Word Attack: "empathy"

Selective appeals to compassion aren't empathetic -- they're self-serving attempts at emotional manipulation.

It’s no secret that political operatives (and bad actors) of all persuasions frequently use the same words as the general public, but a very different dictionary. Twisting language is their primary means of confusion and manipulation; it also aids in their own deception, as they assuage their own guilt by reframing their negative behavior in more flattering terms. Learning to identify, question, and reject the false assumptions embedded within misappropriated terminology is an essential skill for resisting political manipulation, and helping yourself and others snap out of (self-)deception.

Fun fact: I used to be an elementary school teacher focused primarily on literacy. That’s why, waaaay back when I first started blogging after leaving the classroom, I included a regular feature called Word Attack, dissecting misleading language and narratives that were then common in conversations about education. Just like literal word attack strategies help new readers decode and deal with unfamiliar words as they read, I hope these “Word Attack” posts can help us decode and deal with deceptive language and rhetorical devices as we talk about politics.

—SJS

After spending years embedded within (and then untangling myself from) toxic, politically-segregated professional and social networks, there are certain seemingly-benign words that instantly trigger my suspicion when people use them. One of those words is empathy. Empathy is supposed to mean “the ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings.” But between the ways bad actors have exploited our capacity for empathy in the political arena, and the number of times I’ve watched partisans use “empathy” for alleged victims as an excuse to engage in cruel and nonsensical behavior against alleged “oppressors,” I now cringe whenever someone uses this word in political conversations.

Numerous thinkers and commentators have shared thoughtful explorations of the problem of misguided empathy recently. Yet a lot of public discussions on the topic overlook something important: many of the people wrapping their political stances and actions in the cloak of empathy are very transparently not empathetic. They’re evoking that concept to protect their self-image and manipulate onlookers into siding with them as they make self-serving, often destructive choices, and we need to stop giving them undue credit by cooperating with their misappropriated terminology.

Genuinely empathetic people extend their compassion in all directions, toward people they don’t agree with as much as toward people they do. They don’t assume that their way is the only way to care about an issue or a person, or shut down hard conversations by equating disagreement with heartlessness, or police free speech. Genuine empathy would trigger curiosity about why a friend or family member voted differently from oneself, for example, not disdain or rejection. Genuine empathy would elicit concern for desperate people who immigrated to America illegally and for the native and naturalized workers, families, and communities displaced or disrupted by influxes of unauthorized migrants, as well as the victims of traffickers, drug cartels, gangs and terrorist networks who exploit generous countries with weak borders. It motivates people to seek principled, evidence-based approaches to challenging situations, recognizing that the best way to actually help people is to get a solid understanding of what’s really going on, so we can make the most of whatever trade-offs are at play in each situation.

Yet all too often, what some progressives’ call “empathy” extends exclusively to people whose situations align with their personal or political preferences. That’s not empathy — that’s using another person’s hard story as cover for self-interested actions. It is selfishness wearing empathy as a costume, in order to pressure actually empathetic people into making decisions that serve professional partisans’ political or financial interests.

If a person who claims their vote was motivated by “empathy” turns bitterly cruel instead of curious when they discover someone else in the conversation voted differently, that person’s self-interest or pride is driving their response, not empathy. If a person who claims to empathize with people illegally crossing America’s southern border changes their mind when they find out a sizable chunk of their racial group voted Republican, we know their real concern is growing their Party’s voter base. (It’s also a clue that the latter person holds the racist assumption that “brown skin = blue politics,” instead of seeing people of different ethnicities as unique individuals capable of holding diverse political perspectives.)

Language matters. If someone is using language in ways that suggest they are either confused or trying to confuse others, it’s worth trying to clarify what they mean whenever it’s practical to do so. When you see people excusing selfish, illogical, or cruel behavior by evoking the concept of empathy, please call it out as respectfully as possible. By doing so, you offer well-intentioned people the opportunity to course-correct and realign their behavior with their ideals, while unmasking bad actors and making it harder for them to convince themselves or others that their motives are purer than they are.