Selective Empathy
“Are you then unable to recognize unless it has the same sound as yours?” — Andre Gide
Empathy is an endearing concept and its connotations are seldom vilified. Selective empathy, however, is slightly trickier to navigate. I first came across it when I heard the news that a certain fast-food chain decided to do away with plastic straws in order ‘ to save the turtles’. The irony of the situation was that the other components of the drink such as its cover were still made of plastic. This is selective empathy at work (and opportunistic marketing). This might be a far-fetched example but it possesses the salient features of selective empathy.
What is selective empathy?
Empathy is traditionally described as ‘putting yourself in another person’s shoes’. In selective empathy, one empathizes only with those whom he/she feels deserves it or perceives as such. This could be extrapolated into more profound concepts. For instance, a soldier could empathize with his wounded comrade but opens fire without restraint at the enemy. If one pauses to ponder, it is evident that the wounded comrade and the injured enemy at the other end are in the same dire situation however empathy is selectively projected on the comrade. If applied in the social context, this selectivity could result in negative ramifications of a compounded scale.
The ills of Selective Empathy
Selective empathy is a natural propensity in its definition but it could have far-reaching consequences that could very well be in the vicinity of prejudices and bigotry. Social perspectives on constructed divisions such as the east/west or rich/poor divide provide the basis for this distinction wherein the empathy towards a cause, whilst seeming righteous and noble to the individual participating in it, ends up being more malicious than benevolent. This is best explained by a joke that was once delivered by comedian Jimmy Carr. The joke is as follows: ‘two British women were conversing over a magazine and one stumbles on an article about the food shortage in Africa to which her companion, without skipping a beat responds, “Yes, it is sad. But they don’t get our harsh winters”.’ Quite the edgy joke there but the subtle layers in it point to something more complex. Empathy is dictated by the codes of societal understanding and morality. Selective empathy corrupts this by making the empathizer make a choice on who he/she should empathize with in order to create a false parallel. The harm here is that in doing so, wrongs can be justified and be branded morally right (colonialism and slavery could very well be explained by this concept).
Of late, selective empathy has evolved into a rationalizing tool that has been adopted even in the highest tiers of power. For instance, during the American invasion of Iraq under the Bush administration, military deployment had disrupted millions of Iraqi lives and the death toll was in excess of 100,000. In comparison, the number of US military personnel who had lost their lives was under 5000: quite the discrepancy! Media portrayals hailed the fallen soldiers as heroes and a sense of nationwide empathy was evoked towards them and their families, however, those that bore the brunt of this ‘debacle’ were ignored or projected as “they’ve been dealt what they deserved”. This is an acute depiction of selective empathy at work.
Selective empathy is a topic that is at best controversial. In light of recent world events and the increasing unease erupting worldwide (Australian bushfires to the Immigration crisis), selective empathy will be used to manipulate the thought process of citizens in their respective countries which indirectly influences policymaking. I believe an understanding of this concept could prove crucial in forming a perspective prior to decision making and hope that more people grasp the need for doing away with this ‘fallacy’.
