Verified by 
Prior to reading about conservatives' opposing Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, I'd never heard the term empathy used pejoratively. In fact, as a therapist, I'd always seen empathy as one of the most valuable things I had to offer my clients. For one thing, being able to accurately enter into their world and appreciate their feelings is crucial to establishing rapport. For another, empathy has enabled me to understand something of their essence: who they are, and their very way of being. I honestly don't know how I could be of much therapeutic use to them otherwise--if, that is, I weren't somehow able to grasp the core of their inner experience.
In working with couples, too, I've come to see empathy as closely linked to achieving therapeutic goals. In fact, one of my principal interventions is to assist each partner to empathically enter into the other's unique reality. What seems to most help couples overcome distressing problems isn't altering their behaviors as such, but positively changing their fundamental perception of each another. Through developing a greater understanding--and acceptance--of the other's nature and concerns (brought about through each spouse's increased empathy toward the other), their problems aren't so much resolved as they are transcended.
So, getting back to GOP attacks on Sotomayor, I've had to ask myself how could the so-called "loyal opposition" (which Republicans now proclaim themselves) actually use Sotomayor's alleged empathy against her? How might her empathy actually be seen as a cause for rejecting her nomination to the Supreme Court? And how could her opponents criticize President Obama himself for making empathy a key criterion for selecting her in the first place?
I've reviewed many definitions of the word to see whether empathy might have a "dark side" of which I'd previously been unaware. Or whether--on the contrary--those opposed to her nomination have been distorting the various meanings of the term in pursuit of some political advantage.
Most definitions of empathy revolve around the ability to vicariously experience the feelings, thoughts, and attitudes of another. And for me, all compassion derives from such a capability. Rarely, for example, do we empathize with insects, for unless we have an unusual reverence for (and resonance with) all living creatures, it's extremely difficult for us to identify with them. And being unable to do so allows us comfortably to view them as "pests"--and stomp on (or spray) them at will. Which, more generally, is to say that those with whom we can't identify--or empathize--are thereby at greater risk of being treated inhumanely by us. Similar to Timothy McVeigh, who labeled all the children massacred in the Oklahoma City bombing as simply "collateral damage," if we're insensitive to others' grief or suffering, we're all the more likely to cause--or exacerbate--that pain.
But it's imperative to add that being capable of having empathy even for, say, a Hitler doesn't in any way require us to minimize his brutal crimes against humanity. There's nothing inherent about empathy that dictates a condoning response to that which is clearly wrong, villainous, or evil. True, as a child Hitler may have been subject to constant physical and emotional abuse. And before he rose to power, his life may have been replete with experiences of failure and rejection. But being able to empathically understand just why he became such a monster in no way obliges us to see him as less than a monster, or to exonerate his execrable behaviors. In fact, our ability to sympathize with his past, while at the same time standing in moral judgment on his preternatural cruelty, is not only possible but essential--particularly since in deciding on his fate we're also called upon to empathize with the millions who were innocent victims of his heinous acts.
Bringing all this back to Sotomayor, whose Hispanic origins have led her critics to raise doubts about her ability to disinterestedly uphold the Constitution, it's important to note that she has unequivocally stated that her final commitment as jurist cannot be to Latinos (though she may be ideally suited to appreciate their history and experience), but to the rule of Law. Certainly to date there's nothing about her capacity for empathy that has been demonstrated to interfere with her ability to carry out her professional obligations. All that might be said is that given certain extenuating circumstances her empathy might incline her to consider making a more "measured" decision than otherwise. And doing so would, I believe, promote a judgment not simply just, but merciful as well.
To George Lakoff (Professor at University of California, Berkeley), empathy involves both identifying with others' pain and understanding its socio-economic origins. Further, as he puts it, such empathic feeling--"especially toward those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed"--is "at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of [America's] values, which [constitute] the basis of our sense of justice" (see "Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy"). Typically, when President Obama has addressed the subject, he's implied that the worthiest "objects" of empathic concern are the weakest and most vulnerable among us. To him, these are the people whom we as a democratic society have the moral--and social--responsibility to protect, care for, and empower. Moreover, in The Audacity of Hope, he explicitly refers to empathy as the basis of his moral code and how he comprehends the Golden Rule.
Two of Lakoff's books--Moral Politics and The Political Mind--discuss the close affiliation between empathy and democracy; and Lakoff also cites Lynn Hunt (Professor at UCLA), who in her Inventing Human Rights similarly expands on this connection. If, in fact, this country's democracy is based on a society of equal rights and privileges, then it's empathy that enables jurists to make judgments that safeguard these fundamental ideals. It's empathy that sensitizes them to the oppression, discrimination, or deprivation which serves to undermine--both individually and socially--that which is fair and equitable.
Given that Sotomayor's extensive record as jurist doesn't validate anything like the radical liberalism (or even "racism") she's been accused of by such right-wing ideologues as Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Charles Krauthammer, the question is what about her alleged empathy is so threatening as to lead them to distort the basic meaning of the word to bolster their case against her?
The answer should be fairly obvious. Those aligned with the right--especially the far right--see Sotomayor as placing their core values in jeopardy. Obviously, if she is viewed as somehow standing for the downtrodden and disadvantaged (particularly since she is herself from humble origins), she might well be expected to act in ways that could alter the power structure that conservatives are so desperate to conserve. (That is, after all, why they're called "conservatives.") The possibility of her using her influence to create, for example, a larger social safety net for those least likely to survive without some form of governmental assistance is feared as representing a strong voice against the individuals and institutions (or "military-industrial complex") that, till recently, have clearly controlled this country's direction.
In a sense, it all comes down to Obama's stating during his presidential campaign that he'd like America's wealth to be more broadly shared--that is, to do something about the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. To many Republicans, this was interpreted as an almost traitorous call to Socialism. But Obama's words were meant only to suggest that the freewheeling and under-regulated form of Capitalism that had become so prominent was actually eroding not only the middle class but the whole notion of this country as a land of equal opportunity. To quote Lakoff again, "President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all."
But unfortunately, many conservatives have taken to re-defining empathy as not about justice at all, but individual bias. To them, empathy is about reacting to the facts of a case emotionally rather than logically. Although I've argued that empathy as such can have only a salutary effect on reason, these GOP spokespersons have reframed the term only to stigmatize it, to remove from it almost any remnant of legality or justice. In their eyes, empathy is subjective, prejudiced, irrational, and undisciplined--and therefore hardly to be trusted. And, following this line of strained political reasoning, it ill befits any Supreme Court justice to be "afflicted" with it (!).
In the end, however, it's crucial to realize, as Lakoff notes, that it's empathy that enables us to become aware of the social and systemic problems that plague us--as well as how judicial decisions are likely to effect the most vulnerable of us. Or, as Wilmer J. Leon III (Ph.D. in political science) puts it (see "Empathy vs. Ideology on the Court?"), "One's ability to use their own experience as a basis for understanding the similar experiences of others assists a person in making fair, just and rational decisions."
So if we're to honor and respect not just the law but our own humanity as well, we must recognize that we cannot accomplish this without empathy. Absent the capacity--and willingness--to vicariously experience all the ramifications of our decision-making, we'll forfeit our qualifications to defend that which, ultimately, we cherish most about our democracy.
Note: For readers who might be interested in checking out my other writings for Psychology Today, please click here.
© 2009 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
---I invite readers to join me on Facebook, and to follow my miscellaneous musings on Twitter. Both sites provide links to my posts whenever I publish a new one.
