Celebrating the gift of empathy

Jeff Nelson, courtesy of  Coffeehouse Contemplative.

A perfect Sunday morning read: The Gift, by Jeff Nelson. The gift of which he speaks is empathy, and as I read his post my own empathy welled up for Jeff, and tears came to my eyes:

One of my father's most treasured memories of when I was maybe 3 years old was a moment when he was seated as his desk, the burdens of the world weighing heavily on his shoulders, and I climbed into his lap and just cuddled with him. I apparently sensed what he needed, and I provided it as best as a toddler knew how to do.

I'm glad for that story, and I've mostly been glad for this gift that I've apparently been given. I don't really brag about it, because I don't think it's something brag-worthy. It's not only the nature of the gift, you understand. It's also that I haven't always been proud of it, or wanted it.

I was the kid on the playground who got upset when watching two classmates fight. I was the sensitive guy in high school who was the safe confidant for those around him. I was the guy basically holding pastoral counseling sessions in his dorm room in college, because I was always the good listener, the dependable one who'd be there for others in a pinch, the one who'd defer to other's stated desires at the expense of his own.

A guy like me can get taken advantage of fairly easily. I can point back to many instances over the years when my needs took a backseat to those of others. But people saw this as a commendable thing. They'd even offer compliments and reassurances to that effect. At times, there's a fine line between sincere appreciation and ass-kissing, but I took it as a reaffirmation that I'd been given something. A gift. The type of gift that a good pastor needs.

This is what I was told over and over. "You're such a great listener." "You're always there when I need something." "Finally, someone I can trust."

Read more:
 

A stealth campaign against scientific validation of a more egalitarian and humanistic political order

Glenn W. Smith’s post today at FDL highlights one of those recurring controversies between liberals and conservatives. 

This one goes deep. It’s about the human capacity for empathy over against our need for aggression in defending our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

It reminds me of the debate that erupted in the 60s and early 70s between authentic anthropologists, who argued that human beings were as wired for cooperation as they were for competition, and pseudo-anthropologist Robert Ardrey, who theorized in “The Territorial Imperative” that we were all innate killers.

Smith is taking on NY Times columnist David Brooks, the modern day incarnation of Robert Ardrey:

New York Times columnist David Brooks has long been engaged in a stealth campaign against the discoveries of science – especially neuroscience – that validate a more egalitarian and humanistic political order.

Brooks has skillfully branded himself as the Pundit Who Will Tell You About New Findings in the Human Sciences. But in Brooks’ hands all the new science somehow becomes justification for top-down, conservative and even authoritarian government. It’s all just a magical confirmation of Hobbes.

Smith continues:

Conservative political philosophy is built upon the Hobbesian premise that only an elite authority can keep us from killing one another. So, when the human sciences are discovering that we are hard wired for empathy and cooperation – not self-interest and war – Brooks & Company move into action.

They first attack empathy, misrepresenting it as some kind of hippy conceit that would lead us to a peaceful utopia if we’d only pay attention. This is Brooks’ ploy in last week’s column, “The Limits of Empathy.”

Read more: