I would like to introduce you to my blog that seeks to encourage more thought, more conversation, and more research when deducing opinions and taking a stance on issues. The intent is not to bend your thinking to mine but to provide an angle you might not have considered prior to this post which will encourage more reflection. Welcome to 4 Reflection!
The first subject I would like to probe is the concept of empathy. Let me start by saying I believe the oft promoted connotation of empathy is a lie. I realize that might sound harsh but let me present my argument.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, 1993, offers the definition of empathy as: 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another, and the definition of sympathy as: 1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another, and 3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another esp. in sorrow trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration. The first offerings when I googled the terms empathy and sympathy brought the following definitions attributed to Oxford Languages: empathy: 1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another; sympathy: 1. feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune.
Googling the difference between ‘sympathy’ and ’empathy’ led initially to a submission by Psychiatric Medical Care, (http://www.psychmc.com), that stated, “Sympathy and empathy both involve feelings of concern for someone, but empathy goes beyond a feeling of concern to include an active sharing in the suffering person’s emotional experience.” The article goes further to express that the original intents of each word were somewhat different than what has become their connotations. However, here we are.
Keeping these definitions in mind, let us ponder the connotation of empathy as widely promoted today. Today we seem to be constantly bombarded with the idea that if we do not “empathize” with every troubled person we meet we are less than a good person. We are pushed to believe we must “feel” what someone who is hurting is feeling in order to be of any assistance to them.
When I first started in nursing, you know back in the days when nurses’ notes were written on stone tablets and blood pressure was measured by the degree of color in one’s cheeks, we were taught to sympathize not to empathize to provide the best care for our patients. Why you may ask, well the answer to me is quite logical. Let me attempt to paint a picture. If you would find yourself stuck in a pit of quicksand and I came upon you contemplate which you would prefer. Would you want me to consider your situation, acknowledge how serious it is, and go for the assistance needed to help you out of that predicament…or…would you want me to jump into the quicksand and experience the dread and fear with you so I can totally relate?
Now let’s consider what formulates our response to any trial or tribulation we face in the real world. How we react to our circumstances is a result of many factors including but not limited to: our sex, our religious beliefs, the geography where we were raised and where we currently abide, our work/career, our family situation, our age, the people we choose to associate with, the degree to which we have traveled, the places we have traveled, innumerable previous experiences, and to, what I believe is a very slight influence, our race. I say our race is a slight influence for if you take two children from different races and provide all the same nurture experiences you are more likely to find that they develop with more similarities to each other than to the generalizations associated with whatever is their genetic race. Whether or not you agree with my last statement I think you can agree there is a plethora of factors that combine to facilitate our responses to any given situation. What do you think the likelihood of any two people having completely identical contributing factors is?
Considering this why should anyone be what amounts to bullied into believing if they can’t “feel” what someone else is feeling they themselves are lacking? The wisest thing I ever said throughout my nursing career occurred while caring for a lady in the final stages of cancer. I was doing my best to provide palliative care while offering what I thought were soothing comments when she looked at me and stated with some fervor, “You don’t know what I’m feeling!”. I checked myself a moment, pulled up a chair and said, you are right I don’t, why don’t you tell me. That simple act of active listening, acknowledging I had no idea how she felt while fully aware how she felt was not good, seemed to bring her more comfort than anything else to that point.
Have you ever noticed how characters described as “empaths” only appear in sci-fi movies? Have you noticed how those characters are more of a comic relief only providing insight into a secret lust or the initiations of a con. I submit that is because even if humans possessed the ability to be an empath, wallowing in another’s troubles would not be conducive to assisting that person out of their troubles. In the history of time, I know of only one being who was a true empath while simultaneously having the ability to assist a person out of their predicament. His name is Jesus.
My suggestion to all who read this is empathy as promoted today is a lie, but having compassion, understanding and a will to assist others as we are able, are not only noble traits but necessary traits for the good of humanity.
I have one other suggestion, if you would have the misfortune of being in my presence when I am in dire straits, please do not tell me you empathize with me. I promise you if I hear those words, I will muster whatever strength I have available to impress upon you how misguided you are.