A case for cases against

Cases are made for and against ideas, concepts, causes — you name it — all the time. Years working in and around politics taught me that lesson early and often. In this video from The Atlantic, psychologist and Yale Professor Paul Bloom makes the case “against empathy.” Given where I work, it may come as a surprise that I sincerely appreciate and enjoy this offering:

I’m a bit of a weirdo in that I love counter-arguments. I enjoy when people disagree with me or challenge my world view. (I like it so much I made a workshop about it.) I like to listen to Oxford-style debates for fun, with Intelligence Squared being among my favorite programs. Counter-arguments help me better understand the world I live in. They are invitations to learn, and they offer me another approach to situations down the line in which a more limited perspective may be harmful to myself and others.

I think that Bloom makes a strong case against empathy, but a particular kind of empathy — empathy without purpose or intention or an application of research or subject-area expertise. Feeling what others feel for the sake of feeling it, rather than with the drive to make informed, rational and collaborative change can, I believe, do more harm than good.

Speaking of expertise, I am not a psychology scholar (though I have been a student of international relations). So, I am not writing with the intention to dismiss or criticize the case Bloom is making; I simply wish to add my perspective to it in the hope it proves helpful. Again, I enjoy and appreciate what Bloom puts forth. It’s an important warning for anyone who works to help others and improve the state of the world, especially when taking a human-centered approach.

Regarding that approach, I have learned in the last couple of years that empathy is a piece of the puzzle when it comes to helping other people solve problems. It is not the only piece. There are many more that fit alongside it, and all of those pieces take a significant amount of work to gather and connect (the intensity and amount of work it takes always impresses me).

There is little value in empathy for empathy’s sake or being “caught up in the suffering of victims,” as Bloom notes. But there is value in the question he poses at the end: “How could I help other people?” It’s a question that, by engaging with others with attention, intention, curiosity, careful inquiry and, yes, empathy one can begin the difficult work of answering.