Over the years, I’ve categorized criticisms of my work on empathy into a number of categories. Some disagreements are merely semantic; the issue is what words we use to describe particular relational and social dynamics. Other disagreements are a matter of emphasis; while our positions might be the same, our suspicions and assessment of the most pressing danger differs. And finally, some disagreements are real and substantive; there really is a parting of the ways on the matter at hand.
I would classify Dr. Rothrock’s criticism as a combination of semantic and emphatic; I did not detect any area of major substantive disagreement. This doesn’t make the disagreement any less real, but it does contextualize it (and keeps the temperature down). Based on his review, Dr. Rothrock seems keen to avoid the dangers that I am highlighting in my own work. For example, he regularly qualifies his endorsement of empathy with “properly bounded by truth,” and “when anchored in truth.” Part of the goal of my project has been precisely that; given the cultural confusion and abuse of emotion, if someone insists on using the term “empathy,” they should feel some pressure to attach a modifier like “tethered empathy” or “anchored empathy.”
More than that, he acknowledges and validates the present cultural challenge that I’m addressing: “In popular discourse, empathy carries an expectation of emotional identification and affirmation.”
Granting that agreement on the primary substantive question, it’s still worth reflecting on the terms we use. Dr. Rothrock adopts a cognitive definition of empathy, over against an affective definition. Empathy “understands,” “investigates,” “identifies barriers,” and “distinguishes.” It “is the necessary disciplined means of understanding another person. It asks questions and then seeks to answer them from the perspective of the sufferer; in that sense, empathy is about taking on their perspective or mindset.
I think that the cognitive definition of empathy identifies a real and important phenomenon. However, in my work, when I’ve used empathy in a neutral sense, I tend to gravitate to the more affective definition that emphasizes “emotion-sharing.” To empathize is not merely to understand another person’s perspective, but is at some level “ to feel what they feel.” This is a normal human response to other people, especially to those in pain. And it’s precisely where the danger of empathy arises. For emotions (or passions) are powerful, and can easily override our commitment to what is true and good. Emotions sweep us off our feet, and we do fall into the affirmation of sin that both Dr. Rothrock and I reject. When the passion of empathy is in the driver’s seat, we commit the sin of empathy, just as when the passion of anger overpowers our minds, we committee the sin of anger.
Now both Dr. Rothrock and I believe that “perspective-taking” and “emotion-sharing” can be good and helpful tools of counsel and care, provided they are anchored to what is true and good. We simply differ on what to call them. What he calls “empathy,” I would simply call “understanding,” as in the biblical text to husbands to “live with your wives in an understanding way.” The command is not necessarily to feel what she feels, but is instead to grasp her perspective, to view the world through her eyes, and to conduct yourself toward her accordingly. However, I’m not sure that defining empathy that way is as common in wider usage. And this perhaps identifies a methodological divide; Dr. Rothrock says that “popular use is rarely the correct one,” and instead advocates for definitions drawn from the psychological sciences. My own approach is to see how people actually use the words on the ground and to fight the necessary battles there. So if enough people claim that empathy refuses to make value judgments and demands affirmation and validation (even of sin), I will take them at their word and engage on that point, commending sympathy and compassion as the tethered virtues over against untethered empathy.
This highlights another semantic difference. Dr. Rothrock distinguishes sympathy from both compassion and empathy. Sympathy recognizes that someone is suffering and compassion moves them to respond. My own approach is to use sympathy and compassion interchangeably, since they both mean “to suffer with” (with compassion rooted in Latin and sympathy in Greek). More importantly, I think it’s vital to defend and celebrate sympathy and compassion, since they are frequently dismissed in popular discourse as insufficient responses to human suffering. For example, the Brene Brown video that figures prominently in my work argues that sympathy “breeds disconnection” and offers ham-fisted platitudes rather than real help. Given that sympathy and compassion (unlike empathy) are Bible words, I want to commend them over against the modern term that so often leads people astray.
That said, I want to reiterate the common ground I share with Dr. Rothrock. In particular, I want to say Amen to two important elements of the counseling process that he highlights. The first is that empathy (or what I call “understanding”) is a “biblical step toward connecting with someone.” In my book, I summarize this step in the counseling and comfort process as communicating “This is hard” and “I know you feel that way.” Both the acknowledgement of the difficulty and the acknowledgement of the feelings is meant to build a bridge to the sufferer that will, God willing, lead to healing and restoration.
The second element is related. Dr. Rothrock argues that compassion and sympathy need to address both immediate distress and the underlying problem. Precisely so. And in my judgment, empathy (i.e. emotion-sharing) frequently fixates on the former at the expense of the latter. Relieving the immediate feelings is prioritized over addressing root causes. So, for example, empathy (as popularly used) demands that we affirm someone’s gender identity in order to relieve their psychological distress, rather than compassionately calling them back to the identity God gave them in making them a man or a woman.
Whatever terms we use, there are important issues at stake in these debates, and I for one am glad that Dr. Rothrock shares my desire for both understanding and truth, for compassion without compromise.
To dive deeper into this topic, be sure to pick up a copy of Dr. Rigney's book, Leadership and The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and Its Counterfeits - A Christian Guide to Discernment, Emotional Manipulation, Boundaries and False Compassion (affiliate link).
