

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled Virtues & Vocations. 

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Welcome

1 0:06

Welcome to our webinar Virtues and Vocations, conversations on Character and The Common Good. In this series, we share conversations about how education and work can promote human flourishing. This series is part of Virtues and Vocations, a national forum housed at the Institute for Social Concerns at the University of Notre Dame, and supported by the Kern Family Foundation. Virtues Invocations seeks to foster a community of practice amongst scholars and practitioners across discipline who are keen to understand how best cultivate character and moral purpose in higher education and the professions themselves. This webinar is one of the ways we facilitate these conversations. My name is Suzanne Shanahan and I direct the Institute for Social Concerns, and I'm host for this series. Today we are thrilled to welcome Jennifer Sai on Is Empathy a Threat? Jennifer is a non-fiction book critic for The New York Times. Before joining the New York Times, Jennifer was a senior editor for reviews at Harper's Magazine. Her writing has also appeared in The New Yorker, the London Review of Books and Slaves. She attended the University of Toronto where she studied political science and peace and conflict. She holds a master's degree in International Relations from the London School of Economics. Welcome, Jennifer.

Speaker 2 1:39

Hi. Thanks so much for having me.

1 1:41

So, we usually like to ease our conversation partners in a bit, and so I would love to know how someone who studied. Political peace and conflict. International relations ends up as a nonfiction book editor at the New York Times.

Speaker 2 2:01

Well, I mean, I should say so as you mentioned, in your introduction, I worked at Harper's Magazine for a number of years and when I was there for most of the time. I edited the review section and, um, you know, I, I, for a long time when I did write about books, I would often write about fiction. I've always been an avid fiction reader despite my scholarly background, I guess, in international relations. And, um, you know, then what happened was after I left Harper's, um, and started working at the Times. I was an editor on the books desk, editing reviews of fiction as well as nonfiction. And, um, at a certain point, they wanted a book critic who would focus specifically on nonfiction. And I had written occasionally about nonfiction at that point. that was also, you know, a genre that I was interested in. And so at that point, I, when I applied for the job and when I got it, I think that there was this notion at the time that there were a lot of political books coming out. This was in 20, and there, you know, 20, I think I began in 20, the beginning of 2018 in this job. And there were a number of books written about the, new administration, newish administration, um. They wanted a critic who had an eye toward those books, who was interested in covering, you know, the political memoirs, the big history books that maybe tried to contextualize, you know, American politics. And, um, you know, those were things that I'd always been reading, not just in terms of work, but also, you know, in my own time. And, um, so it was a really, it to really explore, Where, where this country is. and on top of that, I will say, you know, the thing, nice thing about nonfiction is that it doesn't only cover, you know, big history, big politics. I've also had a chance to review books about science, you know, lots of memoirs, I mean. Sometimes it's true, I miss writing about fiction, but for the most part, I do feel like nonfiction is, you know, it sort of encompasses life, I guess. And so there's a chance to really write about different subjects.

1 4:26

Great. Um, one of the things I noted on your website, you talk about journalistic ethics. Yes. you know that you don't review books of friends or enemies. Uh, you're, you don't on pro lists, uh, you don't take solicitation. How does it, how do you end up reviewing particular books for those unfamiliar, with the nature of your work?

Reviewing Books You Love vs. Books You Disagree With

Speaker 2 4:50

So, I mean, you know, we keep track on the books desk here at the time, so the books that are coming out. So we, we, we try to, you know, look as far ahead as possible. So several months in advance we'll see the books that are coming out. I mean, you know, I review generally I would say about a book a week. It depends, I mean, there's some. There are some weeks where I'm working on a longer essay like this one that will include several books. So maybe the week before I don't have a review. but, you know, a book a week and that is a lot in one sense. But on the other hand, if you think of how much is published, it's not that much at all. there's just a huge number of books that are published, a huge number of nonfiction books. You know, we at the times in the book review, the editors. To other critics, freelance critics, to write about those books. So I do, when I see the books that are coming out, you know, I'll look at things, I'll keep an eye on things that are interesting to me. Also, sometimes, you know, my editors and I'll talk about things that look like, you know, they're important books to have somebody weigh in on. And so, you know, there have been a number of instances where I review memoirs by, political figures or, and so in that sense those are books that, you know, I can't review every one of those because in fact there are many more of those books that are published and I'm able even able to review, um. But that is one part of my beat, but it's not the only part of my beat, I should say. I think it's really important, and I think that there's this understanding that critics should not only look at books that are news, that books that are political memoirs, but also, you know, books that are interesting that maybe have nothing to do with the political cycle. books that are aesthetically, pleasing. You know, I think that it's nice to have a variety of those things and that sort of keeps one's sensibility fresh.

1 6:55

So, one of the things when I teach in class and assign a book, I always have try to have, a range of books that I absolutely love. And books that I really don't like. And it's best when a book is kind of a mix of both because I think it generates the best conversation. do you prefer to edit books that you just write or Absolutely love it. Write and write about those books or write about books that you find problematic or does it not matter in, in your critic process?

Staying Objective When the Books Are Political

Speaker 2 7:27

Yeah. You know, it's, it's interesting. I. I've had this conversation with, with other critics too, and I think, I, I can't speak for every critic, but I do think that there are critics who find writing about books that you find, you know, have a, have a real problem, and then you sort of have an argument to make, to say, this is why this book doesn't work. This is why this book isn't good. This is why this book maybe is not quite truthful. To a certain extent, the argument is presented for you. I mean, it, it, so there's something I, I don't wanna say that it's easier to review those books, but it's more straightforward in a way. It's almost like you're, you know, I mean, not that you're, you're a lawyer per se, but the way that lawyers sort of construct arguments, there's sort of an end goal in mind. Whereas I think writing about books that you love, I mean, you're sort of trying to translate an experience. That, you know, is moving, that's powerful. but also that, you know, is maybe particular to yourself and that has something that resonates with your own taste. And you're trying to sort of translate that in a way that's comp comprehensible to an audience. you know, that that can be really, but it, it's. I, I couldn't imagine the job being one or the other where you're only writing about books that you love or you're only trying to sort of clear the field and write about books that you think are, are not very good. I think you, you need to have a mix of both. but, uh, but yeah, I mean, I, I guess that that's, that's how I sort of see them in my mind. That's not always the case, though. Sometimes a a, a book that you. Trying to sort of articulate the reasons for it in such a way that, you know, is persuasive. That's, that's its own challenge as well, I think.

1 9:29

So, um, how do you navigate the politics of the moment, but also of the nature of the books that you're writing? So how can you. write a review of, of something that is itself somewhat politicized without politicizing it further, or being political yourself or taking a side or a position. How do you maintain that analytic objectivity, if that's what it is or,

Speaker 2 10:00

yeah, I mean, I think, you know, it's interesting with books because especially if you're dealing with a book by a political figure, say. You're, you have to sort of look at the book as a book, even if the writer of the book wasn't necessarily thinking of it as a work of art. I mean, they were presumably trying to think of an audience for it, trying to sort of, they or their ghost writers, for example, might, might have been trying to sort of phrase things in a particular way. So you wanna see the book as a book? But you're also, you know, I think with these books, you do have to look at the context into which they're published. I think that that's part of the responsibility of a critic. I mean, if we only treat, you know, memoirs, by political figures as aesthetic, aesthetic items, then we're not really doing our responsibility as a critic. you know, I think. I think to a certain extent it's, it's unavoidable when you're reviewing certain books to you, you do have to sort of bring in these larger political questions. I think, I think at the same time you're always trying to sort of test it against the intentions of the book and what the book is trying to do. And um, you know, that sort of helps, I think, keep a productive tension within the piece itself. You know, it's not. It is not my job. I'm not a, somebody who's trying to tell people how to vote or whom to vote for. I think at the same time though, there are these urgent political questions that I think it's impossible to, to ignore. And I think part of what I see the benefit of books as well as criticism is I, I do think that we live. At a time where, you know, everything's sort of moving faster and faster and people are sort of encouraged to just react to stuff. You know, we see stuff online as just sort of for engagement and attention getting is trying to sort of ping our knee jerk responses. And I think the nice thing about being able to think about books, on a regular basis and to sort of see how they speak to one another is to sort of. Think, okay, well what is this? What is this saying to us? what, what sort of questions does this raise? Like it, it encourages a way of slowing down, which I think is helpful regardless of one's politics maybe.

Why Write 'Is Empathy a Threat?'

1 12:25

Great. So I wanna transition and talk a little bit about how you came to this particular piece, on is empathy of threat. So where does the idea evolve from? Why was this one of the more extended write reviews that you wrote? give us a little background and context, if you don't mind.

Speaker 2 12:47

Sure. So, you know, I, I remember about, this was even before I had a job, only writing reviews, but when I was, I was on the books desk and I guess around, you know, after Donald Trump won the election of 2016, I noticed that there was this conversation about empathy. you know, it, empathy I think is something that, for a long time has been considered, you know, a, a good thing, a virtue. And, and what I noticed was there was sort of this, uh, new, I guess, debate that seemed to be emerging. On the one hand, you had some people. And, and I can, you know, I, I will say that I'm speaking maybe more in terms of the conversations that I would see in pieces by writers and journalists, et cetera, of, okay, we need to think more in terms of, where are our blind spots? Like who should, who have we traditionally extended empathy to and who should we be extending it to now? And so I was very curious about that debate. And then there was sort of a backlash to that. There were a bunch of progressives who were saying, oh, wait a second, you go to a diner and you talk to some people who voted for Trump. And that's become its own kind of genre of, empathetic quote unquote empathetic identification. And so that sort of sat with me, and then I just, I never, I never actually wrote anything about it. And then I noticed, you know, there were. essays coming out. there, there was a book, I can't remember if it came up maybe right before the election by Paul Bloom Against Empathy, which was a really fascinating, I think, provocative title. and his argument, which was more general, he's a psychologist, he was arguing that essentially empathy is something that, we treat as this un alloid good, but in fact it can lead us astray. And what politics and you know, what politics really needs and policymaking really needs is something that is more akin to sort of rational compassion. that people should sort of try to step outside of their own immediate experience and instead of just feeling for other people, they should think more broadly. And so I was noticing sort of different debates taking. Prompted me to write this piece in the end was, one of, the opinion columnists at the New York Times. David French had written a column about how he had noticed that there were some books coming out by Christians saying that in fact, empathy is dangerous. Empathy has been leading us astray. one of those books by Joe R, which I mentioned in my essay actually does explicitly cite Paul Bloom. but he makes a different kind of argument. And so when I was looking at all these texts, I guess I really was just sort of curious about what this was reflecting, what kind of questions. How it sort of responded to changes in the political moment. and so that's how I ended up writing about it at length. There was enough stuff there, I guess.

1 16:10

Um, one of the things that I noted in reading your review, but then looking at some of the pieces that you've referenced, There is this sort of backlash against empathy, people talking about toxic empathy or this notion of suicidal empathy. and yet it seems that people are defining empathy in different ways. and it struck me that maybe part of the problem is we're not all talking necessarily about the same thing. to what extent do you think part of this is definitional or, you know, sort of the deployment of empathy in, in public discourse versus how we mean it in a more analytic sense? Or how do you, how do you account for that definitional question?

Speaker 2 16:59

Yeah, so I, you know, I was fascinated to learn as I started my research that, the term empathy, the word empathy, I should say, is relatively new. And it comes from, you know, early 20th century German aesthetics of all things. And it's this idea of feeling oneself into a work. So, you know, I think I, I was struck by the fact that, you know, I mean even the books that are quote unquote against empathy, um. Argue that we should have some sort of sympathy, compassion, love. I mean, there's, there's different sort of ways of, of defining how we should interact with others. I think that, there is a notion, and I, you notice it in Paul Bloom's book. you notice it to a certain extent maybe in, uh, the books by Ali Best Stuckey and, um, Joe Rig. Which is that empathy is connected to a feeling that is often extremely parochial, that it works. I think Bloom uses the term like a spotlight. Like if you really think about empathy as a feeling, not as a mode of thinking, but as a feeling. If you try to feel yourself into the position of one other person, maybe you can do it. But if you try to feel yourself into the position of a thousand people, it's just, it's impossible. it's just, there's a limit to the way that our minds work, the way that identification works. And so, you know, I, I think I was very struck by this question of definition and how that leads to a lot of, I think, controversy and debate. but I think also at the same time, what I did notice, and this is why I was very interested. Was that now I think the conversation about empathy has taken another turn where, yes, I mean, you know, Elon Musk talks about suicidal empathy, so he's talking about maybe a particular kind of empathy, but he also does say that empathy is a bug in, um, in, uh, in, in our makeup. And that it's, it's too easily exploited and therefore it's dangerous. Ali Best Stuckey and Joe Briney. they don't say the same thing, but it sort of stems, I think from a similar suspicion that there's something about empathy that's too easily weaponized and so it's in fact dangerous. It's not just something that's insufficient. It's not just, something like a building block on which we have to sort of build other. Another form of ethics that it in fact is something that can really lead people astray. And I was really fascinated by that. and I think, you know, I think right now when you look at the empathy conversations, you know, I began the essay with a quote, a fake quote by Hannah Rent that circulates. I still see it circulating. It's really fascinating to me. I see it online circulating. where, you know, there seems to be this desire to attribute to Hannah or something she never said, which is, the death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs that a culture is about to fall into bar. I mean, it sounds great, but, there's no record.

1 20:25

Like

Speaker 2 20:27

there's no record that she ever said it. But I do think that there is this desire right now. I think right now, you know, you sort of see. Politic has sort of reached this point where, you know, the notion of, you know, that there, the notion that there are some people who are not only not deserving of sympathy, but you know, the way that they can be treated. That there, that cruelty isn't necessarily something to be avoided, that sometimes cruelty is necessary for the health of the body politic. I mean, that's something that Ali Beth Stuckey talks about in her book where, you know, she says, yes, I feel some sympathy for, for example, like an undocumented immigrant. But at the same time, in the larger picture of things, you know, for the politics, for the kind of polity that we need. We have to sort of put our, put aside, our knee jerk empathetic identification with a fellow human in order to pursue policies that would be better for the country as a whole. That's the argument that she is making in part, in her book.

Empathy vs. Rational Compassion in Politics

1 21:38

It seems, in that, in that particular book I'm reflecting on, there were, there was a response from two psychologists that talk about. The empathy as emotional and cognitive and it's, it seems that these critiques are really relying heavily on the emotional dimension of it. So Right. You see someone suffering and you have extraordinary sympathy and not sufficiently on the cognitive dimension, which is about promoting understanding of Right. To, to be cognizant of that understanding. It also seems, to me that. There's a confusion in her argument about sort of justice and mercy, right? So that, there need to, that, that, that empathy, which really in her, uh, work I see much more as a kind of crude sympathy. it is something that should invoke sort of exceptionalism to policy to. Thoughtfulness as opposed to amplifying our understanding of the human condition. And I, I wonder if in your thinking and in writing this, this distinction between emotional and cognitive made sense. I, I noted in the book you, in the review that you reached out to Paul Bloom to have a work at him. Great. I would love to hear more about kind of that tension. Um, but also, you know, what did Paul Bloom have to say?

What the Empathy Debate Reveals Now

Speaker 2 23:09

Yeah, I mean, it was really interest. I mean, his book is, is very interesting. I mean, he, he does see a real distinction between empathetic identification, which is, I think, you know, it's not necessarily totally irrational, but it isn't the same as, you know, rational compassion. And you know, I think, you know, when you mentioned Ali Beth Stuckey's book, and I think you see it in, in Joe R's book, and I think you see it also in a popular understanding of how empathy works, that it really is. I think people emphasize the feeling element, because I think we start talking a lot about empathy in the context of dehumanization, for instance, and Bloom's, you know. He mentions this question of is empathy the break or is it the gas that, you know, he gives the example because I'm, you know, when he was working on his book that people would, talk about the, for example, the guard in a Nazi camp that if the guard in the Nazi camp feels some empathy for, the people who are imprisoned there. Then that would stop him from doing cruel things. That that is the idea that if you feel empathy for somebody, you cannot, you know, it, it just sort of, it, it stops you from do enacting cruelty. And, his argument, and it's interesting because he says, yeah, I could sort of see that. I could sort of see that. But he also emphasizes that in fact the Nazi guard is probably also working from a place of empathetic identification with other Nazis. I mean, that, that, that, that is a very powerful, but the idea that empathy can work as a break, discounts the fact that. Just as, or maybe more often works as the gas to make you feel solidarity with other people, which can completely enable acts of cruelty as we've seen historically. So, you know, I mean, I think what, what Bloom does and what, you know, even our rent does, and I talk about this at, at. They both emphasize thinking and they see it as distinct from this notion of empathetic identification that what you need is to use your imagination. I think a rent has the term to use your imagination, to go visiting, to train your imagination, to go visiting, which I think is a really lovely phrase. And so it's not necessarily about feeling something, it's about sort of stepping back, imagining yourself in not being somebody else, but being in the position of somebody else and then trying to figure out, okay, well what kind of politics and policies can we have to enable human flourishing? That recognizes the fact that we all have different experiences. We're born into different circumstances. We're born into different bodies, we're born into, different ways of looking at the world, different cultures, and that takes that as something to build on. And I like that idea. I think the thing that I, I was sort of struck by as I was writing the piece. That sounds really great. and, but at the same time, to a certain extent, it sounds a little abstract right now. It sounds a little bit, you know, the sort of John Raws and the idea of the veil of ignorance, which I think is connected to, you know, what Bloom and a wrench are saying, which is that, okay, you step back, you imagine that you're not the person, but that you're in their position. That does sound good, and I think that it maybe is a helpful thought exercise, but I think in the heat of politics when things are just so moving so quickly as well, it sounds a little bit abstract. and so I guess the question is, is that I, I still think it's really helpful to think about. I just don't know if maybe it's insufficient to a certain extent, depending on the moment.

1 27:41

So I, I actually really love that section where you return to Hannah rent and then bring in roles. And you have this great quote from her where she says It's an active process of making present the standpoints of those who are absent. And, you know, but then go on to say that both a rent and rolls. Assume pluralism, they assume, that fairness is an unequivocal good. is it, and when I read it, I thought it's not that it's abstract, because I think some of the emotive ways of understanding empathy are pretty abstract. It's that. Perhaps we can't assume pluralism and that fairness is an unequivocal good, and that's what really erodes that position. That decisions shouldn't be based on the standpoint of those not in the room. That decisions should be made on the basis of those who deserve to be in the room, who've done what's required to be in the room is more politics of the moment or the way of thinking.

Speaker 2 28:52

Yeah, I mean, I,

1 28:54

yeah.

Speaker 2 28:54

Yeah, I mean, I think that that's, I think that that is exactly right, that there is sort of a presumption, on the part of a rent rolls, which I think for a long time was maybe considered such a sort of unquestioned idea that certain extent people didn't really, it. Oh yes. Is, is this a pluralistic society? Is that considered the goal? And I think what you see right now in a lot of the, sort of most divisive debates politically, is that there's not necessarily agreement about that. and so I think that, yeah, I think that that, and that, I have to say that sort of when you're on piece, like. You know, you've got all these different viewpoints and different, texts that you're dealing with, with different perspectives is, you know, I'm, I'm somebody who, I mean, there are all kinds of different, approaches to writing essays like this. I, I have some, a little bit of an outline, but I usually depart from it because I, I do feel like in the act of writing it is an act of discovery. Um. Oftentimes where you're sort of seeing how these things work together or work separately and seeing how they coalesce, where they disa, you know, where different writers disagree and, and, and sort of trying to find your way to this notion of, okay, well what does this mean? and I think that that was what I was sort of struck by at the end of the piece when I came to that point where I was like, oh, wait a second. We're in a mo moment right now where, you know, I mentioned in the essay where there are these, you know, there are these memes coming out from government accounts, which I think would've been hard to imagine a few years ago, even, you know, maybe eight years ago, seven or eight years ago, during the first term of President Trump, which is, you have, you have these memes that aren't just stating actual policy, but that are actually saying. Presenting these images that of, of, um, you know, people, and, and, and yeah, that there's a sense that it's not just, okay, we're in a moment where these policies are being enacted, but we're in a moment now of different kinds of empathetic identifications, I guess is one way of putting it. And so, yeah, I was, I was very sort of struck by that, I guess.

1 31:31

I wanna return a little bit to the, more toward the beginning of the article and you have this beautiful conversation about how people imagine, fiction as a place to cultivate empathy and even art as spaces of cultivation. And, you have this fabulous Sadie Smith quote that I absolutely love, that I wanna talk a little bit about. You say that she says you can fool yourself writing a novel, that you're saving the world. You know, one by one, opening the hearts of people so they become better. But people's hearts can be opened extensively and they can do nothing. Uh, you have to be careful with that idea. and I just wonder if you could talk a little bit about that notion, because that seems critically important, that even if we imagined, a kind of empathy that we're closer to the way roles and, a rent think, you, you have it and you do nothing with it.

Speaker 2 32:32

Yeah. Yeah. That. I think that the, and I will say this as somebody who's worked in this, you know, this field of books and writing for a long time, that idea is persistent. It's extremely seductive. I think, you know, writers love to believe it, and readers, I think also love to believe it, that, oh, you know, reading helps you be a good person, essentially. If you open yourself up to other people's experiences, even the experiences of imaginary characters and scenarios that you'll have sort of train yourself to have this magnanimous understanding of others and, the world will be a better place. And I think what we see now is sort of a recognition of the real limitations of that. And I think what Smith was getting at in that quote on top of that is, yes, I can, you know. I can cry when I read something or I can get really sort of the sense of righteous indignation when somebody is treated unjustly that doesn't necessarily translate into action, let alone political change. and so I think that that. I think that the idea that we can feel lots of things, but, you know, and, and we can, you know, we can look at the news and, and be upset about something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that things change. I think, you know, again, it's sort of, it, it reminds me again of what I was saying about Bloom's distinction between, or this notion of empathy being the breaks that Okay, well. It might be the case that, you know, we can sympathize with characters and books that we read and then we still don't do anything. But maybe what it does mean, and I don't know, this is an open question, but it does mean maybe that if you are put into a situation where you actually have some sort of power to act in a way that could either help somebody or hurt somebody directly. You don't hurt them. Maybe that's the, maybe that's the sort of expansion of our moral, which is a very, it's not so much political as it's, it's sort of one-to-one. It's relational. It's, it's the way that maybe we interact with other people in our lives that maybe we have more of an understanding of where we're, where they're coming from. And so we don't, we don't act in such a way that's hurtful. Maybe that's a much sort of more modest. Kind of empathetic identification, but maybe that's real. I dunno. I think it's an open question.

1 35:19

Yeah, I think that's a super, uh, just a compelling way to think about it. I had a conversation with someone over the summer, who I would say has with a very different way of thinking if we talk in the language of, so, um. Different, uh, ways of understanding reality and what's right and what's wrong. but the person's favorite book was also my favorite book, which is Crime and Punishment. We, right, like we connected on the facts. We had both read the book several times and it was an important book to our thinking. Yet I could discern no relationship between my thinking and this person's thinking. it may be right that, uh, as you're saying, it's not about creating a more general positionality, but it's in enacting whatever our politics or our, uh, ethos is. We are more generous and less cruel in that, that we have a sense maybe of

Is 'Empathy' a Broken Word?

Speaker 2 36:25

Yeah. I mean, may, yeah. That's a great example because I think also, I mean the, the thing about a work of, you know, great works of literature like Crime and Punishment or like any, any Dostoevsky really is that, you know, you sort of, you read something in it, but I also think, I mean, it's not, they're never really simple morality tales, right? I mean, there's, there's, there's sort of opening up a kind of experience that maybe can be extreme. That you sort of imagine, well, what, what is that like? but that's not something that really answers anything. It just sort of opens up questions, maybe makes the world seem larger and more complicated. and so in that sense, I think it is really fascinating when people love the same book and have still totally different outlooks on the world.

1 37:23

Um. In reading the piece, one of the, things I thought to myself was, oh geez, we have to, we should just stop talking about empathy, because it's become like a term that's been like distorted and perverted and people are using it in different ways. and for me, right, because I think of empathy as a virtue and as a right, a way of being. All for the good in the world. it was kind of disheartening. It is your sense that empathy or there becomes terminology that we just can't talk about because it's, it's taken on a life of its own or do you see any hope for us using that language or,

Speaker 2 38:09

yeah. You know, it's a. Because I mean, my instinctual reaction is to say, no, wait a second. you know, we, we need to talk about this more.

1 38:20

Right.

Speaker 2 38:21

You know, if anything, it needs more discussion. I do think that one of the reasons why, you know, when Musk made his comment about suicidal empathy, when, Stuckey and R'S books came out, the reason why they got so much attention is because empathy is. One of these words that for a long time seemed totally unquestioned and unquestionable. And then, you know, that's sort of the contrarian term, right? Right. Which is, and the same with Paul Bloom's book, in fact, you know, to call a book against empathy, it's like a provocative attention getting move. And so I think in that sense, you know, the idea that, you know, all. All these people have sort of argued in one way or another that empathy has become weaponized. But I feel like there's a way in which even though they're using the word to sort of provoke a reaction on the part of the audience, there's, and I'm not saying this about Bloom's book, which I actually think is a very, sort of complex treatment of it on scholarly treatment of it, but the way in which. Antipathy stuff has also been weaponized that, it's a way of really shutting down the conversation, I think, instead of really opening it up. I mean, I, I do think that Stuckey and R'S books are interventions in the politics and the culture. I mean, they make very clear that they want the audience to take from it an actionable plan. They're not presenting it as sort of this exploration. Something that maybe you, the reader might have thought, was this an alloy good? And now they're sort of opening it up to different interpretations. That's not their goal. Their their, their goal is to tell you, no, this thing that you thought was good is in fact dangerous and bad, perhaps bad. So I think that that's like a certain kind of book. I mean, it's more like a manifesto. Both of them are more like manifestos, whereas a book like Blooms. He provocative argument, I think, you know, and it's definitely gets people's attention. He's sort of trying to encourage people to think more deeply about something that they hadn't really thought about before and, and just purely to think, I think, you know, one of the things that he points out is he argues that policymaking requires thinking. It's not just feeling, it's thinking. And if you have some feeling there, you really should be very self aware of what kind of feeling is.

1 41:08

So does this mean you're writing a book on empathy?

Audience Q&A

Speaker 2 41:12

I, it's so funny. It's like, I, I do feel like sometimes when I finish, you know, these notebooks, I've, I've sort of immersed myself in that world. I'm like, okay, I've thought about that and now I'm onto a book about owls or whatever. So, yeah, I'm, I'm not sure that I'm the one to write a book about empathy, but I really, I really do. You know, I really did appreciate the time that I gotta to think about it.

1 41:35

That's great. Um, I wanna turn to some of the audience questions. so the first one is, how is empathy related to culture and how much do you think the idea of empathy as a threat is coming from the individualistic culture of the United States?

Speaker 2 41:52

Oh, that's a really interesting question actually. you know, I mean, I think that. Any concept that has sort of, maybe at one mo one moment it seems like it's, you know, just totally good. And then at the next moment some people are saying maybe it's bad. That is a cultural phenomenon. I think also the thing, you know, one of the things that Stuckey in particular points out in her book is that she argues that empathy. She sees it as sort of a form of peer pressure, you know, that she sort of relates it to her own experience, I guess during the, um, summer of 2020, during the Black Lives Matters protest, where she was scrolling through Instagram, I guess, and saw everybody, like a lot of people had put up black squares, just indicate solidarity with Black Lives Matter and that she felt this peer pressure to do it, but she didn't, you know, she felt also. Upset by upset because she didn't necessarily wanna put a black square on her Instagram feed. And so in that sense, you know, I think that Stuckey R also is responding to a culture where, and, and Musk, for that matter, you know, they're saying, oh, you know, we are made to feel empathetic identification in cases where we shouldn't feel that. And that is like a cultural phenomenon. And you know, maybe, you know, to look at the turn that's taken place in the last year or so, maybe that sort of notion, what once was considered this like cultural, value is now being questioned in different corners. that is, I think, I do think that because empathy does connect to how we relate to one another, it's. Impossible for it not to have a cultural dimension. I'm not sure if that answers the, um,

1 43:56

no, that's great

Speaker 2 43:56

question. But,

1 43:58

another question. How can individuals put aside their avoidance of discomfort to get close to empathy? I think that is the under underlying obstacle to embracing an acceptance of empathy.

What Critics Can Do

Speaker 2 44:15

I mean, I do think that this question hits on something really important, which is this issue of comfort and discomfort. because I do think that, you know, the way that empathy and empathetic identification, when we think of it, how it works, People outta their comfort zone. It's very easy not to think about other people. I mean, it's very easy, I think, just to sort of think about, you know, oneself, one's own family, one's own friends, and just sort of move through the world in that direction. whereas I think that, empathy, often encourages the kind of identification. That is not only uncomfortable, but inconvenient. Like what kind of behavioral changes does it require of us? you know, I didn't talk about this in the essay, but for example, like people who, have this sympathetic identification with animals. I mean, I have some close friends who are really not just vegetarians, but vegans who really, you know, this, that has changed their behavior in such a way that, I think is, it encourages like a behavioral change that isn't necessarily, that's a very small example, but that it, it encourages like a kind of discomfort with a way of living in the world that for a lot of people isn't an issue.

1 45:41

Right. So it kind of changes behavior.

Speaker 2 45:43

Yeah.

Discomfort as the Price of Caring

1 45:44

another one looking at the current landscape where empathy itself has become partisan. What role do you think literary critics and cultural journalists should play in helping readers think more clearly?

Speaker 2 46:00

Ooh, it's a bear.

1 46:03

Well,

Speaker 2 46:03

first

1 46:03

of responsibility.

Speaker 2 46:05

Well, I mean, first of all, it's so interesting because, I mean, I feel like, you know, it sort of also gets to the question of, and, and, and you know, of how much influence do critics. Really have, especially in this day and age, when I think the latest statistic I saw, more than half of Americans don't read a single book in a year. I mean, it's, you know, I mean maybe they read reviews. I dunno. you know, I mean, I guess I can't speak for the way that other critics work, but I guess I could say for myself is that I feel like. One of the things that I hope to do and that I hope to create with the, with the pieces that I write, you know, is just a chance for people to sort of, slow down and maybe think more broadly of the kinds of things that are happening and, and the way that, the ways in which that books really can encourage us to ask new questions. I think that that's like. Important, mode of reading, which is what are these, what are the questions that are being raised here? I, I can't remember if we talked about this earlier, but I do feel like things in our culture now move so fast. You know, we're encouraged to just react to things and to be just very reactive. And, you know, the way that I see that online is just, there's a lot of content that's created just to generate like an immediate response. A a lot of, it's not even necessarily appealing to our thinking brains, it's just appealing to our reflexes and our nervous systems. And I think the nice things about books is that, you know, you spend time with them, you get to sit with them, you, you know. And so I hope that when it comes at least to book's criticism, that there's a chance to sort of work our way through these questions that don't really lend themselves to immediate reactions.

1 48:02

Mm-hmm. So a, a related question that someone is asking is about this conversation with Paul Bloom. Um. The right to a certain extent, you're combining original reporting with the book Right. Analysis and Right. Is this a common thing? Is this

Speaker 2 48:22

No.

1 48:23

Okay.

Is Empathy Uniquely Human?

Speaker 2 48:24

It, I mean, it's it, I'll say for these essays, it's different. Like for critics, like I review a book. I'm not, I, I don't, you know, I don't contact the author. Like if I'm reviewing a book to say, you should read this book, or you should not read this new book. Um. That's a different kind of article. It's where I'm sort of spending time with the book on myself, thinking what I think about it, and then writing a review, with ideas pieces. You know, this was an instance where I think because the subject I haven't, you know, there have been, I've written several of these notebooks that take into account different ideas and like different intellectual debates. I haven't always called, scholars or experts to talk about their books in those ones, but when I do, it's usually because there's like a very recent news related thing happening and this like the kind of subject where, you know, bloom. I think he, I'm trying to remember if his book published in. Since this book had come out, you know, a lot of things had happened and so I was sort of curious what he made of all of this. And it was interesting to talk to him because he had a very sort of particular take on it. you know, he did sort of recognize that there were, you know, there was sort of this growing genre of against empathy articles and books coming out. And, you know, he had his own perspective on it, which I thought was interesting to take into account.

1 50:04

Great. So I'm gonna sort of combine the last two questions.

Speaker 2 50:07

Sure.

1 50:07

Raise them in. Um, the first one is, is from a PhD student who's working with the author of Dark Sides of Empathy Oh. Book. and ask you do, do you think empathy is a uniquely human ability? In that sense, is it part of what differentiates us from other beings? And is it thus essential to promote it? do we lose our humanity if we lose our empathy? So that's the first question. And then the second one is, how do you balance analytic distance with moral urgency in your criticism?

Speaker 2 50:43

Okay,

1 50:44

so two.

Speaker 2 50:45

Okay, two, good. Two, good question. Sorry, I'm just writing them so I don't, forget. okay. I guess in terms of the first one, you know, I, yes. I think, I mean, I think that the psychological, I mean the psychological studies on empathy do connect it to human traits. I mean, I do think that animals. Experience some sort of fellow feeling. But empathy, as I mentioned, you know, is a relatively recent term. The way that we understand it is very much inflected with ideas of humanity. As I said, you know, the absence of empathy is connected, for a lot of writers to dehumanization. So I think, you know, the. The way in which we sort of conceive of empathy is very much connected to how, not just how we are as humans, but how we connect to one another as, as humans. at the same time though, I think it's the case that animals feel some connection to other creatures, but I don't know if we would call that empathy. a few years ago, I, I reviewed a book called If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal. It's basically arguing that, in fact, human qualities are what accounts for the ways in which humans can be very cruel to one another. And so, you know, the author was pointing out that, you know, it's not like chickens commit genocide, you know? I mean, they just sort of, you know, they might fight, but they don't do the kinds of monstrous things that human beings often do. But I think one of the things that I also thought about when I was reviewing that book is that. But at the same time, it's like humans will do things for other humans or other animals that just animals are not capable of doing. They don't live in the kind of society or system where, you know, the author of that book that I reviewed took care of honeybees. Like he was very interested in that. I mean, you don't see other animals doing that kind of work, so. You know, I feel like an expert on the psychology of empathy would really have to be the be all and end all to that answer. But the way I think of it is that it's definitely connected to that. And then the question about analytical, I can't remember the phrasing. Something about sort

1 53:09

distance with moral urgency in your criticism.

Speaker 2 53:17

Yeah. I think, you know, because a lot of these books deal with questions and morals or ethics. I mean, it's unavoidable. You have to have that, that awareness, that element. I think I sort of see analytical distance as like a, a mode. It's maybe connected to what we're talking about, in terms of what Aran said about, training your imagination to go visiting. But instead of doing it with other humans, you're doing it with books and ideas. You know, you're trying to sort of take these different things into account. And then at the same time, you know, critics are people who have their own tastes, their own, understandings of the world. And, you know, those ideas are sort of processed through you. And then you, you, you write the, the essay or the review. So I think it's always. I'm always trying to be aware of both, I guess. I think it's important not to totally lose sight of one or the other because then you're, if it's only moral urgency, then it's not, it's not criticism. and then if you're only being analytic and you're not sort of taking into account the world in which we live, it can just seem just like pure aestheticism, which is also, you know, not quite really dealing with the book as a totality.

1 54:39

Great. So, one final question. Oh sure. And I dunno if you can, if you're allowed to answer it, but, so see, what, what's a piece of fiction you're currently reading and enjoying?

Speaker 2 54:53

Great question. I have to say, this is not one that I'm currently reading, but this is a book that I read fairly recently that I loved, that I recommend to a lot of people when they ask me. Which is the director by Daniel Kilman. it came out, I think this summer, and it's the story, it's actually based on an actual person. It's based on GW Pabst, the filmmaker, the Austrian filmmaker who ended up, he lived in Hollywood for a while and was like a big deal working with Louise Brooks, credit Garbo. and he ended up, for whatever reason. Getting pulled back toward Europe, toward Austria and the book, the explanation given is that his mother was sick and when he gets there, the war starts and so he can't leave. And so he ends up, you know, getting corralled into making movies for the Nazi regime, but not propaganda films. They're actually supposed to be pure entertainment. What he wants to make and what he finds is sort this very. He's himself a Nazi. He's like a liberal sympathizer, but he ends up feeling like he has, it's a very interesting book, a certain kind of artistic freedom in that situation that he didn't have in Hollywood. So it sort of raises all these questions about complicity, you know, art commercialism. and it's just a wonderfully written book. I mean, the way that, it's sort of kaleidoscopic where you get different people's perspectives and it's just really beautifully done.

1 56:28

Wonderful. Thank you for that. And thank you so much for this conversation. It really whizzed by, I really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 56:33

Thank you so much.

1 56:34

Yeah, this was great. And thanks to everybody who joined us today. Please join us again on December 1st, when. Uh, swallow Prior will join us to talk about a vocation. So thank you. I really loved this conversation.

Speaker 2 56:50

So did I. Thank you so much for having me.