Empathy – Inherent or Constructed?

As this class revolves around the role of empathy in every aspects of one’s daily life, it raises the question of why people’s level of empathy are drastically different. Thus, the question raised is whether empathy is inherent or constructed, and if constructed, how does empathy develop? These differences of empathy are the main reasons to some of the conflicts occurring throughout the world this very minute. This topic piques my interest, for I see these different levels of being able to empathize within my friend groups, so I wish to understand the nuances behind the factors that facilitate the development of empathy whether in terms of biological or environmental processes. Furthermore, this knowledge in itself will make people more aware of why some people are less empathetic than others.

Works CIted

1. Ainsworth, M. S., M. C. Blehar, E. Waters, and S. Wall. 1978. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. McDonald, Nicole M., and Daniel N. Messinger. “The Development of Empathy: How, When, and Why?” www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/emot/McDonald-Messinger_Empathy%20Development.pdf.
3. Robinson, J. L., C. Zahn-Waxler, and R. N. Emde. 1994. “Patterns of development in early empathic behavior: Environmental and child constitutional influences.” Social
   Development.
4. Zahn-Waxler, C., M. Radke-Yarrow, E. Wagner, and M. Chapman. 1992a. “Development of concern for others.” Developmental Psychology.
5. Zhou, Q., N. Eisenberg, S. H. Losoya, R. A. Fabes, M. Reiser, I. K. Guthrie, B. C. Murphy, A. J.Cumberland, and S. A. Shepard. 2002. “The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children’s empathy related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study.” Child Development.

Inspired by a podcast that introduces a revolutionary approach used in a town named Geel in Belgium, the question that leads this research paper is to what extent are emotions the key catalysts to problems? Initially, our question was related to how people are inclined to identify something as a problem when a certain situation does not fit his/her idea of normal? And, thus, whether normal is a universal definition or more of a personal definition. The two scholarly articles that will help answer this question are Thomas Osborne’s “What is a Problem?” and “Norms for Experiencing Emotions in Different Cultures: Inter- and Intra-national Differences” by Michael Eid and Ed Diener.

In the “What is a Problem?” Osborne introduces multiple French philosophers and their stance on the concept of problematology. One of the first philosophers Osborne discusses is Gilles Deleuze and his work in Difference and Repetition. In this book, Deleuze even defines stupidity as being able to construct false problems. This forces readers to question whether we should consider mental illness a problem in the first place. Perhaps, our inability to accept people who do not fit the definition of “normal” is what labels mental illness as a problem. The second philosopher Osborne brings up is Henry Canguilhem. His ideas on the definition of normality is influenced by the problems imposed by one’s surroundings. Hence, there is no universal definition of normality, but rather a personalized definition based on one’s life experiences. Similar to Canguilhem, Bergson associated life with the constant cycle of overcoming of obstacles. Bergson believes that some problems, however, are to be discarded in exchange for more productive problems. By examining the concepts brought by these three philosophers, we can define “problem” and then go forward and delve into the main question presented previously.

In the second article by Michael Eid and Ed Diener, the article discusses the significant role of culture on one’s emotions, which most definitely has an influence on locating a problem and solving it. The two authors conducted a cross-cultural study where they examined the different norms for experiencing certain emotions between the US and Australia (two individual-oriented countries) and China and Taiwan (two collective-oriented countries). The individualistic countries seemed more rigid when expressing emotions whereas the collectivist countries were more lenient. In relation to the podcast, this cultural expression and suppression of emotion may be a factor in the treatment of mentally ill patients. In Geel, Belgium the method in “treating” these patients is to not try to change them back, but rather to accept them into society. This ability to keep these people away from the outskirts of society may be fueled by the autonomous nature of emotions in that part of the country. On the other hand, the US continues to use medications and therapy in efforts to “improve” the conditions. However, there is no emotion involved in the process. Thus, the individualistic personality of the US may have suppressed emotion to such an extent that it is simply omitted when treating the mentally ill. Moreover, this article will help raise questions and clarify certain situations, and offer readers an elaborate understanding of treating people suffering from mental illnesses.

Works Cited

1. Eid, Michael. “Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume           81, Issue 5, 2001.
2. Osborne, Thomas. “What is a Problem?” History of the Human Sciences, Volume 16, Issue 4, 2003.
3. Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

“The Problem with the Solution” is a podcast that introduces the differences in methods for treating mentally ill patients in the United States versus that abroad. Interestingly, the narrator, Ellen Baxter’s mother also suffered from a mental illness, which was treated in the States. However, the narrator points out the detrimental effects of taking medications, for it snatched away her mother’s liveliness, personality and attitude. Baxter’s realization of the inefficacy of this approach initiated her to seek for a way that will properly treat those diagnosed with mental illnesses while keeping them from losing a sense of his/her identity.

In her journey to find other methods, she came upon a town name Geel in Belgium. The town’s collective and revolutionary approach towards mentally ill people was to consider them as a part of the family – sort of like adopting a child. The solution here for treating these people was to have no solution. In this case, the best way to deal with this conflict was to learn how to accept and embrace these people. They were not considered patients, but rather family members. The intimacy of these bonds is what keeps people diagnosed as mentally ill true to his/her individuality. Mentally ill people are not considered outcasts and placed at the outskirts of society. They are still under the branch of ordinary people. However when Baxter showed the desire to build such a foundation in the US, this system was blatantly rejected due to its incompatibility.

It is in our human nature to constantly improve society by finding solutions to events that do not fit the definition of “normality.” This instinct is the same reason to why there is a constant drive to finding solutions than simply accepting a situation, for solution is commonly linked with improvement. Hence, this podcast serves to complicate the general notion of the benefits of solutions by demonstrating the positive impacts of not having a solution. The role of emotion is significant when determining the efficacy of treating mentally ill patients. Thus, this raises the question of to what extent does our limited ability to empathize with others inhibit the treatment of mentally ill patients? Furthermore, how does this podcast change your views on how the values of American society influence the treatment of mentally ill patients? Both these questions are concerned with the role of emotion and perception along with factors that shape this perception. Ultimately, one’s value system and emotion are key to establishing a proper solution for treating mentally ill patients, or accepting the lack of resolution.

Works Cited

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

Directed by Joel Schumacher, A Time to Kill, relies on the invocation of feelings and emotions both among the characters and with the viewers. The plotline of the story concerns a murder case where Carl Lee Hailey murders two white men who brutally physically and sexually harassed his ten-year old daughter. Hence, the film is largely dependent on empathy especially for such a strange case where whether or not Carl Lee Hailey is punished justice will still be served. Schumacher however, uses the opening scene in order to sway the audience’s emotions towards Carl Hailey.

The opening scene of A Time to Kill immediately allows the viewer to empathize with Carl Lee Hailey, for it cleverly portrays how these two racist, white men shattered the innocence of a young, black girl and diminished the livelihood of an adolescent. The producer did not plunge the viewers in to the rape scene, but rather juxtaposes the initial two atmospheres and settings. One of terror and dominance as the two bigoted men enter the town versus the tranquil and naïve atmosphere brought by Tonya. The camera works of this scene essentially puts the viewers in Tonya’s shoes and constructs the utter tumultuous nature of Tonya’s state of mind. Zooming into the harsh ropes tying her small hands and showing her bloody, lifeless legs are key components of this scene that trigger the audience to empathize with her. This same empathetic response does not seem possible if the viewers heard it through the words of Jakes Brigance. Ultimately, viewers wish for these two men to be punished. Thus, when Carl Hailey is put on trial for murdering these rapists, it is understandable for the viewers to side with Carl Hailey since he served justice for the sake of his ten year old daughter.

During the rape scene, the producer uses first person narration of Tonya. This choice invokes real empathy because she is an adolescent who has yet to enjoy her childhood, but became victim to the corrupt and barbarous nature her bigoted society. Throughout this scene, she calls for help by continuously calling “Daddy.” This reminds the viewers that this is a child who does not even understand what is being done to her and only comprehends that she is in pain and trouble. The idea that she could not say anything other than daddy also emphasizes her vulnerable state, and further characterizes the two white men as callous and inhuman. Empathetic feelings of anger and injustice are aroused through the opening scene in addition to feelings of distress for Tonya and her family. However, this is the key moment where the fragility of empathy is exposed because a viewer is susceptible to over-aroused by this scene. Over-aroused empathy can make the viewer blindly support Carl Hailey, and fail to recognize the nuances of the case from an objective view point. The strategic placement of the rape scene sets the audience against the two men, and helps justify the vigilant murder committed by Carl Hailey.

Works Cited:

A Time To Kill.  Joel Schumacher. Regency Enterprises, Warner Bros 1996. Swank Motion Pictures.

Gentlemen, today we have heard both sides of this not so challenging case. The testimonies of Mayella Ewell and her father continue to falsely accuse the defendant, Tom Robinson, of such an abominable act. The helpless Mayella has indeed been brutally beaten however, there is no medical evidence that proves that Tom Robinson is the one that has caused Mayella such misery. According to the examination, these bruises were created by a left-handed person. Clearly, this pitiful black man’s left hand does not function as seen when I threw him the object. Thus, someone else must have committed this heinous act, so we must ask the question who else was at the scene who is left-handed. Perhaps Mayella was the victim of her father’s brutality. However, this case is about whether Tom Robinson has committed a crime, so I will leave that up to your fair jurisdiction. Additionally, the testimonies of Mayella and her father my opposition heavily relies on do not seem to produce a coherent idea of what happened that day. A prime example of this is when Mayella began stating that she does not whether Tom Robinson hit her or not, but consequently she firmly stated that he was the one. This raises a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of these testimonies. I hope you will acknowledge the unsubstantial evidence provided for this trial to occur.

I would suggest to place yourselves in his shoes where Tom Robinson witnessed the helplessness of Mayella and rushed to her aid; though, he would not be given any payment despite his poor financial status. Would you have taken the risk of being charged for this act of kindness? Are we to blame his sympathy for Mayella? I would like to remind everyone that it is we who will make this world a better place, so should we condemn kindness? Tom Robinson, a human being, who has empathy will be beneficial for accomplishing our vision of the future. Furthermore, let us recognize the status of the Ewell family. The Ewells have faced enough oppression, for they are uneducated and violence-oriented. “She is a victim of cruel poverty and ignorance” (TKM 1:33:50). We must stand by our people, and it must start with those who are kind-hearted and compassionate like Tom Robinson. He is part of our vision for the welfare of society, so his kind acts should not be condemned.

The purpose of this trial is not to bring justice, but to bring out the truth because Tom Robinson should not be on trial for his selfless acts. Today I wish that you have understood the reality and truth in this case, for we should not falsely punish him. Will your intellect and duty to protect the words of our Constitution falsely charge Tom Robinson? Do not look at him as a Negro but rather a compassionate and benevolent man. I put my belief and trust in your decision, which will restore the integrity of this well-regarded court. It is our obligation to protect our people and encourage those who will do the same like Tom Robinson. My final remark before leaving the jury to make this decision is that we must come together to make our vision for a brighter future successful. And, here I leave you with the important decision that will mark the future of Maycomb County and our people. 

Works Cited

To Kill a Mockingbird. Robert Mulligan. Universal Pictures, 1962.