Before launching this blog about empathy and stereotypes of certain groups, I don't think there is any argument that one category of people, as shown by their attitudes, behavior and lifestyles, are clearly lacking in empathy, which is commonly known as the ability to put oneself in another's position, to feel something of what that person is experiencing, and to act accordingly. I'm talking about people whose acts and attitudes indicate signs that they are sociopaths or psychopaths, whether these people have been officially diagnosed as either, or not, or who have similar DSM psychiatric conditions (antisocial personality disorder, etc.), whether diagnosed or not. These are the criminals whose acts ruin people's happiness, well-being, reputations, their safety, or their lives, and who enjoy hurting people.
Over a week ago, I was online and was exploring a Facebook page that was set up to link to the website on which it is based and which deals with cultivating a culture of empathy and to the study of empathy in indivuals and groups of people. I was most struck by a study that was called, "Highly religious people are less likely to be motivated by empathy than non-religious people," "Very religious people are less likely to help a person in need," and "Studies indicate that highly religious people are less compassionate than others." What did the study mean by "very religious" or "highly religious," anyway? And how do social scientists come to these conclusions?
As a person who has, indeed, seen, encountered, and heard about many attitudes and behaviors exhibited by people of faith which I would not call compassionate or empathic, I can understand how social scientists have come up with such study results. For I think that the principles and beliefs of people of faith and the ever-human tendency to misunderstand God's love and God's grace, makes it easy to be motivated by the Law of God in the attempt to carry out one's responsibilities to God and one's neighbor. Being motivated by the Ten Commandments (which are meant to be a guide to the behavior of the person of faith) instead of by the grace of God and drawing on His power to live, makes trying to keep the Law oppressive and chokes the ability to care for others or to feel with them. This is called legalism. So I think, in this way, these study results do make sense. None of us who call ourselves people of faith, me included, are immune to falling into this trap. Legalism is always a temptation as grace is countercultural, unnatural, and challenging to wrap our minds around. Jesus denounced and lambasted legalism more than anything else, especially in the religious leaders of this day, because of their positions of power and influence.
But what does "very religious" mean and does this refer to devotion to any religion? I see no answers from these study articles. Yet history, media and personal experience should tells us that countless people of faith, "highly religious" people, have and continue to, live lives and show attitudes marked by empathy and compassion. It is people of faith who have led the way in abolishing slavery, who have rescued many abandoned babies and children, who often lead the way in fighting world poverty on many different fronts, visiting prisoners, and reaching out to needy people in countless ways. It's people of faith who are motivated to dedicate some or most of their lives as selfless missionaries, often going to places no one else will go to and serving people no one else wants to deal with. Do these social scientists know their history? And as has been true of the history of people of faith and caring social action, remains true today.
There's another group of people who are widely considered to be short on empathy. These are people who have autism spectrum disoders (ASDs), whether this means the more severe, classic autism or the higher-functioning subtypes of Asperger's Syndrome or Pervasive Development Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). In fact, the "empathy" deficit is part of the diagnostic criteria in evaluating people for autism. This is because having an autism mind hinders people from easily seeing things from the viewpoint of another person; this is called the "theory of mind." But this "theory of mind" is is actually a matter of thinking and cognition. Is this "impaired social understanding" incompatible with the ability to put oneself in another's place, to feel with them and to act on this, which is the common defintion of empathy? Young children and, certainly, animals, do not have the mental capacity to mentally comprehend the viewpoints of others or have a "theory of mind." But who will question the capacity that many small children and many animals have, to have and show compassion? For example, today on TV, a moving video was aired; it was of a small child comforting her upset father, an athlete, whose team had lost the game. Studies have shown that many babies do what is called an "empathy cry," crying when they hear another baby cry. There is a blogspot, called Autism and Empathy, which is dedicated to using stories written by people in the autism community, to undo the myth that autism precludes empathy in people or that autistic people are incapable of having or showing empathy. You can visit this blogspot and read the stories there:
http://autismandempathy.blogspot.com.
And I have noticed another thing. These two groups of people, people of faith and people with ASDs, often seen as not having empathy, often themselves do not receive or are treated with empathy! I can understand how many people, hurt by the hateful words or actions of some legalists (especially with authority), who scream about their moral beliefs, not bothering to show love or grace to people in the process. But society often has no tolerance for anyone, no matter how gracious or empathic in attitude or lifestyle, who stands up for their moral principles and take unpopular stands. Jesus Himself always told people the truth but He always did so with love and grace. And yet, He ended up being nailed to a wooden cross, at the hands of religious leaders and Roman authorities. For the truth often hurts, no matter how graciously it is delivered. And so it's easy to punish the messenger of bad news. For example, take the hot-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. There are Biblical teachings, which are also found in the New Testament, about God's recognition of life from conception and Old AND New Testament teachings (from the mouth of Jesus Himself), marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, many people of faith strongly believe that abortion and same-sex marriage are very wrong. It's not because they don't care about women in need or hate homosexuals (those who do are among the extremists); they would be the first to denounce crimes against abortion providers or homosexuals. But many people don't realize this and have no empathy for anyone with strong convictions based on religious beliefs. Period. And in the same way, society often sees the behavior of people with ASDs that often are a response to different wiring, not character and conclude that because many may not be able to show empathy at the right time and in the right place, that people with ASDS lack empathy. But just because people with ASDs may not always show empathy does not mean not having empathy and showing it, even in unconventional ways.
I'm not going to go into the mention of other people groups who considered as having an empathy deficit. The point is that no group of people should be stereotyped.
