In the complex web of human emotions, there exists a duality that often goes unnoticed - the curse of animosity and empathy. These seemingly contradictory feelings can coexist within an individual, casting a shadow over their interactions with others and their own self-perception. Animosity, a deep-rooted feeling of hostility and resentment, can arise from a variety of sources. It may stem from personal experiences of betrayal, injustice, or insecurity. Animosity can manifest as a deep-seated anger towards a specific person or group, or even as a general mistrust towards humanity as a whole. This curse of animosity can poison relationships, create conflicts, and spiral into a never-ending cycle of negativity.
This curse of animosity can poison relationships, create conflicts, and spiral into a never-ending cycle of negativity. On the other hand, empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. It is a profound connection that allows individuals to put themselves in someone else's shoes, experiencing their emotions as if they were their own.
The surprising downsides of empathy
There’s a dark side to feeling the emotions of other people. In some cases, it can even lead to cruelty, aggression, and distress.
On CBeebies, the BBC service for little children, there’s a programme called Treasure Champs, which aims to teach young viewers about their feelings, and how to manage them. In one episode, the character Barry – a blue rectangle with pink eyebrows – is glum about the result of his football match.
“We lost,” says Barry.
“It doesn’t matter!” says Kari.
“It was my fault. I let all the goals in.”
“I don’t understand why you’re so sad. Just forget about it.”
“Why not? It’s just a game.”
“You’re not showing a lot of empathy, Kari. It means putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.”
“Your shoes won’t fit me, Barry.”
As definitions go, Barry’s one seems a pretty good one for empathy – it’s about projecting yourself into somebody’s mind to feel what they feel. And as the episode goes on to tell its young audience, understanding other people’s feelings is important.
In the adult world, however, the virtues of empathy are less clear. As the pandemic pushes us into isolation, culture wars rage, and disinhibited cruelty brews on social media, it feels a little controversial to suggest that empathy has downsides. Yet in recent years, researchers have found that misplaced empathy can be bad for you and others, leading to exhaustion and apathy, and preventing you from helping the very people you need to. Worse, people’s empathetic tendencies can even be harnessed to manipulate them into aggression and cruelty. So, if not empathy, what should we aim to feel instead?
You may also like:
- What makes people stop caring?
- How feeling bad changes the brain
- A new way to look at emotions – and how to master yours
The word empathy comes from the German word “Einfühlung”, coined in the late 1800s, which might broadly translate as “feeling into”. But as psychologist Judith Hall of Northeastern University wrote in Scientific American last month, “empathy is a fundamentally squishy term”. Some see it as the ability to read their fellow human beings, or simply feeling connected to people, while others see it as more of a moral stance about showing concern for others. Even researchers disagree when they are studying it.
Still, “despite the conceptual squishiness, most people view empathy as having something to do with understanding what other people are going through and being concerned about them”, writes Hall.
The Covid-19 pandemic has tested our ability to empathise with strangers (Credit: Getty Images)
Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, defines empathy specifically as the act of stepping into someone’s mind to experience their feelings – and it’s this that he takes issue with. “Even in this narrow sense, empathy might seem like an obvious force for good. Common sense tells us that experiencing someone else’s pain will motivate us to care about and help that person,” he writes in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences. However, it leads to some tricky moral dilemmas.
To illustrate why, Bloom tells the story of a 10-year-old girl called Sheri Summers, who has a fatal disease. Doctors have placed Sheri on a waiting list for a treatment that will relieve her pain, and potentially prolong her life. Sadly, this very bright, very brave girl learns she has weeks or months before that happens.
Imagine how that feels, and how it will affect Sheri’s life. What would you do if you had the opportunity to bump her up to the top of the list?
When participants in a study were presented with Sheri’s (fictional) story, encouraging them to feel empathy for her, around three-quarters moved her up the list to get her treatment earlier.
Yet as Bloom points out, doing so could mean every other child above her on the list would have to wait even longer, many of whom might be more deserving.
This is an example of what psychologists call the “identifiable victim effect”. People are much more likely to open their hearts – or wallets – when there is a visible beneficiary whose pain could be alleviated. The charity that campaigns with a single story of a named, suffering child may win more donations compared with the charity that deploys statistics describing 1,000 anonymous children.
As journalist Tiffanie Wen wrote for BBC Future recently, this effect can also help explain why many people become numb to the deaths of strangers caused by the coronavirus – which passed one million this week – yet be in up in arms about the minor loss of personal freedoms they more directly experience. For most of us, the worst suffering of the pandemic goes unwitnessed.
Charity campaigns may be more effective when there are single 'identifiable victims' (Credit: Getty Images)
There’s nothing wrong with using personal stories to raise awareness of a worthy cause, of course, but the identifiable victim effect does nonetheless siphon billions of dollars away from where it could do more good for a greater number of people. If your goal was to help as many children as possible, a dollar spent on deworming programmes in the developing world, for instance, would go significantly further than a dollar donated in the US for an expensive medical procedure. It can be even harder to attract attention to problems that have no identifiable victim at all, such as future generations affected by climate change, who do not exist yet.
Extending empathy to abstract strangers is a particular challenge for the human mind. Originally described by the Stoics thousands of years ago, the concept of “oikeiōsis” describes how our empathy and affinity for others declines by proximity to our lives. Imagine a series of rings: in the bullseye there’s the self, the innermost ring represents one’s family, the next ring one’s friends, the next one’s neighbours, then one’s tribe or community, then one’s country, and so on.
The problem, says Bloom, comes when bad actors hijack these “circles of sympathy” to try and sway our behaviours and beliefs. Our natural empathy for those closer and more similar to us can be harnessed to provoke antipathy towards those who are not.
In one study, undergraduates were told about a fellow student in the next room, who was in the running for a cash prize in a mathematics contest against another competitor. The undergraduates were given the opportunity to force that competitor to eat distracting hot sauce before the contest. When empathy for the student was ratcheted up, by emphasising she was struggling financially, people were more likely to give a greater dose of hot sauce to her innocent opponent.
Politicians and activists on both sides of the spectrum often play to the idea of “us and them”, deploying empathy and identifiable victims to make a political case. It underpins some social media campaigns to “cancel” people, allows immigrants to be demonised, and can even stoke hatred and violence against apparent outsiders. Lynchings in the US were sometimes motivated by stories of victims affected by the crimes of black men, writes Bloom. And as I wrote a few weeks ago, leaders have also manipulated people’s natural empathic tendencies to help justify nuclear strikes, arguing that the lives of a million US soldiers – “our boys” – would be saved by launching atomic bombs against the Japanese people in a distant land.
Empathy can be manipulated to amplify antipathy for people who are different (Credit: Getty Images)
“I don’t understand why you’re so sad. Just forget about it.”
With empathy, one can bridge gaps, forge bonds, and foster compassion. It is the essence of human connection and the antidote to the curse of animosity. Yet, these two powerful forces often coexist within individuals, creating an internal struggle. The curse lies in the inherent tension between animosity and empathy. The struggle to balance these emotions can leave one feeling torn and conflicted. How can one empathize with the pain of others while simultaneously harboring animosity towards them? This curse can have far-reaching implications on both personal and societal levels. Within personal relationships, it can lead to a lack of trust and an inability to fully connect with others. It can hinder personal growth and prevent individuals from experiencing the transformative power of empathy. On a societal level, the curse of animosity and empathy can contribute to conflicts, divisions, and a lack of understanding between different groups. Breaking the curse requires introspection and conscious effort. Recognizing and acknowledging animosity is the first step towards freeing oneself from its grip. By understanding the reasons behind animosity and addressing its underlying causes, one can begin to heal. Embracing empathy allows for greater understanding and fosters compassion. It is through this delicate balance that the curse can be lifted, paving the way for personal growth and harmonious connections with others. In conclusion, the curse of animosity and empathy is a complex struggle that exists within the human psyche. It is the battle between animosity's hostility and empathy's connection. By recognizing this duality and consciously striving for balance, individuals can break free from the curse and cultivate empathy, forging meaningful connections and fostering compassion for a brighter future..
Reviews for "The Role of Empathy in Conflict Prevention: Building Resilient Communities"
1. Sarah - 1 star
I found "A Curse of Animosity and Empathy" to be incredibly disappointing. The plot was meandering and confusing, and I struggled to connect with any of the characters. The author seemed more interested in creating a complex magic system than actually telling a compelling story. Overall, I was left feeling frustrated and unsatisfied. I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for a captivating read.
2. John - 2 stars
I had high hopes for "A Curse of Animosity and Empathy," but it ultimately fell flat for me. The pacing was too slow, and the character development felt forced and inauthentic. The writing style was overly descriptive, making it hard to stay engaged with the story. Additionally, the dialogue was often forced and unnatural, which made it difficult to believe in the interactions between the characters. Overall, I was left feeling unimpressed and uninterested in continuing with the series.
3. Lisa - 2 stars
I struggled to get through "A Curse of Animosity and Empathy." The world-building was excessive and often felt like a never-ending information dump. I found myself skimming through paragraphs of unnecessary details, which interrupted the flow of the story. The characters lacked depth and their actions often seemed illogical. As much as I wanted to enjoy this book, it failed to hold my attention and left me feeling frustrated. I would not recommend it to others.