Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism

Breithaupt, Fritz Working Paper Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 9 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Suggested Citation: Breithaupt, Fritz (2015) : Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism, Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 9, University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Duisburg, https://doi.org/10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-9 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/214702 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Fritz Breithaupt Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism With commentaries by Frank Adloff and Christine Unrau Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 Global Cooperation Research Papers are available online. To learn more about the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, please visit www.gcr21.org. DuEPublico All issues are permanently archived at the University of Duisburg-Essen’s open-access repository: http://duepublico.uni-duisburg- essen.de. Printed by UDZ, Duisburg © Duisburg 2015 Copyright is held by the contributing authors. ISSN: 2198-1949 (Print) ISSN: 2198-0411 (Online) DOI: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-9 Editorial Board Rainer Baumann Frank Gadinger Volker Heins Silke Weinlich Editorial Offi ce Martin Wolf Tina Berntsen Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Managing Board Markus Böckenförde Tobias Debiel Claus Leggewie Dirk Messner Schiff erstr. 196 47059 Duisburg Germany Tel: +49 (0)203 29861-100 Fax: +49 (0)203 29861-199 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.gcr21.org A Central Research Institute of the University of Duisburg-Essen Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0 Attribution Please cite the work as follows: Fritz Breithaupt 2015. Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism (Global Cooperation Research Papers 9). Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21). doi: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-9. Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0. No Derivative Works You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Notice For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page: www.gcr21.org/publications. Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 Contents Fritz Breithaupt Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism 5 I The ‘scene of empathy’ 6 II The three dark sides of empathy 10 III A modest proposal for humanitarianism without empathy 14 References 16 Commentary by Frank Adloff Sympathy or Solidarity? The Material and Cultural Embeddedness of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt 17 References 20 Commentary by Christine Unrau Twilight of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt 21 Empathy and side-taking 21 Empathy and sadistic pleasure 23 Empathy and self-loss 24 Replacing empathy with a common ‘we identity’ 25 Conclusion 26 References 27 Abstract The paper challenges the assumption that empathy is the key source of humanitarianism. It begins by asking what underlies the perception of empathy as one of the chief motors of humanitarian aid. This leads to an examination of the ‘scene of empathy’—which in turn sheds light on some of the more problematic aspects of empathy. Three of these problematic aspects and their importance for humanitarian aid are discussed, namely (temporary) self-loss, a tendency to radicalize conflicts and the danger of sadism. In conclusion, the author asks in how far humanitarianism can be decoupled from empathy and proposes an alternative approach. This alternative approach revolves around the development of a common we-identity which does not depend on empathy. Keywords Humanitarianism, empathy, narrative, self-loss, conflict, sadism, we-identity Authors Fritz Breithaupt is professor of Germanic Studies, adjunct professor in Comparative Literature, and affiliated professor of Cognitive Science at Indiana University. At Indiana University, he has served as the director of the West European Studies Institute, was a co-founder of an official EU-Center of Excellence, and served as acting director of several other institutes. He received many honors and distinctions for his work, including an Alexander-von-Humboldt Fellowship. By training, he is a comparatist. His latest books provide humanities responses to work in cognitive science, addressing issues of empathy, narrative thinking, and moral reasoning. Frank Adloff is full professor of General and Cultural Sociology at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Previously, he was professor of Sociology of North America at the Free University Berlin. He was Theodor Heuss Lecturer at the New School for Social Research (NYC) and Max Weber Fellow at the Department of Political & Social Sciences of the European University Institute Florence, as well as senior fellow at the Centre for Global Cooperation Research in Duisburg. His research interests include sociological theory, civil society, the theory of the gift and the sociology of emotion. Christine Unrau is research assistant at the Centre for Global Cooperation Research in Duisburg and PhD candidate in Political Theory at the University of Cologne. She taught Political Theory and History of Ideas at the University of Cologne and was a junior fellow at the research centre ‘Transcendence and Common Sense’ of the University of Dresden. In her PhD project, she analyzes the relationship of experience and political commitment in the Global Justice Movement. Her research interests include religion and politics, political emotions and transcultural political theory. Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 5 Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism1 Fritz Breithaupt Most people today assume that empathy is a key source—perhaps the key source—of humanitarianism. The logic appears straightforward: we see the suffering of others and we feel for them; because we feel for them, we intervene. In what follows here, we2 will challenge this oversimplified thinking and highlight the darker sides of empathy. Historically speaking, there is indeed some justification for ascribing the rise of humanitarianism to empathy. The key condition for the latter’s emergence was the extension of fellow-feeling beyond one’s immediate circle—a development which, so Lynn Hunt argues, was fostered in part by the spread of the novel as a new literary form: ‘Eighteenth-century readers, like people before them, empathized with those close to them and with those most obviously like them—their immediate families, their relatives, the people of the parish, in general their customary equals. But eighteenth-century people [also] had to learn to empathize across more broadly defined boundaries.’3 Thomas Laqueur (2009: 38) makes a similar point, arguing that at some stage in the late eighteenth century ‘the ethical subject was democratized. More and more people came to believe it was their obligation to … prevent wrongdoing to others; more and more people were seen as eligible to be members of the “circles of the we”.’4 But does this historical evolution imply that empathy is the best basis—or even a desirable basis—for humanitarianism? In tackling this question, we will begin by asking what underlies the perception of empathy as one of the chief motors of humanitarian aid. This will involve us in an examination of what one might term the ‘scene of empathy’ (I)—which, so it turns out, sheds light on some of the more problematic aspects of empathy. We will then 1 This paper owes much to the inspiring discussions that took place at the conference on ‘Humanitarianism and Changing Cultures of Cooperation’ organized jointly by the Centre for Global Cooperation Research and the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities in Essen in June 2014. In particular I would like to thank Frank Adloff, Dennis Dijkzeul, Volker Heins, and Christine Unrau for their stimulating comments and ideas. I am also indebted to Sarah Whaley and Eleanor Brower for their critical and thoughtful readings and to Margaret Clarke for a most thorough editing of the text. 2 At the risk of irritating some readers—who may see it as somewhat manipulative and pretentious—I have opted for a ‘we’ narrative throughout the present text. This is more than just an attempt at conventional geniality: it is intended to highlight the fact that author and reader, though they may disagree at times, are treading the same intellectual path. Cf. below our discussion of the ‘we’ feeling. 3 Lynn Hunt (2007: 38) argues that the rise of the novel, a literary form that relies heavily on empathy for its impact, accelerated the ‘invention’ of human rights during the eighteenth century. 4 See also Nussbaum 2010. Breithaupt | Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 6 turn to the darker sides of empathy and the major problems that arise when it is linked to humanitarian aid (II). Drawing all this together, we will conclude by asking whether humanitarian aid should be decoupled from empathy. Our answer will be yes and we shall follow this up with a proposal for an alternative approach (III). Some readers may be wanting to call a halt here and question the notion that empathy is not a positive force in humanitarianism. After all, both the media and the general public seem to see it as the remedy to every social ill; and the list of benefits we expect of it—which includes a more peaceful world—is a lengthy one. Steven Pinker (2011) cites empathy as one of the four ‘better angels of our nature’; and, in line with the expectation that greater empathy will lead to greater justice, Barack Obama has called for a more empathetic approach from the judiciary and has in general repeatedly lamented the ‘empathy deficit’ of the present age. So what could the downsides of empathy be? I The ‘scene of empathy’ When we consider empathy in the context of humanitarian aid, there are two factors in particular which we should take into account. The first is temporal change. It seems that people are generally more willing to empathize when the object of their empathy undergoes change rather than ‘stagnating’. This appears to be the case with fiction and film, where a sequence of events (past and future) draws us in.5 Similarly, there is evidence that we have more empathy with the acutely ill than with those suffering from chronic conditions.6 This preference for change comes at a cost. What happens when we empathize with someone in a humanitarian context but their situation does not change? We, as empathizers, will be frustrated. The lack of change may mean we cannot withdraw, either physically or mentally, and, in the worst case, we may vent our frustration on the ‘empathizee’, feeling an urge to punish them for trapping us in their world.7 A second important factor is what might be termed the ‘scene of empathy’. A seemingly simple question will highlight what is involved here: When we empathize, is the object of our empathy the victim or the (real or imaginary) helper? We might reasonably assume that we are feeling the pain of the victim and that it is this empathetic engagement that triggers humanitarian action. But this is an oversimplification and in what follows here we will suggest that what we empathize with is not just the victim but the entire scene of empathetic engagement—including the helper. 5 On triggers to empathy, and literary techniques to enhance it, see Keen 2007. 6 One possible explanation of this phenomenon is that a temporal development allows the empathizer to end their empathetic engagement. Because empathy can become a burden, a change that allows a return to oneself may be quite welcome. 7 It may well be that emphasis on change is a peculiarly Western phenomenon, related to the core Enlightenment ideas of progress and Bildung (educational and cultural formation and development). Breithaupt | Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 7 Based on these two factors—temporal change and the scene of empathy—a simple heuristic model for explaining the workings of humanitarian empathy might involve the following steps: 1. What triggers empathy in the humanitarian context is the perception that another person is in distress or at risk. It is not necessary for these things actually to be true: the distress or risk only have to exist in the mind of the observer (see Vermeule 2009). 2. From the observer’s standpoint, the perception of distress or risk prompts the mental unfolding of a temporal or narrative sequence leading up to the negative situation. This prehistory typically also involves a degree of innocence on the part of the suffering person. 3. Once the prehistory to the negative situation has been unfurled, the observer is in a position to imagine a future state of affairs in which things have improved. This temporalization (the process of envisaging the other person undergoing a change—see Fig. 1) seems to be a powerful trigger in getting an observer involved in another’s fate. FIGURE 1. Temporalization of a suffering person’s situation 4. Importantly, the observer does not envisage the better future coming about on its own: in order to make it happen, he or she mentally introduces a second person into the scenario (Fig. 2). Prehistory of negative situation (incl. innocence of person in need of hel p) Person in need of help Better future Breithaupt | Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 8 FIGURE 2. The scene of empathy This model helps clarify what we mean when we say we empathize (‘feel with’) a person in need. It points up the fact that a more complex cognitive process is at work than mere mimicry of emotions: empathy in this situation involves viewing the scene from several standpoints and envisaging at least the possibility of temporal change.8 What we are suggesting, therefore, is that the narratives we construct (and favour) in humanitarian dealings entail a minimum of two perspectives—that of the person in need and that of the helper. Spotlighting an innocent sufferer is insufficient to prompt humanitarian action: the addition of the potential for change and thus of hope is generally also required. A humanitarian helper—even if only imaginary—therefore has to be introduced into the scene as a means of activating the anticipated process. The presence of a third person—observing and recognizing the good deeds of the helper—may also be implied (Fig. 3). This third person may simply be a secondorder observer or may be a product of the empathizer’s desire that the good deed in question be recognized. 8 I can quite imagine that at this point philosophically minded readers will want to argue that account must also be taken of sufferers for whom there is no prospect of change and that we can—indeed should—empathize with such persons. Whilst I agree that we should empathize them, I doubt that we can do it without envisaging a better state for them, and that is what I mean by temporalization (past and future). Person in need of help Better future Helper (real or imagined) Prehistory of negative situation (incl. innocence of person in need of hel p) Breithaupt | Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 15 on the plight of those in need and will create a narrative of possible change in which emotions akin to pity will feature prominently. Empathy is a mode of engaged observation. Its aim is to bring about a change in a situation of suffering. Once this aim is achieved, the empathetic helper can withdraw. By contrast, if the focus is on the ‘we’ feeling, the key aspect will be participation. If ‘we’ are in need of help, then ‘we’ must all understand the situation and work together. There may be a division of labour in critical situations, but the understanding is that all sides ‘do’ something and the credit goes to everyone. There is generally no end to a ‘we’ relationship—enduring hospitality is one of its many markers. In sum: one can agree on the need for humanitarian aid without assuming empathy on the part of either the leaders or the individual field-workers of humanitarian organizations. As previously mentioned, empathy may involve a variety of biases. Although it can help overcome in-group/out-group preference and lead to a sense of ‘we’, it can also help create new biases that lead to those in need being ‘over-victimized’ or lionized. Establishing commonality, sharing experiences, acting together, discovering the ‘we’—all this creates the basis for humanitarian action without the need to claim overwhelming and restrictive similarity. Empathy may or may not play a part in this.17 17 Notwithstanding all that has been said here, empathy remains a key human characteristic and undoubtedly helps shape us as people (see Tomasello 1999; Preston / de Waal 2002). Unlike Jesse Prinz (2011), who reduces empathy to shared feeling and thereby banishes its more intellectual component—namely, understanding both the feelings and the situation of others—I do not reject empathy on the grounds that it is overly emotional or irrational. Breithaupt | Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 16 References Benhabib, Seyla (2011). Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011. Breithaupt, Fritz (2009). Kulturen der Empathie, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. — (2012). ‘A Three-Person Model of Empathy’, Emotion Review 4 (1): 84–91 DeScioli, Peter, and Kurzban, Robert (2009). ‘Mysteries of Morality’, Cognition 112 (2): 281–99. Hunt, Lynn (2007). Inventing Human Rights: A History, New York: W.W. Norton. Keen, Suzanne (2007). Empathy and the Novel, New York: Oxford UP. Kiehl, Kent A. (2014). The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience, New York: Crown. Kurzban, Robert, DeScioli, Peter, and O'Brien, Erin (2007). ‘Audience Effects on Moralistic Punishment’, Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (2): 75–84. Laqueur, Thomas W. (2009). ‘Mourning, Pity, and the Work of Narrative in the Making of “Humanity”’, in Richard Ashby Wilson and Richard D. Brown (eds.), Humanitarianism and Suffering: The Mobilization of Empathy, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge UP. Loshitzky, Yosefa (ed.) (1997). Spielberg’s Holocaust. Critical Perspectives on Schindler’s List, Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2010). From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law, Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Pinker, Steven (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, London / New York: Viking. Porter, Stephen, and ten Brinke, Leanne (2009). ‘Dangerous Decisions: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding How Judges Assess Credibility in the Courtroom’, Legal and Criminological Psychology 14: 119–34. Preston, Stephanie, and de Waal, Frans (2002). ‘Empathy. Its Ultimate and Proximate Basis’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25: 1–72. Prinz, Jesse (2011). ‘Against Empathy’, The Southern Journal of Philosophy 49: 214– 33. Todorov, Alexander; Pakrashi, Manish, and Oosterhof, Nikolaas N. (2009). ‘Evaluating Faces on Trustworthiness After Minimal Time Exposure’, Social Cognition 27: 813–33. Tomasello, Michael (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Vermeule, Blakey (2009). Why Do We Care about Literary Characters?, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.  Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 17 Sympathy or Solidarity? The Material and Cultural Embeddedness of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Frank Adloff Fritz Breithaupt presents us with an asymmetric notion of empathy and rightly stresses the darker sides that are undoubtedly also a feature of this human faculty. His essay is, in addition, full of stimulating and extremely interesting insights which I am unable to examine more closely here. None the less, I believe that a number of the aspects he mentions could be elaborated in even greater detail. The models he proposes, for example, should be formulated in a more context-sensitive way. Again, there are certain passages in the text where I find myself wrestling with his terminology and I believe a number of the points he makes could be defined more clearly. Finally, we have to ask what Breithaupt means when he says that although empathy has, historically speaking, helped motivate humanitarian action, it does not provide ‘the best basis’ for it. Let us begin with Breithaupt’s core model: the scene of empathy. The model is an innovative one and in my view incorporates a number of important insights. The main one, for Breithaupt, is the idea that empathy follows a trajectory, in other words undergoes change with time. But this process can actually be spelled out even more precisely: media-brokered humanitarian help follows a very specific dramatic course—what amounts, in fact, to an emotional schedule, a ritual sequence of events. Humanitarianism is based on social bonds, empathy, and identification. The process of identification can be construed broadly along the lines of George Herbert Mead’s influential model featuring, on the one hand, role-taking, and, on the other, ability to sympathize with others (Mead 1934). The question arises as to whether emotional comprehension and concurrence are necessary, or at least helpful, as preliminaries to role-taking, in other words empathy. Empathy is not purely cognitive: we can share and empathize with another’s emotional state or we can react emotionally to the emotions we perceive in another (Bischof-Köhler 2012). Thus empathy can result either in sympathy or, where the suffering perceived in the other is unpleasant and frightening, in a situation of personal stress (Davis 2006). When empathy finds expression as sympathy, it can trigger action. It does this according to specific temporal sequences based on specific ‘feeling rules’ (Schmitt and Clark 2006). According to Western feeling rules (as Breithaupt correctly points out), not everyone is eligible for sympathy: the ideal recipient is a victim of misfortune, not themselves responsible for the suffering in question. Individuals who are especially vulnerable—children, for example—garner particular sympathy from us and are seen as particularly deserving of our compassion (van Oorschot 2006). Thus, more people feel sympathy for AIDS-infected children than for their Adloff | Sympathy or solidarity? . . . A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 18 parents. Sympathy-entrepreneurs such as aid organizations use mass media to let the public know who merits sympathy; and trusted sympathy-brokers such as prominent public figures help to enhance this picture of deservingness. The socio-emotional ‘gift economy’ is seen as being a two-way street: the general expectation is that a display of sympathy or a show of support will be rewarded with at least an expression of gratitude. If the help required involves too great an effort, turns out to be futile, or elicits no appreciation, the urge to sympathy quickly fades. Similarly, an overly bald assumption that help will be provided can obstruct the voluntary transfer of sympathy by the giver and instead elicit negative reactions.1 One key motive for human action is the desire to protect and affirm one’s own identity (Turner 1987). The chief goals here are to maintain ontological security and deflect anxiety. Where these goals are achieved, interaction elicits positive emotions; where they are not, feelings such as fear, guilt, shame, and anger arise. By refusing to help, or by acting immorally, we put our own moral identity at risk. The resultant feelings of guilt and shame are particularly painful. We dissolve them either through morally good actions or by fending them off using various defencemechanisms. Guilt does not of itself preclude sympathy or role-taking or helpful action (Turner and Stets 2006), but once it reaches a certain level, defence mechanisms are likely to come into play. Projection, displacement, and attribution are common examples of such responses. Sociologically speaking, the most important mechanism of this kind is negative attribution—that is to say, the externalization of negative emotions onto other social or cultural groups (thus precluding the giving of help). A specific example of this would be viewing the victim of an accident as being to blame for it. The processes by which charitable giving and the provision of humanitarian aid take place point to the highly complex structure of emotions and cultural ‘feeling rules’ (Hochschild 1979) that regulates, and thus facilitates, such actions, or, where there are imbalances, causes them to fail. Feelings of guilt and shame can play a positive role in prompting pro-social forms of action. If such feelings are too strong, however, the action is inhibited. A person begging in the street, for example, may provoke embarrassment, as may an over-emotional appeal for aid or a portrayal in which the victim’s situation is too close to home. For help to be prompted, there needs to be sufficient closeness between giver and receiver but also sufficient distance to protect the giver from negative emotions. Humanitarian help and charitable giving thus tend to occur where ‘strong’ parties are in a position to help ‘weak’ ones. Social asymmetrization acts as a bridge spanning the uncertain ground on which helpers find themselves vis-à-vis those seeking help. The perceived differential in status between helper and afflicted forms a solid emotional bridge between them and acts as a powerful spur to assistive action. One aspect that is far too poorly researched in this connection is the creation of virtual communities—via the television, for example, or on Web 2.0. Such activity 1 Conversely, a specific kind of emotional regulation and balancing is required on the part of a recipient of help. Their conflicting experiences of, on the one hand, being helped and valued, and, on the other, suffering humiliation and low status ascription, must be balanced in a way that allows them to continue to accept the help. Adloff | Sympathy or solidarity? . . . A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 19 generates proto-sociality and establishes an interactional order through which common definitions of problems are worked out (Wenzel and Scholz 2010). This explains the mobilizing effect of television when it comes to disaster-related giving. The giving of support to far-off strangers—victims of famine or disaster, for example—generally only occurs where it has proved possible to establish an emotional and asymmetric social relationship with them. Media portrayals of disasters, for example, create narratives that will translate directly into emotional identification and corresponding support. If there is no asymmetrization and no compassion, and negative feelings predominate instead, the portrayals fail. In principle, then, Breithaupt is correct when he highlights the limits and asymmetrical nature of empathy and, at the end of his essay, contrasts this with the horizontal bonding of a ‘we feeling’. However, I would suggest a different conceptual emphasis here. Empathy should not be viewed as diametrically opposed to the ‘we feeling’. It does not seem to me to be intrinsically linked to asymmetry : it is just as much the basis of the horizontally cohesive feeling of solidarity as it is of asymmetrically configured sympathy or compassion. As indicated previously, adopting the point of view of the other should not be viewed as a purely cognitive process. We initially understand the other primarily through empathy, in other words at an affective level—we have an affective experience of alterity and this opens us up to the other. A distinction must be drawn here between basic empathy and complex or narrative empathy (Hollan 2012; Zahavi 2012). The first is a form of holistic, affective understanding (the immediate apprehension of pain, joy, sorrow, etc.). Only in the case of narrative empathy is there reference to culturally based interpretive frameworks that prompt us to sympathize asymmetrically with specific groups of people—or to block such sympathy (cf. Breithaupt 2009). Where there is a symmetrical startingposition, by contrast, the horizontal bonding of solidarity can come into play. This is because the roles of helper and helped are theoretically reciprocal here: the person receiving the help could one day be the person giving it. The reason that solidarity is such a rare phenomenon in the humanitarian domain is that in the current postcolonial setting resources continue to be unequally divided between global North and South and relations are therefore not configured in ways that would theoretically permit reciprocity. Solidarity—Breithaupt’s ‘we feeling’—is only possible among equals. Summing up, then, we can say that empathy forms the basis for humanitarianism in a historico-genetic sense (see also Scheler 1948). Without empathy there can be no humanitarian aid. Empathy is thus necessary, but it is not sufficient: ethics and good reasons cannot be replaced by empathy alone. Furthermore, empathy (meaning affective understanding of the other) can take active effect either as asymmetric sympathy or as symmetric solidarity. Both of these depend partly on socio-structural factors (levels of resources) and partly on cultural feeling rules that determine how help itself, and the relationship between helper and helped, are structured.   Adloff | Sympathy or solidarity? . . . A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 20 References Bischof-Köhler, Doris (2012). ‘Empathy and Self-Recognition in Phylogenetic and Ontogenetic Perspective’, Emotion Review 4 (1): 40–8. Breithaupt, Fritz (2009). Kulturen der Empathie, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Davis, Mark H. (2006). ‘Empathy’, in Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner (eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, New York: Springer, 443–66. Hochschild, Arlie (1979). ‘Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure’, The American Journal of Sociology 85 (3): 551–75. Hollan, Douglas (2012). ‘Emerging Issues in the Cross-Cultural Study of Empathy’, Emotion Review 4 (1): 70–8. Mead, George Herbert (1930). ‘Philanthropy from the Point of View of Ethics’, in Ellsworth Faris, Ferris Laune and Arthur J. Todd (eds.), Intelligent Philanthropy, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 133–48. Oorschot, Wim van (2006). ‘Making the Difference in Social Europe: Deservingness Perceptions Among Citizens of European Welfare’, Journal of European Social Policy 16 (1): 23–42. Scheler, Max (1948 [1923]). Wesen und Formen der Sympathie, Frankfurt a.M.: Schulte-Bulmke. Turner, Jonathan H. (1987). ‘Toward a Sociological Theory of Motivation’, American Sociological Review 52 (1): 15–27. — and Stets, Jan E. (2006). ‘Moral Emotions’, in Jan E. Stets and Jonathan H. Turner (eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, New York: Springer, 544–67. Wenzel, Harald, and Scholz, Tobias (2010). ‘Die medienvermittelte Teilhabe an Katastrophen’, in Frank Adloff, Eckhard Priller, and Rupert Graf Strachwitz (eds.), Prosoziale Motivation. Bedingungen des Spendens in interdisziplinärer Perspektive, Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 95–119. Zahavi, Dan (2012). ‘Comment: Basic Empathy and Complex Empathy’, Emotion Review 4 (1): 81–2. Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 21 Twilight of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt1 Christine Unrau Fritz Breithaupt challenges the widespread notion of empathy as a wholly positive phenomenon in general and, more particularly, as the basis for humanitarianism. In his critique of the much-cherished, indeed idolized, human capacity for empathy, he prepares the ground for what appears tantamount to a Nietzschean ‘transvaluation of values’—or at least a considerable shift in appraisal. He argues that it is not just the specious manifestation of empathy—for example, in interventions termed ‘humanitarian’ but undertaken for economic or political reasons—but empathy itself that is the problem. In what follows, I will comment on the three ‘dark sides’ of empathy identified by Breithaupt in his essay, referring also to his book Kulturen der Empathie (Breithaupt 2009). I will discuss the implications of these ‘dark sides’ for the relationship between empathy and humanitarianism and then briefly examine the alternative approach which Breithaupt proposes, namely a refocusing on ‘we identity’. Breithaupt does not define what he means by humanitarianism. My own argument is based on a concept that goes beyond the classic definition of humanitarianism advanced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which restricts it to the ‘impartial, neutral, and independent provision of relief to victims of conflict and natural disasters’ (Barnett 2011: 10; see also Pictet 1979). I also take into account participants in humanitarian endeavour who, in addition to providing emergency relief, turn their attention to the root causes of suffering (Barnett 2011: 22). In this sense, ‘humanitarianism’ denotes the whole set of ideas and practices aimed at the morally motivated protection of the life and health of vulnerable populations across borders. Empathy and side-taking The model underlying Breithaupt’s argument is the ‘scene of empathy’, an idea based on narrative theory and findings from cognitive science. It attempts to shed light on the crucial and puzzling question: ‘Why do we feel empathy when we do?’ The answer that emerges here is somewhat troubling, since it suggests that the triggers for empathy are not necessarily in line with morality and are therefore not always the best guides when it comes to action. This finding leads directly to one of 1 I would like to thank Fritz Breithaupt, Frank Adloff and the participants of the conference 'Humanitarianism and Changing Cultures of Cooperation' in June 2014 for an inspiring discussion, Volker Heins and Andreas Kamp for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this text, and Margaret Clarke for her thorough editing. Unrau | Twilight of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 22 the ‘dark sides’ of empathy: its potential to encourage unthinking side-taking and thereby to radicalize conflicts. The thesis about ‘narrative empathy’ which Breithaupt expounds in detail elsewhere (Breithaupt 2009: 11) is based on the assumption that we understand others by engaging them in fragments of narration—in other words, by mentally bridging the gap between two events that are not necessarily linked to one another. By working out or imagining the other’s possibilities for action, the observer comes to see the world through that other person’s eyes (ibid. 10). Conversely, where this process of narration/understanding is absent—in ‘stagnant’ or unexpected situations where there is no ‘before’ or ‘after’ amenable to narrative bridging—empathy does not occur. Hence, if someone ‘just suffers’, without our knowing what is going on, our empathy will clearly be less than in situations where we can imagine both the story that led to the person’s plight and the (better) times that lie ahead (ibid. 11). This identification of temporality and the potential narrative sequencing of events as prerequisites for empathy is in itself an important insight. In terms of humanitarianism, it serves as a crucial reminder that empathy is not a reliable detector of urgency. Thus humanitarian crises that are in some sense ‘stagnating’— the ongoing problem of AIDS and the plight of generations of refugees trapped in permanent camps are cases in point—receive far less attention and attract far less donor-support than natural disasters. Fritz Breithaupt, however, goes one step further, or should I say back, by asking exactly what triggers narration—in other words, the process of inventing possible causes and effects—and thus also empathy. He dismisses primary curiosity as a candidate, arguing instead that we start narrating because we have, for whatever reason, already taken someone’s side. Narration serves to explain, justify, and deepen this spontaneous act of side-taking (ibid. 12). It is a second step in the process. The actual decision to take sides, claims Breithaupt, happens spontaneously and is driven by other mechanisms. This account then serves as the basis for Breithaupt’s swingeing criticisms of empathy. Not only, he says, is it problematically selective; it can actually lead to the radicalization of conflict— rather than, as is often assumed, to its alleviation. Since it serves to justify a particular taking of sides, it reinforces this precipitate initial decision and renders any change of perspective unlikely. The claim that empathy may radicalize rather than alleviate conflict is reminiscent of Hannah Arendt’s argument about the role of compassion in politics. In the famed second chapter of On Revolution (Arendt 1963), she argues that compassion should not be brought into politics, firstly because it is something internal and incommunicable and therefore always open to the suspicion of hypocrisy (ibid. 91– 4), and secondly, and most importantly, because of its immediacy and intensity. Since the ‘passion of compassion’ abolishes the worldly ‘inbetween’ of the political sphere, it cannot countenance the kind of arguing, convincing, persuading, and compromising that is characteristic of that sphere. According to Arendt, this is why compassion, if it does get brought into that sphere, results in a propensity to direct (in other words, violent) action (ibid. 81 f.). Of course, humanitarianism is not the same as politics. Nevertheless, as soon as the former extends beyond ‘Good Samaritan’ face-to-face interaction, there begins to be a lot of overlap between the two (see, for example, Weiss 2014). And again, Unrau | Twilight of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 23 compassion is not the same as empathy, but it may be one aspect of it. Given this dual overlap—between humanitarianism and politics and between empathy and compassion—Arendt’s findings on the incompatibility of compassion and politics can also be seen as bolstering the case against empathy as the best basis for humanitarianism. Empathy and sadistic pleasure Another pitfall or ‘dark side’ of empathy, as Breithaupt sees it, is its ability to turn into a potentially sadistic form of voyeurism. Since an observer can derive pleasure from the experience of empathy, they may have an interest in maintaining the situation of suffering that induces this empathy in them. As Breithaupt explains in both essay and book, the existence of a ‘tip-over’ point at which the highly principled empathetic observer turns into a sadistic voyeur is not simply the result of individual propensity to perversion but of structure. In the book, he illustrates this using the example of the well-known character of Effi Briest in the eponymous novel by Theodor Fontane. Effi is constantly misunderstood, brutally misrepresented, and denied any kind of voice. As the reader becomes aware of this, they begin to construct the ‘real’ Effi narratively and thus develop empathy for her. However, it is precisely this constant brutal misrepresentation that gives the reader a point of access into the story and an opportunity to become involved. Paradoxically, therefore, the reader/observer seeks the suffering of the character as a means of participating in the story (Breithaupt 2009: 176, 182 f.). Breithaupt is right to warn us to be wary of our own empathetic experiences and to ask ourselves whether these experiences are really oriented towards the other. Here again, a parallel with the Arendtian argument is discernible. In Chapter 2 of On Revolution, Arendt dismisses pity as a sentiment dependent on, and therefore having an interest in, the suffering of others: [W]ithout the presence of misfortune, pity could not exist, and it therefore has just as much vested interest in the existence of the unhappy as thirst for power has a vested interest in the existence of the weak. Moreover, by virtue of being a sentiment, pity can be enjoyed in its own sake, and this will almost automatically lead to a glorification of its cause, which is the suffering of others (Arendt 1963: 84). In this case, it is the overlap of empathy and pity that may bolster the case against empathy as a suitable motivational force in humanitarianism. But action, including humanitarian action, can also serve as a way of avoiding the mutation of empathy into sentimental and potentially sadistic indulgence. It does this by potentially precluding voyeurism: someone who takes action—by organizing relief or working as a doctor in crisis-ridden regions—is less likely to indulge their empathetic concern for others in ways that potentially perpetuate the latter’s suffering. Unrau | Twilight of Empathy: A Response to Fritz Breithaupt Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 24 Empathy and self-loss While I generally agree with Fritz Breithaupt on these two ‘dark sides’ of empathy—uncritical side-taking and potential sadistic pleasure—I see greater problems with the third, namely the problem of self-loss. Breithaupt argues that engaging in empathy can lead a person to identify with others to such an extent that they lose their self-focus and self-interest. Moreover, thinks Breithaupt, this can result in such a ‘dilution’ of the person’s personality that they may be unable to ‘make a stand’ and consequently find themselves incapable of condemning the circumstances that led to the need for humanitarian intervention. This thesis is surprising given Breithaupt’s insistence elsewhere in the text on the strong association between empathy and side-taking. In addition, as is clear from a footnote in this part of the paper, the thesis is based on a particular—and problematic—reading of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, especially §207, which describes the ‘objective man’. In my view, this reference is emblematic of Breithaupt’s argumentation regarding this particular ‘dark side’ and I would therefore like to examine it in some detail. The following is a quotation from the paragraph referred to by Breithaupt: The objective man is really a mirror: he is used to subordinating himself in front of anything that wants to be known, without any other pleasure than that of knowing, or ‘mirroring forth’. He waits until something comes along and then spreads himself gently towards it, so that even light footsteps and the passing by of a ghostly being are not lost on his surface and skin. … If you want him to love or hate (I mean real love and hate as god, woman, or animal would understand the terms) he will do what he can and give what he can. But do not be surprised if it is not much, if this is where he comes across as fake, fragile, questionable, and brittle. His love is forced, his hatred artificial and more like un tour de force, a little piece of vanity and exaggeration. He is sincere only to the extent that he is allowed to be objective: he is ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ only in his cheerful totality. His mirror-like soul is forever smoothing itself out; it does not know how to affirm or negate any more (Nietzsche 2002 [1886]: 98). Nietzsche paints a vivid picture of the ‘objective man’. That this man can be equated with the ‘empathetic man’ (or woman) is, however, questionable. For one thing, the ‘objective man’ is incapable of real love or hate and this does not square with the notion of empathy in the sense indicated by its etymology: the term empathes, the adjective from which empatheia is derived and which first appears in the first century CE, meant ‘passionate’ in the general sense (Passow 1847: 891). But even if we take empathy in the more commonly understood sense of ‘the understanding and simulation of the feelings of others’ or the ability to ‘slip into someone else’s skin’ (Breithaupt 2009: 8), its equivalence to Nietzsche’s ‘objectivity’ remains uncertain. In particular, the notion of empathizing with the ‘strong self’ as