Should We Be Concerned About Toxic Empathy?

My Concerns

In the last couple of years, it appears that an apprehension about “toxic empathy” has blossomed, raising my concern that one problematic form of empathy is being over-scrutinized without clear differentiation, possibly causing a vital form of empathy to be condemned along with possibly problematic form. The discussions seem to stem from a single 2016 book by psychologist Paul Bloom, “Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.”

Bloom’s arguments emphasize problems that might arise with intense ‘emotional empathy.’ He describes it as “the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does.” This is experiencing the other’s feelings (pain, fear, joy, etc.) within oneself to such a depth that they feel like one’s own. Over-identification with the feelings of another could lead to personal (or empathic) distress in the observer . Bloom is concerned that this causes the observer to hyper-focus upon the single person and what they want, rather than on the larger perspective of all the people affected in the situation. Under these conditions, the observer may feel the urge to immediately relieve the (unpleasant) feelings for that person, while their own rational decision-making is impaired by the similar intense feelings. This could leads them to support irrational actions on the person’s behalf.

My first concern with Bloom’s alarm is that the definition of empathy used in the arguments refers specifically to emotional empathy, but the lack of clear distinction from other forms could mislead readers into thinking that all kinds of empathy are equally problematic, which they are not. Empathy has at least a few different forms, each of which has a vital role for maintaining our social cohesion. As with virtually all human emotions and abilities, we seek an appropriate type and optimal amount of empathy for each situation. The arguments would be more precise if they stated it was a concern for ‘toxic levels of emotional empathy,’ but such a precise framing might make the arguments sound reasonable rather that provocative, and thus not garner as much attention. After all, there can be toxic levels of virtually any good thing.

My second concern is that the fear of toxic levels of emotional empathy is used as an excuse to avoid practicing a more practical form—cognitive empathy—which would compel us to deal with the uncomfortable truths about how a person is being adversely affected by a situation for which we might bear ethical responsibility, whether in terms of being part of the cause or part of the solution. The absence of cognitive empathy hinders us from expanding the circle of care to include more people on this planet we all share with increasing closeness. We need motivation to maintain cooperative connections to one another more than ever, given that our responsibilities for the causes of people’s problems and for their solutions are intertwined.

Definitions

Before I go further, it may be helpful to define and differentiate the related concepts.

There are two main forms of empathy that readily appear in the scientific discussion: emotional empathy and cognitive empathy.

• Emotional empathy is feeling with the person, feeling what we believe to be another’s feelings in our body. We might say something like: “I feel your sadness, your loss, and your hopelessness.” However, because of their completely subjective nature, our feelings will never be exactly the other person’s feelings, even though we might have the impression of being immersed in their experience with them. Emotional empathy is something we have a natural tendency for, no training required, and therefore it does invite caution. This sharing of the experience could be welcomed by the person, or it could actually increase their distress.
• Cognitive empathy is mentally understanding another’s feelings, based on the person’s own description, without necessarily experiencing those feelings in ourselves in that moment. We understand them because we share them as fellow humans. We might say: “I hear you describing sadness, fear, feeling lonely. I sense you need assurance and companionship.” This demonstrates to the person that their expression of feelings and needs has been seen, heard, and understood by us. Cognitive empathy is something we have the capacity for, but skills for this are not typically emphasized in our childhood developmental experiences. It is a capacity that needs to be trained, in order to become a skilled part of our way of engaging with another.
• Sympathy, on the other hand, is having feelings for another person when observing them having an experience. We might say: “I feel sad that you are feeling miserably ill today.” The emphasis is on our own feelings, rather than those of the person we are observing. We can signal to the person that we notice they are having an experience and that it is affecting us without communicating that we actually understand what they are experiencing in that moment. Receiving sympathy may or may not be helpful to the person.
• Finally, compassion is the desire to see another’s well-being improve, and possibly the urge to contribute to that cause personally. The motivation for compassion could come from emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, or sympathy, yet each may lead to different actions and outcomes. In this, I share the concern for compassionate actions based on toxic levels of emotional empathy, as well as on sympathy and its more patronizing form that we call pity. We can indeed make poor decisions when we have lost touch with the reality of the person we are trying to help.

A Better Form

Let me move right to the main point:

I propose that we should aim to develop and readily apply cognitive empathy in our social interactions. In this trained form, while we might still feel some of what we think the other person is feeling, we never lose sight of the fact that their experience is theirs, and our feelings about it are ours.

In cognitive empathy, we seek to understand another’s experience in terms of feelings and the fundamental human needs beneath those feelings. Importantly, rather than the feelings, needs are the ultimate target of our attention, as feelings are merely signposts pointing to those needs. Feelings are important information, but not sufficient to evaluate the strategies for meeting needs and making intelligent decisions by. For this, we need to understand their needs.

Cognitive empathy, as I am describing it, is an interaction. Through this, we communicate back to the person our understanding of their feelings and needs in a way that convinces them they have been seen, heard, and understood by us. This experience of validated understanding naturally produces a therapeutic effect in the person, leading to a mutual felt sense of connection between the two people. The experience of empathy can even help that person open up to evaluating the effectiveness of their own initial strategies and consider other, more effective options.

In this form, it is necessary that we respect (i.e., believe) the person’s testimony as to what they are feeling and what their needs are in that moment. They are the authority as to what their experience is, and we honor that while expecting others to offer us the same.

And, at the same time, we also recognize that they may already be proposing or acting out strategies to meet their needs, which might be effective or might not, which might align with other’s needs or work against them. We differentiate between the person’s needs and the strategies they might be initially drawn to for meeting those needs. We can and should evaluate those strategies based on how effective they are in actually satisfying the person’s needs, and on how well they align with or at least do not interfere with the needs of others in the situation.

Then we can decide how we might support this person in their strategy to meet their need, or propose another that may be more effective while also respecting the needs of others who are affected by the same situation.

By this process we use empathy to understand their experience and intelligently respond to it, without being caught up in their situation ourselves. In the end, we might end up in the kind of rational compassion that Bloom promotes, but by using empathy rather than avoiding it.