“I am a man, nothing human is foreign to me.”
Publius Terentius Africanus
Today we want to invite you to reflect on an exaggerated and hypocritically considered emotion (or feeling) in our times, namely, empathy. As we well know, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, or as our grandparents said, “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.” Now, deconstructive times have managed to turn such a noble procedure into a virtue exaggeratedly praised from the virtual and discursive, while society progressively advances towards its total atomization and separation.
While exalting it as a central value in social interaction, it is not necessary to demonstrate that we live in a context increasingly characterized by isolation, needless fragmentation and stupid individuality as a model of life. This apparent contradiction should make us think and ask about how it is indeed possible, in an era that claims to be so pluralistic and empathetic, social and political structures seem to be increasingly oriented towards personal benefit and solidarity disconnection between individuals.
The promotion of such empty empathy in political discourses and on social platforms contrasts sharply with the growing phenomena of individualism, where competition and media self-promotion become more important than genuine connections with our “others.”
It is evident that it was not I who discovered this pathetic discrepancy, which has been analyzed by several thinkers, among whom we find Zygmunt Bauman, who in his work entitled “Liquid Love” (2003) argued that liquid modernity has fostered a culture of consumption, where human relationships have been dehumanized and reduced to superficial transactions. Empathy, under this scheme, has become a mere social label, a value without real content that has become a tool of persuasion or personal brand.
«What empathy requires, ultimately, is a genuine openness towards others, something that in today’s society seems to be in constant decline.» (Bauman, 2003, p. 94).
In this sense, empathy is, then, only a discursive value in a society that tends to reward isolation, cutting off community, neighborhood, and even family relationships in pursuit of an independence that is never such, and a non-existent self-sufficiency. on the concrete and real level. The paradox is that the more we are told about empathy as a virtue, the more isolated we become, since the progressive postmodern culture of individualism above all else, so omnipresent in our daily interactions, makes empathy a rare commodity and superficial.
moreover, the omnipresence of technology and social networks have exacerbated this phenomenon to the maximum: even though the best-known platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, allow a simulation of permanent closeness, they offer interactions that are essentially virtual and, frequently enough, depersonalized. It may have happened to several of you, dear readers, that many people are extremely participatory on the networks, but if they see them on the street, they lower thier heads so as not to say hello: it is, then, a split form of bonding in which virtual nonsense prevails while, when a hand is really needed, they are all invisible. In this regard, the contribution of Sherry Turkle is paradigmatic, who in her work “Alone Together” (2011), examines how technology, rather of bringing us a little closer, has led us to greater emotional isolation.
“We are not connected authentically, we are connected only on the surface” (Turkle, 2011, p. 18).
Turkle analyzes the impact that electronic devices and social networks have on our daily interactions, pointing out that, even though these media allow us to “stay connected” 24 hours a day, they have paradoxically disconnected us emotionally and ethically from each other.Technology has given us an illusion of companionship, but at the cost of the depth and authenticity of our relationships, which are increasingly precarious and insignificant.
“We feel more connected than ever, but at the same time we are more alone” (Turkle, 2011, p. 7).
The paradox arises here when we see how social platforms and dialog technologies facilitate the number of interactions at the cost of being superficial and depersonalized links. The use of devices and constant digital connection allow us to say things to each other instantly, but frequently enough without the mediation of the physical or emotional presence of the other, which is essential for genuine empathy.
According to Turkle, the value of empathy is based on the ability to be truly present with the other, both in their emotional and physical context, something that is increasingly less common in a predominantly digital social environment, where
Even though platforms allow us to access a global network of people, these actions do not have the interpersonal and emotional depth that characterizes face-to-face interaction, where we can perceive signals other than verbal ones, such as tone of voice, posture and expressions. facial, but also what we carry inside.
And you, dear reader, may wonder why this tension between digital presence and emotional absence is due? Well, as people become more immersed in the use of technology, they tend to become disinterested in the more complex interactions that require time and effort: in short, if they are too lazy to answer a call, imagine how much more it will be for them to have a real conversation, in a real place with a real person. There is no doubt that social networks promote a form of communication interaction in which everything becomes more immediate and less reflective, because it is a form of connectivity that offers instant gratification while not requiring a drop of real emotion.
The aforementioned atrocity has its logical explanation: as social media users construct their virtual identities, they face the dilemma of how to maintain authentic empathy in a world where relationships tend to be strictly transactional. Likes, comments, and other forms of virtual interaction may seem like symbols of support or closeness, but they do not have the same emotional weight or the same ability to connect deeply as a face-to-face conversation.
What has been achieved with this? Basically, our children and adolescents, who have been raised with these technologies, face greater challenges in developing the ability to feel something for someone. By having most of their interactions mediated by screens, these individuals lose the prospect to practice social skills essential to the advancement of empathic relationships, such as the interpretation of gestures or subtle emotional signals, typical of those of us who are not avatars. In short, empathy is being affected by the lack of human contact, and also by the inability to interact in a meaningful, reflective and conscious way with what happens to others.
Faced with this crisis of empathy, some of us are willing to look for a way to reestablish more authentic and deeper relationships, not only with emotional contribution, but with its unavoidable companion, namely, reason. In the beliefs of Emmanuel Lévinas, such as, we find an ethics of otherness that can offer us a tentative answer, indicating that it begins in the relationship with the other. Lévinas maintained that true empathy is not simply an exercise of understanding the other from our outlook, but a radical encounter with the face of the other that challenges us and forces us to respond to their needs unconditionally.
«The face of the other summons me to infinite obligation» (Lévinas, 1961, p. 193).
From the aforementioned approach,empathy cannot be limited to being a passing feeling,but rather it is indeed an active response to the presence of the other,which requires concrete and responsible action from us. The “empathic community”, then, is not one that is limited to discursive solidarity or superficial sympathy, but rather one that is characterized by active and committed participation in the common good expressed in something so simple, so noble, but regrettably so trivialized by our culture that loves the ephemeral: your pain hurts me, your need is now mine. such a proposal requires a deep commitment to otherness, in which each of us can recognize the responsibility of transforming the community into a less despicable place, that is, more just and humane.
For his part, the German philosopher Martin Buber, in his work “I and You” (1923) spoke to us about the authentic relationship between human beings as the basis and lasting support of a true community. Empathy, according to him, occurs when we face the other, not as an “it” (an object of manipulation or indifference), but as a “you”, that is, as a being that has dignity and value in itself. . Empathy is not, then, an act of simple superficial and passing sympathy, but rather a full recognition of the other in their alterity, that is, in their specific situation, which may not be transferable, but is interpretable and appealable.
«Every true encounter is an encounter with the you, which calls us to action, not simply to reaction.» (Buber, 1923, p. 77).
That said,empathy becomes a reality-transforming experience,capable of establishing a community in which common well-being is a real possibility and a priority worth fighting for. to make this empathetic society effective, it is necessary to recover concrete action, away from the mobile camera and the reactions with emoticons on social networks, since empathy, to be
meaningful, should not remain in the realm of abstract or discursive.
In this regard, the Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire, in his “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (1970), proposed an active education based on dialogue and joint action for social change. Empathy, in this context, must be mobilizing, that is, it must incite participation and real commitment to the specific problems that exist in our community.
«True empathy cannot arise without an active conversion of the social and political context in which we live» (Freire, 1970, p. 53).
Anyway, my friends, empathy in contemporary society seems to be trapped in the hypocrisy of discursive rhetoric and the realities of individualism and voluntary isolation. However, as we have seen, authentic empathy can only be achieved through an active and transformative commitment “in”, “with” and “for” the community in which we live. True empathy is not an empty feeling, but an ethical responsibility that implies active participation in the construction of a more humane society, that is, less unjust and violent. To live in that community, it will be necessary for empathy to stop being an abstract concept applied to inconsequential issues that claim to seek inclusion while increasingly dividing society with false moral cracks to be translated into factual actions that deliberately seek the common good. not as a virtual ideal, but as a palpable and effective reality worth living in.
Lisandro Prieto Femenía Teacher. Writer. Philosopher
San Juan – Argentina
How can we cultivate genuine empathy in our daily interactions with others?
Ve expressions; it is a community that engages with the real, lived experiences of others and fosters a shared understanding that transcends superficial interactions. In that sense, empathy should not be seen as something we ‘perform’ or ’brand’ ourselves with, but rather as a fundamental aspect of our humanity that enriches our connections with one another.
Moreover, this idea challenges us to rethink the spaces we inhabit—both physical and digital. Instead of allowing technology to dictate the terms of our relationships, we should strive to create environments, both online and offline, where genuine connections can flourish. this involves being mindful of our presence,truly listening to others,and valuing the nuances that come with face-to-face interactions. The capacity for empathy is rooted in our ability to engage with the multiplicity of human experience, which demands patience, effort, and a willingness to step outside our own perspectives.
The contemporary discourse often emphasizes the need for empathy as a means of bridging divides and fostering understanding in a polarized world. Though, if our expressions of empathy are merely rhetorical or performative, they risk devolving into hollow gestures. Authentic empathy requires us to confront our biases, question our assumptions, and commit to the labor of truly understanding the experiences of others. this involves not only emotional engagement but also a critical introspection of our roles in perpetuating systems of division and disconnection.
In sum, the challenge lies not only in cultivating empathy as a virtue but in embedding it within the fabric of our interactions, actions, and societal structures. It calls for a collective effort to redefine what it means to connect with one another in a manner that prioritizes authenticity over superficiality. By fostering genuine empathy within our communities and encouraging deeper interactions, we can begin to counteract the isolating effects of modern technology and make strides toward a more inclusive and compassionate society.