In reading Jamison’s essay concerning Morgellons disease, a question of the limits of empathy arose. In the context of mental or physical illness, is it possible for an outsider free of the illness to fully empathize with the victim, or just sympathize with them? If not, what factors limit an outsider’s ability to empathize with them? Researching this question led the research group to two scholarly sources:  Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge by Nancy Nyquist Potter and The Challenge of Morgellons Disease by Caroline S. Koblenzer MD. The first source accounts for foundations of empathy and what is needed for one to open themselves to experiencing it, and the second source provides the perspective of a medical professional in their dealings with Morgellons patients.

In Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge Potter argues that empathy “allows us to anticipate the behavior of others, [and is also] morally significant” (Potter, 4). Potter claims that empathy is cultivated through an amalgamation of influences including psychological responses, our imaginations, projection of ourselves into fictional scenarios from books or other stories, a care for the wellbeing of others, and the capacity to recognize certain emotions in others (Potter, 5). However, Potter also explains that the most basic foundations of empathy are present even in infants with undeveloped psychological faculties; with the empathetic responses manifesting themselves in facial mimicry (an innate response). Potter also uses testimony from Greek philosophers to demonstrate that empathy is a virtue that must be developed over time; worked out like a muscle in order to become stronger. Finally, Potter suggests that in order to strengthen one’s empathy, they must travel the world in an effort to knock down any perceived barriers between an ingroup of people from their culture, and an outgroup of those from other cultures (Potter, 14).

In The Challenge of Morgellons Disease discusses the behaviors of Morgellons patients from the first hand account of a medical professional. Koblenzer explains that patients who become obsessed with finding an explanation for their affliction will “‘create’ a ‘cause’ for their symptoms, which makes logical sense to them, and with which they can be  comfortable” (Koblenzer). Koblenzer also states that medical professionals are “familiar” with the delusions that Morgellons patients sometimes have. Koblenzer equates the delusions of Morgellons patients to being similar to “bipolar, paranoia, schizophrenia, depression, and abuse of drugs”. Nevertheless, Koblenzer explains that in order to help the patients, dermatologists must validate the potentially ludicrous claims of the patients in an attempt to get them to take medication which has proven effective in treating the disease.

Works Cited:

Potter, Nancy Nyquist. “Empathic Foundations of Clinical Knowledge.” Oxford Handbooks Online, May 2013, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.013.0021.

Koblenzer, Caroline S. “The Challenge of Morgellons Disease.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 55, no. 5, 1 Nov 2006, pp. 920-922. Science Direct, PlumX.

Jon Ronson’s expose entitled “God That Was Awesome” discusses the aftermath of Justine Sacco’s racially insensitive Twitter post, wherein she was met with the loss of her job and a worldwide social media attack ultimately comparable to a public stoning.

The controversy began when Justine Sacco, a PR worker, made a post on her personal Twitter profile which read, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (Ronson, 68). Seemingly the moment the post hit the web, Twitter users everywhere launched a heated backlash against Sacco for this racist remark. The severity of this backlash was truly remarkable as it ultimately obliterated the positive reputation of Sacco’s personal and professional lives, and fatally wounded any future career prospects. A crushed Sacco pleaded to Ronson that she meant her comment as a satirical joke, which she intended to “make fun of [the] bubble [that Americans live in]” which relieves them from thinking about plights which “exist” in the world outside their borders (Ronson, 73). Ronson claims that any reasonable person would realize the fact that Sacco’s comment was a joke, but instead of disregarding it as bad humor, the world unanimously chose to indict Sacco as if she had committed an injustice which demanded rectification. Ronson compares this harsh treatment of Sacco to the conduct of Texas Judge Ted Poe, a man who chose to serve outlandish punishments intended to ridicule, dishearten, and embarrass the accused. Despite Ronson’s opinion that the Judge’s actions are cruel and unusual, and makes the his court into a “theater of the absurd” (Ronson, 84) which flies in the face of punishments befitting their crimes. However, the testimony of Mike Hubacek, sentenced to humiliating punishment by Judge Poe after committing vehicular manslaughter, contests that the severity of the Judge’s seemingly absurd punishment gave him a purpose and a means by which to prevent others from making the mistakes he did.

This piece begs the question of whether or not the public has a right to act as judge jury and executioner in instances as seemingly trivial as Sacco’s Tweet, as well as why this public behavior seems to be completely devoid of empathy. Social media has fundamentally changed the world. It has empowered individuals with a globally heard voice on any issue imaginable. However, as Sacco’s misfortune proves, sometimes this voice can be used for evil. The comments denouncing Sacco began as well intentioned rejections of racism, but soon escalated to scathing remarks devoid of empathy and intended solely for destructive as opposed to constructive purposes. In addressing the peculiarity of this social phenomenon, Ronson points to the concept of cognitive dissonance to explain the decision of Sacco’s aggressors to dehumanize her in order to feel justified in their zealous attacks. The most apt indication of this zeal without regard for Sacco’s humanity can be found in the words of a common Twitter troll describing her globally dealt ridicule: “God that was awesome” (Ronson, 70)

Works Cited:

Ronson, Jon. So you’ve been publicly shamed. Riverhead Books, 2016.

In the film “A Time to Kill”, defense attorney Jake Brigance attempts to invoke empathy from the jury during his closing statement to convey Carl Lee’s innocence. Brigance asks the jury to close their eyes and imagine the brutal rape and torture of a young girl; the horrible fate that befell the daughter of defendant Carl Lee, and thus drove him to murder the two aggressors. For the majority of Brigance’s statement, the attorney attempts to invoke a real sense of empathy from the jury through his description of this young hypothetical female victim, but is is only able to invoke an apparent empathy. That is, however, until the final sentence of his statement, with which Brigance is able to transform the apparent empathy of the jury into overpowering real empathy, all by uttering the phrase, “Now imagine she’s white”.

Brigance begins his statement to the jury by admitting to them that in his desperation, he must stray from a composed and prepared monologue one might expect from a defense attorney. Brigance tells the jury that they all have a duty “under God” to seek the truth “not with our eyes, and not with our mind or fear or hate (…) or prejudice, but with our hearts” (TK , 2:15:32 – 2:15:39). This statement plants the seeds for an appeal to empathy by appealing to emotion. Empathy is a invoked through an emotional understanding of another’s situation. Brigance opens his statement by conditioning the jury to make a decision not with their minds and rationality, but with their heart and the emotions it conveys to them.

Brigance asks the jury to “imagine” a little girl coming home and being brutally attacked on her way. Brigance spares no horrific detail of the altercation, asking the jury to imagine the girl being “dragged into a nearby field [her attackers] raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure with vicious thrusts” unsuccessfully hanging, and then “pitching her [body] over the edge [of a bridge], (…) [and leaving] her raped, beaten, broken body” (TK 2:16:46 – 2:2:19:31). Through his telling of this violent narrative, Brigance attempts to elicit a visceral reaction of empathy for the victim, and disgust for the crime committed against her. In the middle of his story, he asks the jury if they “see” the little girl, essentially attempting to convert the jury into Aristotle’s Judicious Spectator figure; a witness to a situation who uses empathy in order to more keenly understand the mental and emotional state of the person involved in that situation. During Brigance’s tale, many of the women on the jury are visibly distraught and emotionally regretful for the poor girl. However, the fact of the matter is that at this time the women on the jury are shaken by the details of Brigance’s story due to their abrasive nature, and their hypothetical implications, not due to their actual pertinence in reality to Carl Lee’s daughter. This is due to a social disconnect between the white members of the jury and the black victim who they are meant to feel empathy for, but don’t due to this social inhibition. Essentially, while Brigance’s story has effectively roused the empathy of the jury, this is an apparent sense of empathy is without a target / subject for whom to feel for, due to the fact that the jury is incapable of empathizing with the real victim a black girl, and the defendant, her father.

However,  at the very end of his statement, Brigance is able to harness the jury’s apparent empathy and turn it into real empathy for the actual victim and defendant, all by uttering one phrase: “Now imagine she’s white” (TK , 2:20:21). In his delivery of this line, Brigance is able to break down the barrier between white and black, and enable the jury to feel real empathy for the real victim of the crime by invoking their sense of shame, and as a result, their sense of real empathy. Brigance relies on the tried and true tendency for the whites of the  to protect and empathize with only those of their own race. Furthermore, by asking the jury to imagine the victim not as a black, or even a hypothetical girl, but as a white one, he is able to invoke within the jury a sense of not only real empathy for the victim of the crime, but also a deep sense of shame at their upholding of the racial double standard which was the sole impediment to justice.