Innovation’s language game: On the meaning and misuse of empathy
This article makes the case against the misuse of empathy by reviewing the use of language in our work, the dangers of Othering, and the potential for language to either create change or perpetuate problems.
Key Takeaways
As I move through the article, I will make the following points clear:
- Empathy has become a buzzword that deserves extra attention
- True empathy may disrupt power relations and foster opportunities for empowerment
- True empathy can prevent us/them narratives often present in innovation projects
Backing up buzzwords
As communication professionals know all too well, using words that are connected to a sense of “good” can lend support to whatever message they are creating. In recent times, this has become an issue with words relating to sustainability, such as “green” “all-natural” “eco-friendly” etc. When these words or phrases are used to back up products which aren’t as sustainable as the wording would have you believe, we know this to be the harmful practice of greenwashing.
But what about buzzwords related to innovation? Or social change? Are these misleading sentiments just as harmful?
I will argue that, yes, they are. And the development sector unfortunately has a history of coopting vocabulary to use as feel-good filler to back up various work. For example, let's look at the word “empowerment.”
The use of “empowerment” is said to have been introduced into development work by DAWN, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era. This group argued that the methods of achieving a better world must “be open and respectful of differences, and must try to break down hierarchies, power, and distrust” (Sen and Grown 1987, 10).
Empowerment, abidingly, sought to do just that, by pushing for a development model that put the issues in the hands of those they affected. Instead, it was co-opted by large organisations which used it to bolster their “moral authority” (Cornwall & Brock 2005, 1056) by including it as an empty word for their blanket aims rather than definable goals. Much like companies do with empty sustainability rhetoric in greenwashing.
Consider this notion of empowerment, which originates from the black feminist perspective:
“empowerment comes from marginalized people themselves; it is not something that can be bestowed upon them by those who hold more power.” (Riddle 2018, 172)
Accepting this definition would mean recognising that powerful organisations such as the World Bank and the UN should never have claimed to be on a mission to empower marginalised people. And yet, they did.
This is the plight of language in this sector. We are in a perpetual race towards a future that cannot exist if those in power continue clinging to ideals and structures that were never built to include those outside the margins. Thus, the concepts and words cast forward, seeking to disrupt this cycle, fail because they aren’t given due consideration.
Here, I fear, is where empathy lies in limbo.
True Empathy: the disruptor
We have discussed the importance of perspective and lived experience over empathy, but what does empathy truly mean? More importantly, how can it disrupt in ways that other concepts have failed?
Let’s re-examine what we have already established about empathy:
Empathy does:
- play an important role in innovation work and should be used with care
- provide greater insight into problems facing target communities
- need to be included in all stages of the innovation process
Empathy does not:
- make anyone an expert on someone else’s experience
- replace the voice of the person with lived experience
- provide a full picture of another’s experience
Breaking this down, we can assert that empathy requires two parties: one that is empathising, and one to be empathised with. The latter has lived experience, which comes before the former’s empathy. Thus, in order for empathy to occur, the one who does not have a lived experience must receive information that they can empathise with, meaning they must first listen, witness, and step back to understand the perspective of the one with lived experience.
This is the first way in which empathy has the power to disrupt: it requires those without lived experience to stop and look away from the end goal they were racing towards, to take in the nuanced, layered experience of the one in front of them.
Further, by maintaining this dynamic and carrying empathy through the final stages of innovation, those without lived experience will remain in the back seat, constantly listening to the reaction of those with lived experience to new developments in the innovation process. This subordination of the person with power, as the person facilitating innovation is generally associated with power, then makes more room for one with lived experience to take control of the innovation that is meant to serve them.
This is the second way in which empathy has the power to disrupt: it makes space for empowerment. By truly allowing the ones with lived experience to take ownership, solutions to the problem may arise in ways the outside person could have never thought.
Unfortunately, this understanding of empathy already contrasts with how it has been used in practice. And if we want to move towards this positive and disruptive understanding, we must understand fully the harm that its misuse causes.
Othering: The enemy of empathy
We must remember that no matter our noble interests in helping others, an innovation project always begins with our own goals, parameters, and ideas which will inevitably affect the final outcome, to varying degrees.
The worst of these degrees, I have found, is when they contrast with the people the project intends to help in such a way that empathy is not possible. For if one is too absorbed by their own perspective, then facing another who contrasts that perspective can create a relationship of Othering. Othering is the process by which we create an idea of and truths about another by identifying that which is different from ourselves, quite the opposite of empathising with their perspective.*
Othering is often most evident in language with the presence of ‘us/them’ framing. This can occur at many stages, such as the naming of target groups, which is why Othering is such a danger to the innovation and design process.
At the point at which one faces a necessary segmentation of people and delineates truths about these groups, Othering is highly likely to occur unless empathy is used in its true form. While statistical data and observation can give us a lot of information about an issue, this information will always be subject to interpretation and a high likelihood of Othering.
The tendency to engage in Othering can stem from an internalised notion that one’s way of life is the correct, or preferred, way of living, and is reinforced by the language used to speak about processes in life. This language tends to be supported by the media and communication streams one engages in and thus builds a feeling of community around this notion.
I am not here to speak on what way of life is preferred, but rather demonstrate that there are different ways of thinking and speaking about a way of life, and the over-attachment to one’s own can set them up for failure, should they seek to understand the perspective of another.
In another light, we may consider how Othering, in the place of empathy, may look a bit more like the common understanding of sympathy. For a visual example of this, see this video. In it, Brown describes how sympathy may make someone want to find a way to put a silver lining around someone else’s issue. Connecting this to innovation projects, we may think about how claiming to use “empathy” to try and rapidly come up with a solution, may be a form of silver lining.
Whether we call it Othering or a kind of detached sympathy, this behaviour prevents connection and inclusion. And if people are not connected with or included, especially in the process of work that is supposedly intended for them, then they may be left alienated, excluded, marginalised. That said, if they could have been considered marginalised to begin with, how might they feel if outsiders, claiming to be empathetic, leave them feeling more excluded and misunderstood than before?
So, if a project claims to use empathy, think: but how will they use it? If a project begins with narrow parameters and a goal in mind, think: but what if that conflicts with those the project intends to help?
These considerations may sound like common sense. And in a line of work whose aim is to work towards a better world, we of course always want to assume that work is just, good, and inclusive. But with 2030 right around the corner, the race is on and in every race, some are left behind, which may come to include even the meanings of concepts such as “just” “good” and “inclusive.” If innovation wants to do better, projects need to be detached from this pressure of time, so that there can be due diligence in asking important questions and retaining the meaning of the language they use.
If they don’t, if they instead use words loosely, and stretch them over the abscess where true meaning should be, something else will take its place. I want to believe that well-intending people wouldn’t engage in something such as Othering knowingly, but I have seen many do so accidentally.
In other words, without caution, projects will find themselves in the trap built by their own misused language.
The Empathy Trap
Having discussed the possibilities for empathy to disrupt stagnated structures and the harm that Othering can do in empathy’s absence, you can hopefully see the danger of “empathy” becoming convoluted into a nebulous concept. A word that in one light can provoke such profound change, can also be cast out as pleasant appeasement, empty of all radical possibility, covering the place where Othering festers in the background, unseen.
Ask yourself this: In any given situation, can you justify the further alienation of already marginalised people, if you think that alienation will lead to a higher betterment?
Treating empathy as a word to blanket the inclusion of others’ perspectives into the innovation process without due consideration and follow-through can lead to just that. If empathy takes no useful shape, it surely will not offer your project any useful direction. If instead, it is used as a catch-point, a place to stop and set dynamics between those with and without lived experience, it may illuminate whole new pathways that would be otherwise unconsidered and, even more importantly, it will put the projects in the hands of those who deserve it.
So, please, remember:
Empathy has become a buzzword that deserves extra attention. If empathy is used as just a word without ensuring that its principles are applied, then the work itself may lack meaning. Instead, by learning from the history of buzzwords such as empowerment, we can maintain a grasp on the true meaning of these words and thus increase the meaning and value behind our projects.
True empathy may disrupt power relations and foster opportunities for empowerment. In its purest sense, empathy requires those without lived experience to stop and give more power to those with lived experience of these issues. In many cases, the ones facing the problems are marginalised folks who have valuable input that could sway the direction of projects in whole new ways and being adaptable to those directions makes space in the project for folks to take control and steer the way. This disrupts the classic structure (even in participatory/co-design programs) in which the outsider innovators make the final decision and thus hold the power and instead makes space for participants to feel empowered and lead the innovation.
True empathy can prevent us/them narratives often present in innovation projects. While it is often necessary to segment target groups, the way in which these groups are discussed can be harmful and cause a disconnect between the outside innovators and the ones experiencing the problem. In this article, I have described how this process is called Othering and leads to an inability for empathy to occur across these preconceived lines of difference. By being aware of the potential for this process, and prioritising the voice and narratives of the people facing the problem, these alienating mechanisms can be avoided.
Coming up… In part three of this series, I will put the learnings from parts 1 & 2 into practice, and outline how they can be used to make for more inclusive projects, more creative innovations and, with any luck, better outcomes. Stay tuned.
Notes
- This is the second in an ongoing series of articles which covers various findings from a research project entitled, Health By Design: Understanding the discourse of human-centred design in global health development projects, which has not yet been published. Should you have questions or an interest in funding this research, please reach out here.
- This article provides a very narrow understanding of Othering for the purpose of understanding the dangers of misunderstanding perspectives. For more information on the theory and relevance of Othering in cross-cultural and development work, I can highly recommend the work of Sara Ahmed, Stuart Hall, and Aram Ziai, among many others.
References
Cornwall, A & Brock, K. (2005). What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical look at “participation”,“empowerment”and “poverty reduction”. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1043–1060.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: deconstructing development discourse. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469302
Hall, S. (2019). The west and the rest: Discourse and power. In Morley, D. (ed). Essential essays, volume 2: Identity and diaspora. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781478002710
Riddle, K. (2019) Empowerment: Participatory development and the problem of cooptation. In Drydyk, & Keleher, L. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626796
Ziai, A. (2016). Development discourse and global history: From colonialism to the sustainable development goals (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/10.4324/9781315753782
