If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Ever since the healthcare debate started, I’ve been thinking about my own beliefs on the issues. All of these thoughts turn to a first question: “What is compassion?”
Compassion is a complicated term. It’s one of those shortcut terms that are used by everybody as a way to gather together a large number of complicated-yet-related ideas together. So the first thing I did was try to tweeze apart the different ideas that are compressed within the way we use the term.
In the dictionary, compassion is described as the ability to feel or share the pain another feels. This single idea is at the core of the term. It’s closely related to “sympathy” and “empathy” in the sense that it’s an ability to understand and relate to the suffering of another person.
The next related term is “responsibility” because while compassion describes the ability to feel and understand the suffering of another person, it doesn’t necessarily imply a responsibility. So this leads to question number two: “What responsibility do I have to help a stranger who is suffering?”
After responsibility comes “charity” because even if I don’t have a responsibility, I may still help a person. Charity is another complicated term because it can imply an unsavory power relationship, a condescending “aid” given to a “lesser person”. Thus the third question: “How can I help a person while still respecting them as an individual?”
Segue!
All of this also has a theme running beneath it: if we are a nation of individuals, united to a common purpose, then what should I expect my fellow citizens should do for themselves and where do we need to work together? For example, slavery was a tragic problem that no single person brought into being and no single person could fix. The interaction of the individual and of the collective is a critical issue. In a nation of individuals we get question four: “How does the implicit and explicit sovereignty of the individual effect the prior three questions (asked of an individual about an assumed face-to-face situation)?”
“This isn’t personal, it’s business.”
There’s also some interesting questioning that sits next to this main line of thinking. Being able to “feel the pain another suffers” means being involved. Doctors, lawyers, and even managers in corporate America are encouraged to keep a distance. “Science” means keeping a distance. Thus, compassion is discouraged in nearly every professional arena in which we can be employed.
Additionally, there’s the question of how compassion and gender are related. When Bill Clinton said “I feel your pain” there was great discussion about how that was a “feminine” gesture. Similarly, when “compassionate conservatism” was discussed by George W. Bush, there was similar commentary. (In neither case was the description of this as “feminine” negative but instead applauded them for recognizing “both sides” of human nature.)
I’ve read a few books on these topics. I’d be happy to take suggestions, if anybody has any to offer!
4 Comments
One of my biggest issues with being a manager is I could not remain distant. I was unable to make the tough calls without feeling remorse. I was depressed for days when I had to let an employee go.
It might be worthwhile to think about a few other questions:
What is the opposite of compassion?
What are the implications of that emotion?
How does those additional facets alter what you’ve already mentioned?
I’m skeptical that everything has an opposite. This is probably the case here.
If I say “emotionally numb”, I may capture the inability to feel but that isn’t the opposite of being able to share in the pain of another.
I could say “indifferent” but that may simply be situational or only in specific situations.
Both are sorta kinda opposites but aren’t really opposites. I think “clinical” is as close as you get but even that has other meanings which make the antonym match an imperfect one.
No, we don’t always need opposites, especially when trying to describe the nuances of an emotion that would b strictly introverted and (I’d guess) egocentric.
Yeah, I didn’t mean to suggest that you restrict yourself to binary thought, more that it might help you think about what compassion isn’t to get an idea regarding what it is. You’re talking about an emotion/reaction that probably wouldn’t exist outside of any social organism, since it implies group concern. Does this mean lack of compassion is antisocial or asocial? (Ex: You can’t feel compassion for yourself, it has to exist in regard to an external object. Q.E.D.)
You could also think of compassion as a subset of “group concern”. Shanidar 1 is often pointed out as an example of group concern among early homonids.
Post a Comment