I woke up this morning with the question: "Can Empathy Save this Country?"
I was watching the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer last night, which is something I do most nights, because I enjoy seeing both sides of an issue. I came to the conclusion that I was tired of all of the bad news, especially the "bickering" in Washington. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it on what I am telling myself is a "lost cause". I usually stay away from political issues because they seem so focused on strategies, whereas I am more interested in connection -- which requires that the strategies be laid aside for a while.
Letting go of the outcome is something that our culture does not teach, except perhaps in 12-step recovery and NVC circles. It is essential for the survival of this country that the people elected to office, connect to each other across the party lines. Otherwise, I think, we are doomed to failure -- Our 234 year experiment in democracy will go bankrupt -- both spiritually and financially.
I find it interesting that the Obama Administration got elected on a sound-bite of "Empathy" for the people they serve, but they don't seem to realize that it's also required with the people they serve with -- all members of Congress. Actually, it doesn't surprise me that the politicians I see on TV don't seem to know that Empathy is a process, and not a destination. Empathy is a process of discovering the heart needs of both sides of an issue while letting go of the solution. Empathy is a process where both sides get to speak their truth while the other listens for the heart needs of the other, and reflects back what they heard. At some point, they switch roles and the other side gets to speak while the other listens and reflects back what they heard.
I decided that it might be helpful to list some of the heart needs for Health Care Reform as I see them. Remember, at this point we are trying to connect to the heart needs on both sides, while letting go of the specific strategies to solve the issue.
The Republicans seem to want a place at the table, respect, to be heard, and to contribute to the health care process. Another way to say this is they want mutuality, to be treated with the same dignity as the Democrats treat each other. I have heard that they are concerned, perhaps even scared because they want to effectively utilize the resources available to them, the means by which this country is supported financially. I'm also guessing that they are afraid of loosing their own means for supporting themselves. The Republicans also want to matter, to have an impact and their part in helping this country succeed in meeting the needs of the people.
The Democrats seem to want to contribute more directly to the health and well-being of the people they serve. They are excited because they finally have a place at the table, have a chance to be heard, and to more directly contribute to the legislation that will serve to do so. They are also trying to balance needs, and to efficiently use the resources available to them -- the financial support that the government receives from the people. They are also trying to meet needs of responsibility, and integrity by clearly defining how they intend to pay for their health care strategy. I'm also guessing that they are afraid of loosing their own means for supporting themselves. The Democrats also want to matter, to have an impact and their part in helping this country succeed in meeting the needs of the people.
The heart needs that I have listed here are universal -- all human beings have these needs and values at one time or another. In my opinion, we could all benefit if individuals from both sides of the isle were to get together and go through the process of Empathy. Given that they don't have much experience in doing so, they would probably use some help from people who know how to facilitate Empathy.
My experience tells me that admitting that there is a problem, and asking for help is not something that comes easy, especially to elected officials. I, for one, would enjoy contributing to this dialog, and know of others that could help.
11 comments:
I like this. I enjoy the perspective of recognizing that one "party" or the other is not the enemy. Doesn't the 2 party system feel very labeling? I can't seem to fit in either party. I agree, it would be helpful if each "side" could hear one another and see where they are coming from. I think if we didn't have political "parties" at all them maybe we could end the "us" against "you" mentality. Can't we have one big party, celebrating our freedom and country?
James, I personally feel there is a distinctive difference between displaying empathy as the first step towards compassion, as in what President Obama hinted toward in his reference to being empathy deficient towards those who are different from us - the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room, and empathic listening, which is what you appear to be referring to in the bi-partisan debate over health care reform.
Empathic listening is a form of listening and responding to another person that improves mutual understanding and trust. It is an essential skill for third parties and disputants alike, as it enables the listener to receive and accurately interpret the speaker's message, and then provide an appropriate response. It does not require a person or political party to identify with another's feelings.
Empathy is to emotionally put ourself in the place of another. The ability to empathize is directly dependent on our ability to feel our own feelings and identify them. Empathy is closely related to compassion, but empathy both precedes compassion and is a pre-requisite for compassion. Compassion can be defined as a combination of empathy and understanding. Higher emotional sensitivity and awareness leads to higher levels of empathy. This leads to higher levels of understanding which then leads to higher levels of compassion.
The problem with the health care debate is that we have people who have never had to go without health care deciding the fate of those who have forfeited medical care because they do not have insurance coverage. It is difficult for them to have empathy because they have not walked in their shoes. They cannot understand the feelings of watching a loved one die because they did not have health insurance; therefore all the empathetic listening in the world is not going to result in compassion for those who truly need it.
The only way to get health care reform passed is to take it out of the hands of congress and put it to a vote of the American people. Hopefully, we can have empathy and compassion for our neighbors.
Hi Julie - thanks for your comment. Yes, this whole "us" vs. "them" just breeds more division and mistrust. I guess it takes a real desire to connect and contribute to the needs of the people for democracy to work effectively.
Hi DMarie - what you said about the "ability to empathize is directly dependent on our ability to feel our own feelings and identify them" -- really resonates with me. A couple of friends reminded me that empathy is something to BE in, in order to connect. Which as you said, requires one to be self-connected to ones own feelings and life needs.
I really believe that if connection between the human beings in the various parties where to happen, that real progress could be made. I personally want to stay away from strategies - specific solutions - out of my belief in the spirit that comes to life during a symphony of mutual understanding.
Thanks for stopping by and contributing to this topic!
James, what you say would be true if they truly were empathetic and compassionate towards the people they are suppose to be serving. Evidence is that is not the case. Strategies are necessary for change, otherwise, its the same old, same old, perhaps under another name or another proposed bill. Sometimes idealists need to be more realists.
James, you made the following post on Facebook:
"I remain in compassion only as long as my own heart needs are being met. Wondering what comes up for you when you read this?"
I am wondering if you can be more specific, as my understanding of the words as they are written does not sound like compassion at all. Compassion is when we are moved to action to help remove the source of pain, an excellent example being Mother Theresa. Her compassion was not dependent on her own heart needs being met...she was meeting the needs of the less fortunate.
You talk of empathy, which is putting us in the shoes of the other person so as to feel their emotional pain. In a normal human who has not been desensitized this would then elicit compassion, the wanting to help alleviate the pain. If I am homeless and hungry, I am wanting your compassion not your empathy. I am hoping to be provided with something to eat.
Hi DMarie,
Thanks for the comment. It appears that we are using different definitions of the word empathy.
In Compassionate Communicate (CC) "putting us in the shoes of the other person so as to feel their emotional pain" is called Sympathy.
I agree that to want to contribute to the well-being of others is part of being human. Here are two different cases, which I hope illustrate my point:
1. A path to Self-connection in CC is self-empathy, where I recognize what life-energy in the form of feelings and needs are alive for me. After I am connected to my feelings and needs, I am in a state of BEING. In order to stay self-connected to my own life energy of needs, I might feed the hungry out of my own need to contribute. Through my self-connection, I feel a natural compassion and curiosity for others. As a result, I may choose to feed the hungry while staying in integrity with myself.
2. On the other hand, if I am not self-connected, and feed the hungry out of duty, obligation, or to buy someone's love, I am not in integrity with myself - I am in a state of DOING; the harmony and compassion is not there. I have found through experience that I build up an internal resentment because I am not recognizing the truth of my life experience. This has led to a lot of pain in my life, for myself and the people around me.
Do you see the difference between these two cases?
Yes, I see the difference and thank you for your explanation.I would like to offer the common understanding of the two words in question.
From Wikipedia - Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.[1] Sympathy not only includes empathizing (but not always), but also entails having a positive regard or a non- fleeting concern for the other person.[2]
It is well documented that many times when we are "doing" something to help others, even though it might at first feel like we don't want to be doing it; seeing a persons deep appreciation for the help, then helps us open our hearts and we are then in the place of being.
One way to learn compassion is extending ourselves even when we do not have the desire to do so. When we learn there is true happiness in giving we train our hearts to follow the path of true compassion.
The old adage, "fake it till you make it" is in recognition that we can create new neuro-pathways by following a course of action that may not initially be "natural" but after doing it enough it does become an innate course of action and or desire.
This is how we expand and evolve.
My own feelings are that individuals who refuse to do things because their heart needs are not being met are in many cases doing themselves a disservice as they may stagnate and miss out on many opportunities that would bring others joy and ultimately themselves happiness for having contributed the well being of others.
Hi D' - I see that we have different definitions of empathy. Yours is closer to Wikipedia, mine is closer to NVC. I'm ok with that, we don't necessarily have to agree.
In the NVC of my understanding, empathy, is not about taking on the other person's feelings. However, I might use the strategy of "putting myself in their shoes" as a means to understanding what feelings and needs are stimulated for them.
Of course, I could also be moved somehow by what I hear, but I have choices on how to proceed.
You have a couple of paragraphs on "doing things" and "fake it till you make it". When I just started my heart recovery journey, I was desperate enough to try anything - I was hungry for life, clarity, healing, meaning and freedom. I don't have anything against the strategies that you imply, if that's what people choose to do.
The point of my original post was that I believe that empathy can be a means to finding consensus, so that we can actually move forward with legislation. My hypothesis is that if the congressmen and women from both parties could put aside their strategies for a period of time and connect at the level of heart needs, that we might actually make progress in getting closer to meeting the needs of everyone involved.
I'm wondering what comes up for you when you hear me say these things?
Jumping back a bit -- For me right now, when I hear things like "fake it till you make it", I feel concerned and anxious because my needs for integrity and honesty are not met. I have learned from experience that when I do things that I really don't want to do, that my heart reacts by building up an internal resentment that eventually turns to anger. This has been especially painful to me in my intimate relationships. How do you feel about what I just said?
I thought of something that I think clarifies things. My experience is that connection happens at the level of needs; the feelings just tell us if needs are met or not. Empathy is a means for getting clear on which feelings and needs are alive in the moment.
Post a Comment