On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
The Two-Way Street
You might not like the title of this article. It might sound a bit harsh—or even offensive—at first. But, let's play a game.
Let's try to express an abstract social standard for raising a child.
Well, we want our child to be both tough and sensitive. Why? Because we want our child to be tough enough to take the probable hits that society will throw in life, yet sensitive enough to others not to give those hits unto others.
If we flipped that standard, we would produce a child who is a bully or a coward; that is, tough in giving hits unto others, but oh-so-sensitive when taking hits from others. The social tragedy of a human being who is bully cry-baby.
So, for our child, we see that this social standard is a two-way street, with two different standards. On the one hand, we will teach our child to be kind to others, to forgive transgressions by others, and to claim "sticks and stones" when someone throws an insult. That is, to be strong enough to take social hits, and to perhaps effect positive social change, without succumbing to retribution, vengeance and hate. But, on the other hand, we also teach our child not to hurt others, not to insult others, and not to commit transgressions onto others. The opposites are not contradictions, they are reconciled to different lanes.
We're playing this game for a reason: to isolate the fact that the analysis of social conduct is based upon a core framework consisting of two different rules. 1) How we take from others; and 2) how we give to others. In a social context, it always takes two.
On our topic of empathy, we had to start by isolating the premise of a two-way street, because empathy is inherently a social construct: "vicariously experiencing the feelings of others." Empathy does not work solely in the reflexive. It always takes two.
"Empathetic Perspective"
In my graduate master degree class on leadership, we discuss the concept of empathetic leadership. To encapsulate the two-way street social construct within the framework of leadership, we coined the term, "Empathetic Perspective." Empathetic Perspective is the direction of empathetic viewpoint on our two-way social street: that is, whether we are assessing the view from the inside-out (what we do to others), or assessing the view from the outside-in (what others to do us).
Defining Empathy Terms
In addressing empathy, we remember that "empathy" is the first cousin of "love." Therefore, in analyzing empathy, the rules are similar for love, and leadership (social interaction) by love. Such as it is for leadership by any emotion, including love, by framework ruleset, it is the same or similar for leadership by the inverse of leadership by anger or hate.
Let us break down some additional terms, as we begin to analyze empathy.
"Empathetic Focus," (or perhaps "Empathetic Context") is the process of observing what may be considered cruel in one channel of view, is actually empathetic in another of view. This may sound strange at first, but let's think it through objectively.
The Mind of the Empathizer: "Empathetic Focus"
When a Caesar of Rome stood and gave a "thumbs down" signal to the bloody gladiators to indicate death to the loser, it is a strange change of "focus" to consider that he was empathetic to the amusement needs and joyous elations of the Roman audience. Caesar was not being cruel to everyone, but only perhaps to the gladiator, regarding whom he viewed as a lesser human being who existed for the joy and pleasure of the Roman audience.
(Note: I am not attributing anyone's particular morality to a context, but simply breaking down scientific assessment. One of the first messages that I convey to my adult graduate students is that morality is the study of where the leadership plane flies, but the science of leadership is the study of leadership flight itself. Why something can fly and where it flies may be correlated, but they are different issues.)
Perhaps a more politically timely example might be that a politician favors limitations on health benefits for seniors, which would, of course, draw the riotous ire of general society for such hard-hearted cruelty to seniors. And that is one perspective of focus; that is, from the perspective of seniors. Another perspective might be that the politician believes that the same limited funds need to be directed to children's education. Therefore, while the politician might be thought unempathetic to seniors, the politician simply might be choosing to be empathetic to children. Or, of course, visa versa. Therefore, it is not an absence of empathy, but a different focus of the existing empathy.
The same might be said, for example, regarding socio-political immigration policy. What might be thought unempathetic to immigrant families from that focus, might be quite empathetic to displaced existing citizens, by a different Empathetic Focus.
In many cases, rhetoric presents a lane-conflated argument that a person is unempathetic, which might be better, and more accurately stated as, there is empathy, although simply focused on a different beneficiary, or a different directed object of that empathy.
Moving on, for the science of our analysis, let us now consider some additional definitions to make our discussion easier.
"Empathizer" is the person who gives empathy to an object in light of a context.
"Object of Empathy" or "Empathy Object" is the person who is the object of the Empathizer's empathy.
The Empathizer's empathy, and the Object of Empathy, are related, but distinct, in this way: A person can be an Empathizer without the knowledge of the Empathy Object. For example, an abolitionist in the North might be an Empathizer for a Southern slave, whether or not the slave knows it. A politician may be an Empathizer for a cause, such as single working mother, without the Empathy Object being aware of it. Therefore, we can have an Empathizer and an Object of Empathy that are connected only by the Empathetic Focus of the Empathizer, yet without "Empathetic Awareness."
"Empathetic Awareness" is the existence of knowledge by the Empathy Object of the Empathizer's empathy. The Empathetic Awareness (for our discussion purposes) arises from receipt by the Empathy Object that there is an Empathizer. It does not always exist, as stated above. When someone asks a friend, "Do you feel me?" the question is seeking a confirmation for Empathetic Awareness.
Understanding Empathetic Awareness is critical in the assessment of empathy for reasons that will become clear in a moment. But, just stating a general definition of Empathetic Awareness is not enough. The reason is because, for Empathetic Awareness, we're talking about the Object of Empathy's awareness of the Empathizer's Empathetic Focus.
The Mind of the Object of Empathy: "Empathetic Awareness"
When the Object of Empathy tries to confirm Empathetic Focus, it's a very dangerous game. Why? Because the Empathetic Object's belief that Empathetic Focus exists is a function of the truth of what is in the heart and mind of the Empathizer. That is, the information conveyed to the Empathy Object regarding the empathy might be wholly true or wholly false, or partially true and partially false. Therefore, the Empathetic Awareness may be "True Empathy" or "False Empathy" or "Mixed Empathy." Let us take them in order.
"True Empathy" is when "one person cries and the other tastes salt." It is the salve for the pain of life, with the Empathy Object finding comfort in "someone knows how it feels." It is a perfect feeling for another, and the degrees of consanguinity between love and empathy get very close to, if not exactly the same as, perfect love. True (Perfect) Empathy might be said simply to be love. It is two sisters hugging and crying together when one sister has a tragedy.
"False Empathy," simply stated, is when the Empathizer "fakes it." For purposes of the assessment, the Empathy Object does not know the difference. The Empathy Object cannot get into the mind and heart of the Empathizer to know if the act or empathizing is real or fake. Therefore, here, the Empathy Object is in the same place either way, the difference is that the empathy that the Empathy Object thinks really exists is based upon the simulation or dissimulation of the Empathizer. It is based upon what seems (appears, hoped, or is believed) to be, rather than what actually is. "Mixed Empathy" is a corollary to "False Empathy" in degree, such as, "Sure, I do really empathize with the person, but not so much as I am letting on."
Having set forth that foundation, I will now cycle back to that harsh title of this article:
To give empathy is a blessing, to need empathy is a curse.
As stated above, empathy is the first cousin of love (or, as stated, perhaps just a different name for love). So, the title above is tantamount to saying, "To give love is a blessing, to need love a curse."
Recommended by LinkedIn
Now, the common retort to that statement is, "Well, how can you say to need love is a curse? To need love is to be human! Human beings need love."
But, let us be very careful. We need to remain lucid, and not to be thrown off by rhetoric, reactive emotion, or our own selfish needs.
We all agree about the loving others being a blessing, so let's put that lane away.
The challenge tends to be on the need to be loved lane, as part of human nature.
If love is a gift to others, then it is a blessing to give gifts, but can we agree that it is a curse to need to get gifts?
The fact that human beings need love might be a fact of life for humans, but that fact is a different issue. Needs are inherently selfish. What human does not enjoy receiving a gift? But, when our child says, "I want Santa to bring this and that..." does not traditional parental teaching for our needy child respond with, "Hey, if you get anything, you'll get what you get and like it."
What a miserable state of any social relationship for one person incessantly to keep saying, "Why don't you love me more?," "Why aren't you more empathetic to my feelings?" "Why don't you give me gifts." We cannot conflate the lanes or get confused (again), we're not talking about the other person's voluntary gifts, we're talking about the curse of a selfish need with its satisfaction attempted to be externally imposed upon other people or the World. The weak natural human tendency that desires to take more and to give less is a different issue.
Let us consider two young females. One desperately needs to feel loved, the other does not have that desperate need. How does this fact of need impact another person's ability to lead (or manipulate) one female or the other to a path that suits the person. The young female's desperate need makes her vulnerable. The person has her lever, being her need. Yes, yes, yes, the lever of her need is a natural human lever, and, yes, yes, yes, the lever is common to us all, but that fact simply proves the existence of that lever. The greater the need, the greater the vulnerability. The person who needs money, love and fame is at risk of greed, flattery and pride.
Therefore, the lesson is simple. 1) As to the lane of social life that is outward facing, being what we do to others: we love others, because loving others is to give a gift to them. Empathy for others is a natural result of love. 2) As to the lane of social life that is inward facing, or being what we need to receive from others, we need to be very careful. Human need is natural, but yet a dangerous vacuum of self.
The Object of Empathy's Reliance Upon A Belief Formed From An External For Validation
As to requiring empathy from others, we cannot know the mind and hearts of others, and therefore, invites rhetoric as the tool (or weapon, if you prefer) of seduction. The Object of Empathy might believe that the Empathetic Awareness is true, when it might be false. For example, the Thank You Card we received might reflect true thanks, or it might simply be someone playing a social game with us. The Thank You Card necessarily proves only that someone knows how to play the game of social gesture, it is does not necessarily prove the heart-felt truth of the appreciation.
Think of it this way. A person needs empathy from others. This is effectively a selfish need for another external source to validate context. There are three potential responders to that need: one with True Empathy, one with False Empathy, and one with Mixed Empathy. They all appear to act exactly the same way to the person who needs the empathy. In each case, the Object of Empathy is equally satisfied, making the truth of the empathy irrelevant. Requiring another person's empathy is an unverifiable façade to the extent of words, and, to the extent of deeds, the words are immaterial.
Therefore, when a person requires empathy from another, they make themselves vulnerable to selfish feel-good trust. Trusting is perhaps human, but it is not necessarily wise.
In my leadership master class, we do a segment on certain writings of Friedrich Nietzsche for a reason. To me, there's no way a leadership program can skip Nietzsche and his Übermensch, or his Super Man, concepts. I will try to channel Nietzsche with an original sound-bite quote that he might have said. I'll do this because no one makes a point quite like Nietzsche; to wit:
You whining adult-children, and the new-math socio-psychologists who tell you that it's okay to have riotous tantrums and to make everyone endure you. Like the infant who cries incessantly for the mother's teat, you pray to god with a never-ending give-me, give-me, give-me, and then replace god with government and society. Always looking for a child's allowance. God is dead. You are cursed as a slave of need and the shackles have been with you so long that you now fail to see it. You have the key to arise from the average and the normal, and to achieve the greatness that you have in self. Find your own unique power within and become, the Super Man."
We remember the two separate lanes, and their common conflation wreaks havoc on clarity of self. We may be responsible to give empathy, but we are not entitled to receive empathy.
Give the blessing of love to others without the curse on self of needing the return of love. Give the blessing of empathy without the curse on self of needing the return of empathy. Do good deeds for others without the curse on self of needing to have them do for you. Forgive others without the curse on self of needing them to forgive you. We ask not for others to do for us, we ask what we can do for others.
This is the selfless perfection of humanity, and it is the path of true freedom. But, the gate is narrow and is perceived by few. And, even for those who have the clarity to perceive it, may still yet not be strong enough to achieve it.
“The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Jean Giraudoux (attr.)
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC. Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups, INC. 500, and publicly traded companies. He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop™ article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
© 2020 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
You might like:
#GreggZegarelli #Aesop #Zegarelli #Empathy #Love #EmpatheticPerspective #ObjectOfEmpathy #EmpatheticFocus #EmpatheticAwareness #TrueEmpathy #FalseEmpathy #MixedEmpathy #Nietzche #Sociology #Psychology #HumanNeed #Philosophy #GRZ_106