Empathy has always been a prolific source of debate in sociology. As early as Weber's time (Erfurt 1864 – Munich 1920), there was talk of "empathic understanding," a fundamental interactional process that allows individuals to comprehend and interpret the actions of others from a perspective that is not internal to the observer but to the actor.
He argued that the sociologist's task is precisely to attempt to enter the perspective of the individuals involved to better understand the subjective intention behind their actions. For Weber, the sociologist must move away from neutrality and implement " sympathetic understanding," according to which the recipient of information must maintain an attitude of openness and sensitivity that facilitates the mutual exchange of communication.
The self as a social reflection
But Weber wasn't the only one: Charles Horton Cooley (Ann Arbor, 1864–1929) also developed theories essential to the evolution of the concept of empathy. Cooley argued that the formation of an individual's self-concept is particularly influenced by others' reactive perceptions of them. Each individual develops a self-concept based on how they believe others see them.
Hence the development of the mirror reflection theory, which emphasizes how individuals are compelled to observe themselves "reflected" in the eyes of others during any type of social interaction. Therefore, the sociologist introduced the concept of "symbolic imagination," which refers to the ability to empathize with the existential experience of others and see the world from their perspective. This ability is fundamental to understanding how others perceive us and to developing a personal concept of the self. For Cooley, the self does not arise from individual reflection but develops primarily in relation to others and the responses we receive from the outside.
Empathy in Contemporary Culture
It must be admitted, however, that while empathy was once considered a healthy principle that encouraged the spread of compassion and understanding, things have changed today. The proper dissemination of the importance of this human feeling has meant that—as with anything else that has rapidly expanded socially—its negative aspects have been shed light on just as much as its positive ones.
In contemporary culture, much space has been given to the empathic experience, so much so that the progressive evolution of this feeling has created fertile ground for a particular attitude of almost occult elitism among anyone convinced they possess it.
The emphasis on empathy in recent years has grown to the point of creating a sort of discernment alert for those who call themselves empaths. New empaths leverage constant accessibility and their own bottomless resources, enacting a series of prescribed and devout behaviors to adhere to a way of thinking and living reminiscent of a veritable sect. Hence their celebration of empathy as the ultimate solution to social issues, encouraging and giving more space to the emotions of others, elevating them above all else.
Empathy: A Critique of the New Social Elitism
This abstract focus on empathic feeling has created a paradox : instead of promoting the intrinsic nature of human experiences through understanding, "empathy elitists" find themselves adhering to a performative version of it, thus giving little space to the true sharing of genuine emotional impulses and much importance to the projection of an image of concern and compassion, succumbing to a highly toxic need for external approval. This version of empathy not only brings down anyone who predisposition dances on the edge of superficiality, but also leads to the absence of conviviality between people , the primary basis of any social structure.
Furthermore, the polarization between "empathy elitists" and "true empaths" excludes and creates hatred towards a third category: the non-/low-empaths . People who fall into this category are subjected to stinging criticism because they are considered not up to the level of those who possess (or performatively possess) the ability to immortalize themselves in another individual's life experience. But this is not the case: too often, the amount of empathy a person possesses is thought to be indicative of goodness or evil. However, there are many "not-good" people who are perfectly capable of feeling empathy and aware of what is morally right and wrong.
A Critique of Empathy. Conclusions
The point is simple: being a good person is a choice; the amount of empathy one possesses is not. Empathy is a virtuous ability that bridges gaps and ensures fluid connections between people. However, it's important to critically examine the rise of a sense of performance over the consistency of feelings, especially to avoid falling into the trap of imitation and to avoid—wherever possible—the cruel social circumscription of those who perceive things differently, with a stoic detachment that isn't harmful. If we want to avoid the experience of finding Sartrean hell within others, it's crucial today to remember that empathy without inclusion creates an imbalance that our already highly fragmented generation absolutely cannot afford to fuel.
Sara Ricci
References
- Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society: A Treatise on Comprehensive Sociology (Vol. 1-2). Tübingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
- Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
