Do we need to develop empathy or it comes naturally?
Today I found a book by one of my favorite empathy scholars Frans de Waal, The Age of Empathy. This book opened for me de Waal from the other side - journalistic. Previously, I only read his scientific publications, written dryly, precisely, substantiating, proving, researching, and also using a lot of complex scientific terms. Contrasting with scientific articles, this book, written for the general public, captivates with its simple, yet vivid, succinct language with interesting examples.
“Empathy is our natural state.”
The main point of the book is that empathy is the natural state of any primate (sorry, but this also applies to us 🙂 ), as it supports the optimal survival strategy in the pack. Left alone, it is difficult to survive, but together with relatives it is a completely different matter.
Thus, de Waal to some extent suppresses reflections on empathy as a spiritual and moral quality of a person. He describes everything in much more mundane colors. If you want to survive, learn to interact in a team. If you want to interact well in a team, learn to show empathy. Moreover, empathy is simply inherent in our nature. No magic. Just the wisdom of nature. But what is nature and what is the wisdom of nature - can lead us into more sublime thoughts, but this is the topic of the next article.
The Current Picture
What do we see in today's society? What ideas of modern practical psychologists and teachers can we hear in a school or a psychological office? That the problems with social skills in children and young people have been increasing in the last few years. That empathy and emotional intelligence should be developed in elementary school. Otherwise, by the middle school, the problems will worsen at times. And this is the reality of the modern world. It's pointless to argue with reality. Working with schoolchildren, I observed this from my own experience and based on these facts in my own dissertation.
So how to be? Develop empathy or leave everything at the mercy of nature? Here it is necessary to understand deeper and wider at the same time.
Psychological science is an applied and practical thing. It is based mainly on what we can observe in practice in working with people. This is logical. In applied science, we are accustomed to operating with facts and exploring new ways of interacting with reality in anticipation of certain results. Everything is very simple. If as a result of the experiment we have achieved the desired result, then the hypothesis is justified, and if not, then it is refuted. Further, based on the result of the study, we develop new studies and continue to test new hypotheses and theories, expanding our knowledge and tools of our practical work.
Such an applied approach is important and necessary, as it helps to establish more and more new patterns. We can use such patterns in future studies. Although, applied science, in an attempt to solve the problem, often forgets to look at the problem broadly enough. The relevance of the study is motivated by the presence of a particular problem. not every study goes into deep and diversified reflections on the root of the problem as such. And is it important. It is not for nothing that in English-speaking countries any doctor of science is called a “Doctor of Philosophy”, regardless of the direction of his research.
To expand the point of view, in my opinion, interdisciplinary research serves. In such studies, experts from different fields each offer their knowledge and points of view on a particular issue. Very often it turns out that the same patterns have been established in different areas of knowledge. They are just called differently. Despite the fact that in the 21st century, areas of science at the intersection of disciplines are growing, but this is still not happening as systematically as we would like. For example, while working on my research, which includes the fields of psychology, pedagogy, computer science (in particular, the direction of virtual reality), pediatrics, I was faced with the need to constantly check the terminology and choose how I would call one or another concept. Such separation can be traced not only in science. People try to put everything on the shelves and systematize, although life is one. Again, I will not delve into this direction, as this is the topic of a separate article.
And in this article, I want to clarify a simple question: what to do to develop empathy or do nothing?
Frans de Waal described in his book systems of animal life that follow nature and its wisdom without constructing concepts or philosophizing craftily. Babies learn by repeating what adults do. Yes, in the animal kingdom, instincts govern the behavior of individuals. But why then can they be friendly within the pack? Why does it happen automatically for them? Why don't they need to learn kindness, but we do? Why are simple truths obvious to them that showing support for other members of the pack helps them survive. It turns out that kindness, empathy, mutual assistance are also our nature. Moreover, these are our basic qualities.
But we've gone far enough. Therefore, the answer to our question is simple: we cannot give everything at the mercy of chance. We need to explore ways and create tools to help develop empathy and social skills, as we have already lost touch with nature and are unable to live intuitively and wisely. Maybe it's worth watching our smaller brothers?
Hugs!
With warmth,
Ekaterina
Comments