The notion of “radical empathy” continues to inspire me.  (Read yesterday’s post for the reference).  I realized that I delved into the meaning and inspiration behind the word “radical” but didn’t do the same thing for the word “empathy”.  I think to truly appreciate the notion of radical empathy it’s important to understand the difference between empathy and sympathy—mostly because I don’t think there is such a thing as “radical sympathy”.

The definition of empathy is:

“the ability to understand and share the feelings of another”

 While the definition of sympathy is:

“feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune”

There are, in my opinion, two key distinctions between the two words.  First of all, and probably easiest to appreciate, the is internalized nature of empathy versus the externalized nature of sympathy.  Empathy is about sharing, sympathy is about giving.  Empathy is about connection, sympathy is about caring.  Empathy is an ability, sympathy is a feeling.

Empathy is inherently more uncomfortable because there is a deeply personal aspect to it.  I can only truly be empathetic when my own experience makes me capable of not only understanding, but sharing, how the other person feels.  Empathy was the reason for the call-to-action for gay people to come out to their friends and family.  When a person has direct experience with someone who’s gay, their attitudes towards gay rights is much more supportive.  This is because they now have a first degree of connection to the issue and when something is personal it becomes hard to dismiss.

There is a second key distinction that comes across in the second part of both definitions.  Sympathy is almost directly tied to feelings associated with “someone else’s misfortune”.  Not only is sympathy a more removed emotion, but its connected to misfortune.  Sympathy appears when we see sorrow in someone else.  We may be able to understand that feeling of sorrow and operate in a way that allows that sorrow to be shared.  Sympathy is a good thing but is an effect, caused by seeing someone in pain.

Empathy on the other hand is not solely a result of misfortune.  Empathy is about “sharing the feelings of another”.  I know that I too often use the term empathetic as it relates to using my personal pain as a way to get inside the pain of someone else.  I forgot that I can also be empathetic when I use moments of personal joy to get inside the joy of someone else.  Jesus’ empathy was shown at the tomb of Lazarus.  His pain at the loss of a friend was deep and human.  He shared the feelings of Lazarus’ mother and sisters because the loss was real to him as well.  But he was also empathetic when he rejoiced in Lazarus emerging from the tomb—he celebrated the return of a dear friend and used that emotion to help celebrate the return of a family member.

This means that “radical empathy” has to start within.  I need to go beyond feeling pity and get to a place where I can share the feelings of my neighbor.  Once this personalization occurs, how can I be anything but radical?  If I am personally in pain won’t I do whatever is necessary to end that pain?  If I am truly empathetic than my neighbor’s pain is my own and I should take the same steps to end it.

I think it important that “radical empathy” comes without an iota of judgement—whereas feelings of sympathy can be tainted with judgement.  I feel badly for everyone whose lives were touched by the fires in California, but if we were more careful with our natural resources and our climate maybe none of this would have every happened.  My sympathy is no less real, but I have layered on a level of judgement that prevents me from truly connecting with the pain.

I think we are seeing the difference between sympathy and empathy play out in the aftermath of the Florida shooting.  Survivors, whose first-hand experience gives the ability to share the horror, are speaking out and demanding action.  They are going beyond the sympathetic statements of “we feel terrible but if the FBI had done their job better this wouldn’t have happened”.  The survivors are using their empathy radically to effect change and I hope this a true water-shed moment.

Lastly, “radical empathy” is not about using my mistakes to correct the actions of others.  Once again, that casts me in the role of judge.  “Radical empathy” requires me to do two things—share through personalizing the emotion, and act as a result of the personal emotion.  I can’t be empathetic if I am looking at the wrong of someone else—that distances me from the emotion.

If I had to choose the power to be empathetic or the power to be sympathetic I would choose the former.  That comes with a deep personal investment that, as my friend put it, requires me to feel uncomfortable at times.  But Jesus’ empathy took him all the way to the cross.  Perhaps my empathy can at least get me off the couch.