??From the New York Times article, “I Tweet, Therefore I Am“:
“But when every thought is externalized, what becomes of insight? When we reflexively post each feeling, what becomes of reflection? When friends become fans, what happens to intimacy? The risk of the performance culture, of the packaged self, is that it erodes the very relationships it purports to create, and alienates us from our own humanity. Consider the fate of empathy: in an analysis of 72 studies performed on nearly 14,000 college students between 1979 and 2009, researchers at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan found a drop in that trait, with the sharpest decline occurring since 2000. Social media may not have instigated that trend, but by encouraging self-promotion over self-awareness, they may well be accelerating it.”
As a designer, and a human, I am very concerned with empathy. I’ve been reading, intermittently, The Empathic Civilization, which also had a lot to say on the subject (obviously). Very big, detailed book, though. Still working my way through.
Briefly: What if empathy were declining? Consider the fate of humanity.
Comments
3 responses to “Consider the Fate of Empathy”
Has empathy ever been on the increase? I would argue that starting from Descartes and Co., Naturalism has dominated the way civilization (esp. Western) thinks and feels. The mechanism for Naturalism is natural selection – a.k.a. “survival of the fittest.” If that is the way the world operates, where does empathy come in? Of course, Naturalism isn’t the only interpretation of the world, merely the dominant one currently.
Does the book you’re reading tell of a time when empathy was prevalent? Just makes me puzzled to hear you ask “What if empathy were declining?” when I’m not sure if there ever was a time when it was rampant or on the increase.
I think the Rifkin book, The Empathic Civilization, would argue that empathy is an inherent human trait. And, although I don’t have the book in front of me at the moment, I believe he addressed the survival of the fittest argument, or the every man for himself perspective. He argues, it isn’t true. People help each other out all the time with no benefit to themselves. And the reason is empathy.
I can’t remember if Rifkin addresses a rise or fall of empathy. But, according to the New York Times article, at least one study says it was higher previously.
“He argues, it isn’t true. People help each other out all the time with no benefit to themselves. And the reason is empathy.”
Does he go into why? I’m curious about the mechanism behind this feeling/action/state of being of empathy according to Rifkin. I think it’s interesting because I think it’s very difficult to argue for man being a noble creature (i.e. empathy being innate) from a Naturalist starting point. I’m guessing he’s not arguing from a Naturalist foundation. If you get a chance to go over the book at home would love to hear more.
Interesting that the NYTimes has such an article.