Tuesday, October 11, 2005
long vs. short lengthscale interactions
Something that's puzzled me, and about which I've probably commented earlier, is, somewhat flippantly, why knowing something and experiencing something aren't the same. For example, if your child were killed in a bombing, you'd likely engage in activities that helped to numb your pain: withdrawal, crying, drinking, travel, political activism, whatever. But just our knowing that this happens to all too many people these days doesn't affect the rest of us that much. We go on living our lives more or less as usual because, after all, it hasn't "happened to us", a way of thinking which strikes me as somewhat tautological. It didn't "happen to us" because we insist that it didn't. But how can these things not happen "to us", since we exist and they happen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In reflecting on this posting, I wonder if the notion of long v. short lengthscale might not be the best metric or rationale for empathy. The role of media or impact of sights and sounds, for example, has a powerful effect on triggering emotions-- how many of us could not help but be disturbed by the CNN images of death and destruction (followed by allegations of mayhem and mischief) during and in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita? And yet, people react or emote in different ways, and in varying degrees, to the same set of events.
Perhaps length of interaction, and sights and sounds, are only a trigger, and not the source of empathic response. Perhaps there is something more latent in our subconscious-- Innate personality differences? Childhood memories? Age and widsdom (relatedly, Freudian notions of ego and id?) And yet, what explains the "illogical" random acts of kindness of seemingly unconnected strangers?
Two recent and more specific examples come to mind. The first is the rationale for individuals to aid in humanitarian efforts. Certain people may be more drawn to volunteer, supposedly those who possess highly intuitive and feeling traits, (counterposed against traits of "sensing" and "thinking" which have been deemd more common personality traits). This example is perhaps somewhat deterministic in "assigning" responses based upon innate biological/human differences.
The second example is perhaps more culturally grounded. Recently, a nonprofit organization in Belgium
UN child agency Unicef launches an ad campaign in which cartoon legends, a village of happy Smurfs are carpet bombed by war planes. Only one baby smurf is left alive, wailing for what once was. This is a shocking and controversial attempt to shake a complacent public into supporting fund-raising efforts for UNICEF.
See: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4334086.stm
The rationale is that the general public in the wealthy West has grown weary and inured of images of suffering Third World communities; on the other hand, their heretofore fond and innocent childhood associations of Smurfs, counterpoised against unexpected violence, is an immediate jolt to the senses and will awaken a sense of injustice.
Is empathy more a function of nature or of culture? Knowledge can be socially engineered, but can or *should* empathy also be so engineered?
Are you saying that, even for the more sensitive types, that seeing the video images of Katrina victims or of disemboweled Smurfs is necessary to prompt empathy and action, whereas just reading the newspaper wouldn't do it as well?
Post a Comment