Is Empathy Really the Downfall of Western Civilization?

Empathy... You keep using that word...I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Believe it or not, empathy as a concept has entered the fray in our society. We are in a strange moment in human history when everything from eggs to holidays to the names of large bodies of water to empathy become the battlegrounds in which we dig our heels against our neighbors and families. Recently on a podcast with Joe Rogan, Elon Musk stated that empathy is the “fundamental weakness of western civilization.” Recent Christian publications even go so far as to call empathy sinful or a toxic manipulation device.

I am a clinical mental health counselor in my day job. As it turns out, a sizable portion of my job involves empathy. Did I do all of the work it took to get this job only to sinfully perpetuate the fundamental weakness of western civilization? I don’t believe so. I would argue that empathy is a vital component of intelligence, strength, integrity, and civility in a society.

Empathy as a concept is actually relatively young compared to other words in our language. Multiple sources on its etymology trace the concept back to “Einfühlung,” a 19th century German concept which literally means to “feel into” something. To put it plainly, imagine what it would be like to be inside of a painted landscape, to be a bird in flight, or to be a tree stretching into the sky. What sensations and emotions would you be feeling? Congratulations, you’ve just done “einfühlung.” Strangely, humans have varying degrees of capacity to imagine or even feel the sensation of being a painting, bird, or tree. In this way, einfühlung is said to enhance one’s ability to truly enjoy the arts and architecture. The more einfühlung you have, the more you can do so.

This concept of einfühlung was translated in 1909 into the term we now know as empathy. This eventually migrated itself out of the world of art/aesthetics into the world of psychology. In psychology, empathy can be understood as the ability to accurately imagine what sensations and emotions would be like inside the lived experience of another person. It is that thing we do so we can sit with a friend in their grief even if that grief is not something we’ve experienced ourselves. It allows us to connect with our kids in their fear of a monster in their closet that doesn’t exist. It teaches us things about the nature of cultures outside of our own.

It appears that most critics of empathy as a concept do not hold this same definition and are mainly concerned with the resultant behaviors and decisions that follow an empathic experience. The argument goes that if one takes the time to understand the thoughts, feelings, and sensations of a person as they see and experience it, but that person is living in what their religion defines as sin, that may result in a corruption of one’s morals and a drift away from righteousness. To Elon Musk on Rogan, decisions made from empathy are weak because he believes that any societal sacrifices made on the behalf of a given suffering marginalized group leads to “civilizational suicide.” He posits that those decisions for the few at the perceived expense of the many risks the death of a developed society. On the contrary, empathy is what develops a civilized society.

At the end of the day, the above definition of empathy is about deepening knowledge and increasing understanding. You can boil it down to a method for receiving helpful new information. It can be used to connect with others and/or to make better, more informed decisions.

If one’s religious faith is fragile enough to be threatened by new information, and the response is to avoid new information, that seems more like sinking sand rather than a solid rock on which to stand. If a soul is that easy to “corrupt,” how solid was its foundation to begin with? If Elon Musk thinks decisions made based on empathically obtained information is enough to fundamentally weaken society, was that society built on sound principles? Can wise decisions about anything be made without an accurate understanding of the lived experience of those involved? Doesn’t empathic experience have the capacity to improve the treatment we give our neighbors and family? Doesn’t the “fray” about everything in our society tell us something about what the absence of empathy can do to a people group?

Many who read this post may not consider themselves to be Christian but I wanted to include this as another example of how central the idea of empathy is. One of the more pivotal claims of Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth is both fully human and fully divine. As part of Jesus’ nature as God incarnate, Jesus stepped fully into human experience which is what enables a Christian to “approach God’s throne with confidence” because he has engaged in our lived human experience (Hebrews 4:15-16). The concept of God in Christianity is not some aloof figure but one who went to great lengths to understand the experience of people. Unless one is to claim that this act is fundamental weakness or corruption, it stands to reason that it was strong and right.

The fact is we are all better when people make time and effort to accurately step into another person’s world as they see it. In doing so, it provides a wealth of information upon which sound decisions can be made. It’s a demonstration of profound strength. It enables a person to connect with fellow humans who may not be or think the same, thereby expanding the richness of life. For those who are Christian, it brings you closer to living a godly life.

To reject empathy is to reject intelligence and embrace weakness. It is to build oneself on sinking sand and become fragile. It’s to set limits around your understanding to protect underdeveloped thinking.

From an empathic standpoint, the impulse to reject empathy is understandable. Empathy is hard work and will cost you something. Change feels threatening. New ideas don’t sit right in the gut initially. However, much like the discomfort of lifting weights to build muscle, “no pain no gain.”