This blog, over the
last several postings, has been reporting a review of the literature concerning
the effectiveness of civics education. That
literature is focused on the state of appropriate citizenry among Americans. That is, the ultimate test for civics
education is how well it promotes its students to become productive and
responsible citizens of this nation. The
blog has made the overall judgement that civics is not currently doing a very
good job given this standard.
One
area of concern is how one motivates citizens to meet their civic
responsibilities and duties. In the
current literature, this motivation, that stems from a sense of caring for
personal and communal conditions, is called social empathy. It combines those empathetic emotions and
beliefs – the contextual understandings of events and conditions – and an
acceptance of social responsibility.[1]
When
it comes to empathizing issues over how someone or group is being treated in an
unjust way, empathy can be difficult to conjure if a person has not experienced
meaningful levels of injustice. One sees
this shortcoming when upper or middle-class people are asked to consider the
challenges of living in poverty or rural people empathizing with the challenges
of urban living and vice-versa.
To
focus on these inabilities one is served by considering Elizabeth Segal’s
definition for social empathy: “the ability
to understand people by perceiving or experiencing their life situations and as
a result gain insight into structural inequalities and disparities.”[2] These elements presuppose not only an
emotional element, but a reasoned sense of the realities involved. It transcends sentiment and does not abandon
the ability to be objective over what is involved.
Segal
and her colleagues call this ability to view inequities, despite one’s lack of
personal experiences with it, macrospective-taking.[3] To date this writer’s research has not found
any research as to the level of macrospective-taking among Americans, but this
does promise to be the subject for future research.
What
has been researched is the origins of this mental disposition both from a
socializing aspect and a neuro-psychological aspect. Also, researchers have looked at the positive
effects social empathy has on society and the negative effects a lack of it has
had.[4] One of its positive effects is that it
“fosters people’s involvement in social change processes and increases civic
engagement”.[5]
One
can theorize that social empathy serves as a foundation for democratic
development, civic posture, and a higher likelihood that the interests and
views over the well-being of others are more communally defined. As Segal states, all of this functions to
help create a more just society – both politically and economically.[6] Ideally, extensive prevalence of this social
quality sets up a dynamic interaction between civic engagement activities and
social empathy sensitivities.
There
is research that supports this dynamic.
Deserving of special mention is Martin L. Hoffman’s analytic study of
the role of empathy in moral thinking.[7] One of his points is to explain how empathy
functions, through behavioral, cognitive, and emotional dimensions, in a
person’s ability to see beyond immediate self-interest and appreciate moral
posturing that considers the interests of others.
One
distinction that Segal[8]
makes is between interpersonal empathy and social empathy. As these descriptive terms indicate,
interpersonal empathy is empathy one feels with those one knows or
interacts. Social empathy has a broader
span but includes interpersonal empathy.
The point to be made is that to motivate civic engagement, one needs to
have a broader sense of empathy that extends to people one does not know, or
with which one does not interact.
Why? Because interpersonal empathy lacks the
contextual insights needed to engage in macro-perspective taking, with its
accompanying thinking. Consequently, one
will be handicapped in being disposed toward addressing such issues as poverty
or bigotry. It – interpersonal empathy –
“is insufficient to motivate a society or community toward social justice.”[9] Of course, social empathy, if sufficiently
felt, can extend one toward developing that sense of social justice and
responsibility that motivates one to be so engaged.
[1] Elizabeth A.
Segal, “Social Empathy: A Model built on
Empathy, Contextual Understanding, and Social Responsibility that Promotes
Social Justice,” Journal of Social
Service Research, 2011, vol. 37, 3, 266–277.
[2] Ibid., 267.
[3] Elizabeth
Segal, Karin E. Gerdes, Jennifer Mullins, M. Alex Wagaman, and David Androff,
“Social Empathy Attitudes: Do Latino
Students Have More?”, 2011, Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, vol. 21, 4, 438–454 AND Elizabeth
Segal, “Social Empathy – a Slide Presentation,” accessed May 15, 2018, https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/54666/NSDRSW_25_key_segal_presentation.pdf?sequence=2 .
[4] Elizabeth A.
Segal, M. Alex Wagaman, and Karen E. Gerdes, “Developing the Social Empathy
Index: An Exploratory Factor,” Analysis
Advances in Social Work, 2012, vol. 13, 3 (Fall), 541-560.
[5] Elizabeth
Segal, Karin E. Gerdes, Jennifer Mullins, M. Alex Wagaman, and David Androff,
“Social Empathy Attitudes: Do Latino
Students Have More?,” 442.
[6] Elizabeth A.
Segal, “Social Empathy: A Model built on
Empathy, Contextual Understanding, and Social Responsibility that Promotes
Social Justice.”
[7] Martin L.
Hoffman, Empathy and Moral
Development: Implications for Caring and
Justice (Cambridge London, England:
Cambridge University Press, 2000/2007).
[8] Elizabeth
Segal, “Social Empathy: A Model Built on Empathy, Contextual Understanding, and
Social Responsibility that Promotes Social Justice.”
[9] Ibid., 268.
