[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and arguments. This and upcoming summary postings will be preceded
by this message.]
Problems of racial relations, opioid use,
loss of jobs to foreign producers, laws concerning firearms, tax policies and
their effects on equality, abortion rights, etc. are or have been such
problems. Realization of such
developments should encourage prudent citizens to know them and address them.
In that vein, one would be helped to
know why incubation of problems occurs.
It turns out and makes sense that a lack of empathy plays an important
role. This posting looks at why this is
the case. According to Klein and backed
up by such experts as the American neuro-endocrinologist, Robert Sapolsky, it
is difficult to engender empathy for people who do not belong to one’s defining,
identity groupings.
Relevant
to this general condition, people view their identity along various domains. They include the often-cited categories – e.g.,
race, nationality, ethnicity – but also less thought of classifications –
class, careers, social relationships, religion, etc. And with those categories in mind, when one
considers the ever-present realities of life, most prominently the conditions
of scarcity, one can see that economic/political conflicts are part of life.
And often, people cannot resist defining
such conflicts in terms of identity. Both
in terms of one’s emotions and what one sees as truth, identity classifications
simplify those aspects of life both cognitively and emotionally. Adding to the relevant mix of factors –
factors that cause scarcity and factors that affect how people see scarcity and
other social conditions – are ways people are disposed to define their identity.
In
turn, those factors not only determine membership, but also exclusion. They assist one to identify those who don’t
belong to one’s grouping. The excluded
lack some physical, social, economic, aesthetic, or some such quality or
condition. Those other people are seen
not as individuals but as reflecting believed – often inaccurately – attributes
that somehow “explain” any shortcomings they might be experiencing.
These shortcomings might include full allocation
of civil rights, economic standing, social recognition, or some combination of
these types of rights or benefits. For
example, poverty, under such thinking, results from laziness; unjust treatment
by authority figures results from criminal tendencies; unfair labor treatment
results from illegal status such as is the case for many immigrants. The point is these problems under the rubric
of identity thinking targets groups, not individuals.
Therefore, two levels of faulty thinking
take place: believing incorrect
information and attributing inaccurately supposed group attributes (that might
or might not exist) to individuals. Or
stated in more common language, people engage in prejudicial judgements.
Is this natural for people to do? Yes and no.
It is natural for people to believe well of or empathize with people who
belong to one’s perceived identity group; it is natural to not empathize and to
hold in suspicion those who do not belong to one’s group. Yet, to not empathize with other people
proves to be inefficient and contrary to the common good.
It stands in the way – through a variety
of dysfunctional social arrangements and processes – of benefiting from the
potential these perceived “other” people could contribute. And given the realities of reciprocity, one
can see how unjust treatment emanating from a lack empathy can lead to all
sorts of social problems.
So, how can one encourage empathy? What seems logical is for educators to plan
and to implement appropriate civics instruction that at least approaches an
important accomplishment. That is, it
identifies and respects what is natural; that is, the instruction recognizes
the existence of prejudicial tendencies and does not underestimate the power of
their influence. People are prone to, in
part, define their social world in terms of Us vs. Them.
This suggests that, one, lessons need to
point out this tendency and instruct students as to its inaccuracy. Two, point out that a belief in these
inaccuracies leads to inefficiencies not least of which is a less than an optimal
economy that can miss providing many potential opportunities. And three, provide instruction that exposes
students firsthand to as many relevant realities as are possible and safe.
This third goal reflects another
factor. It turns out that empathy occurs
more readily by experiences that expose a person to the actual, relevant events
or conditions. In the ideal, teaching a
student about how migrant workers are treated would be greatly enhanced by
students actually spending some time with these workers. Short of that, videos of their treatment
would be helpful. Just reading about it would
be less helpful. The fuller the exposure
is, the more likely an empathetic response will occur, and the more powerful the
instructive impact will be.
So, to remind the reader of the initial
question of this posting – why care about incubating problems? – the answer has
to do with the practical concerns of what results from mistreated and mis-defined
members of the polity. Those problems
are affecting significant numbers within the nation.
That is, a society that harbors an
inability to empathize with all identity groups making up the populous – or
more accurately, with the individuals who makeup those groups – leads to
dysfunctional conditions. Those
conditions are legal, political, social, and economic in nature. It happens to be a losing proposition on many
fronts.
