I argued that empathy - the capacity to inhabit another person's moral and intellectual horizons - is not mere dressing to life of the mind. The ability to hear someone out, understand their perspective, stretch your own moral and intellectual fiber to accommodate another is the first step.
I reflected at a talk recently on spiritual narcissism, a kind of intellectual and existential malaise which reacts violently out of the insecurity of our selves, our identities and beliefs which lacks the capacity to accommodate. In that context opposite opinion, different belief and disagreement become heresy.
Contra this I believe firmly in empathy, and in what Scott Thomas calls a rooted cosmopolitanism (the topic of future posts, and forthcoming dissertation chapters). But the important point I want to make - and hear response to - is this: empathy is the first step in the academic process. For me, this comes out of the fear of the LORD, and a grounded theology of common grace.
We've all met fearsome academics capable of spinning intricate logical webs - but who lack the capacity for empathy, to hear their interlocutor, and so have porcupine intellects: the quills are always out for an errant idea. I want to suggest these are not merely unpleasant people, they are bad academics, and a true, fruitful life of the mind - which draws us deeply into love of God and of our neighbour - begins with the "woolly" enterprise of feeling, and of empathy.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Empathy and the Life of the Mind
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"We've all met fearsome academics capable of spinning intricate logical webs - but who lack the capacity for empathy, to hear their interlocutor, and so have porcupine intellects: the quills are always out for an errant idea."
I hear you.
Here's a counterpoint, for thought:
Might searching and pointing out errant ideas be a form of empathy? That is, pointing out errant ideas, or poor logic, does not necessarily entail a disgust for the other person's argument, or even an unwillingness to care about what they're trying to say. Rather, BECAUSE they care about the other person's argument -- and the other person even, perhaps -- they want to sharpen it. Like iron on iron. My best profs/colleagues, for instance are like porcupines to some degree.
I think that people concerned with logical rigour get a bad rap too often.
I think the answer is "knowing your audience." Some young people thrive off of exactly the kind of playful sharpening you're talking about. BUT the relational context this kind of exchange takes place within is all important - if the audience/interlocutors do not trust that there is mutual respect, understanding (etc) I think logical rigor can leave a sour emotional and relational taste in people.
I have some students I enjoy exchanging with in exactly this sharpening way, and it works very well. Normally these are bright, secure, extroverted people. It can have the opposite effect on bright, less secure, introverted people - and I am very interested in keeping a place for those people.
I - at least - was not so bright, not so extroverted, and not so secure during my undergrad days.
I thoroughly agree with you, Adunare...the social context of academic debate is too often forgotten. Logical rigor is important but will accomplish little if not done within a context of already-established trust and mutual respect. The options of porcupine academic, concerned for rooting out truth, and of guinea pig academic, concerned for being warm and cuddly, are not the only options.
Other vocabulary for us to use in this conversation: Ricoeur's differentiation between a hermeneutic of trust and a hermeneutic of suspicion. Approaching someone with a level of trust and openness allows us to really get at what is errant about their ideas. The internal critique is that much more powerful, after all.
Post a Comment