Empathy, vulnerability and politicians
Early this morning I was listening to a Ted Talk by Brené Brown recorded December 2010 entitled, The Power of Vulnerability. I had previously listened to this talk several times. I appreciate her acute insight, her willingness to identify with the issues she is discussing and her sense of humor. In other words, she seems to me to have a level of integrity which I find it easy to trust.
I continue to explore the concept and practice of empathy. I know that empathy is directly related to the courage to be honest and, thus, vulnerable to oneself. This then allows one the potential or ability to be vulnerable and empathic with others. It seems to make a priori sense that one cannot be with the vulnerability of others unless one is willing to make a connection. A connection cannot be made unless one is connecting vulnerability to vulnerability. As I have previously posited, if I want to make a connection with you, I have to risk showing you the ways I am the same as you. I recognize your ability to be wounded because I have been wounded. I am willing to show you that I believe that though we have been previously wounded and we can be wounded again, the only way we can connect is to be emotionally naked with each other – connecting wound to wound. As Ms. Brown states, it would seem that if we hide our wounds we also hide our joy, laughter, love, and all the other emotions of which we are capable.
The origin of the word vulnerable is “from the Latin noun vulnus (‘wound’). ‘Vulnus’ led to the Latin verb vunerare, meaning ‘to wound’ or ‘having the power to wound’ (the latter is now obsolete), but since the late 1600s, it has also been used figuratively to suggest a defenselessness against non-physical attacks. In other words, someone (or something) can be vulnerable to criticism or failure as well as to literal wounding.” (Merriam-Websterdictionary.com)
On the one level, given the above, it would seem as if, from an vulnerable standpoint, it would be easy to empathize, and thus connect at a deep emotional level, with politicians. After all, their humanness – their vulnerability/wounds- is plainly visible. If we are willing to be vulnerable to our own humanness we are going to easily identify with the politicians. Some of the current political figures in this and other countries clearly demonstrate the courage it takes to expose oneself to the scrutiny of the public, representatives of the news media and one’s opponents. All of us can easily relate to this courage and the underlying wounds. Sadly this is not what happens, not only with politicians but with many of our relationships. What does happen is:
· The politician exposes himself or herself, becomes frightened of how others will react and then either denies their humanness or attacks the person(s) who acknowledges the humanness their behavior has clearly demonstrated.
· Many of the potential voters criticize politicians often causing them to feel worse which then leads to them becoming more defensive which leads to more denials and/or attacks which leads to …
There is no empathy on either side - no identification with the humanness of each other. Each side feels less connected and, thus, less like they are members of the same community. They are, if not careful, now enemies who mirror the nakedness of each other. It now seems as if their only option is to destroy each other.
It does not now matter what the base issues are. The issue is now each other – each side. The original issues get put off to the side and, of course, get worse.
As with any system this process can be interrupted at any point in the circle. As all of us know, in order for a particular system to work all pieces must be in sync. If one changes one piece or one action one changes the entire system and the outcome has to be different. The outcome may be better or worse but it will not be the same.
In the political process if either side decides to be more empathic and brings the focus back to the original or base issues, the outcome has to be different. The possibilities are:
· Side or person A recognizes that their behavior is not working and they try something else.
· Side or person B tries even harder to destroy what they are labeling as their opponent or their enemy.
· Side or person A gives up and again falls prey to a reactionary mode.
· One person or side becomes silent by opting out of the process which, of course, means an end to that system.
All relationships basically work the same. When a person or group refuses to engage in a non-empathic system, the system has to change for better or worse. I cannot force another to be empathic. I can, however, always be empathic and stay open to receiving the empathic response of others. In the end, I only have the power to lovingly own my own humanness and to see the mirror as it is reflected from others.
Obviously this is not easy for any of we humans. Yet, if we can identify and own our part in a system we will be doing our part to create a more empathic and compassionate community.
Written June 6, 2016
Early this morning I was listening to a Ted Talk by Brené Brown recorded December 2010 entitled, The Power of Vulnerability. I had previously listened to this talk several times. I appreciate her acute insight, her willingness to identify with the issues she is discussing and her sense of humor. In other words, she seems to me to have a level of integrity which I find it easy to trust.
I continue to explore the concept and practice of empathy. I know that empathy is directly related to the courage to be honest and, thus, vulnerable to oneself. This then allows one the potential or ability to be vulnerable and empathic with others. It seems to make a priori sense that one cannot be with the vulnerability of others unless one is willing to make a connection. A connection cannot be made unless one is connecting vulnerability to vulnerability. As I have previously posited, if I want to make a connection with you, I have to risk showing you the ways I am the same as you. I recognize your ability to be wounded because I have been wounded. I am willing to show you that I believe that though we have been previously wounded and we can be wounded again, the only way we can connect is to be emotionally naked with each other – connecting wound to wound. As Ms. Brown states, it would seem that if we hide our wounds we also hide our joy, laughter, love, and all the other emotions of which we are capable.
The origin of the word vulnerable is “from the Latin noun vulnus (‘wound’). ‘Vulnus’ led to the Latin verb vunerare, meaning ‘to wound’ or ‘having the power to wound’ (the latter is now obsolete), but since the late 1600s, it has also been used figuratively to suggest a defenselessness against non-physical attacks. In other words, someone (or something) can be vulnerable to criticism or failure as well as to literal wounding.” (Merriam-Websterdictionary.com)
On the one level, given the above, it would seem as if, from an vulnerable standpoint, it would be easy to empathize, and thus connect at a deep emotional level, with politicians. After all, their humanness – their vulnerability/wounds- is plainly visible. If we are willing to be vulnerable to our own humanness we are going to easily identify with the politicians. Some of the current political figures in this and other countries clearly demonstrate the courage it takes to expose oneself to the scrutiny of the public, representatives of the news media and one’s opponents. All of us can easily relate to this courage and the underlying wounds. Sadly this is not what happens, not only with politicians but with many of our relationships. What does happen is:
· The politician exposes himself or herself, becomes frightened of how others will react and then either denies their humanness or attacks the person(s) who acknowledges the humanness their behavior has clearly demonstrated.
· Many of the potential voters criticize politicians often causing them to feel worse which then leads to them becoming more defensive which leads to more denials and/or attacks which leads to …
There is no empathy on either side - no identification with the humanness of each other. Each side feels less connected and, thus, less like they are members of the same community. They are, if not careful, now enemies who mirror the nakedness of each other. It now seems as if their only option is to destroy each other.
It does not now matter what the base issues are. The issue is now each other – each side. The original issues get put off to the side and, of course, get worse.
As with any system this process can be interrupted at any point in the circle. As all of us know, in order for a particular system to work all pieces must be in sync. If one changes one piece or one action one changes the entire system and the outcome has to be different. The outcome may be better or worse but it will not be the same.
In the political process if either side decides to be more empathic and brings the focus back to the original or base issues, the outcome has to be different. The possibilities are:
· Side or person A recognizes that their behavior is not working and they try something else.
· Side or person B tries even harder to destroy what they are labeling as their opponent or their enemy.
· Side or person A gives up and again falls prey to a reactionary mode.
· One person or side becomes silent by opting out of the process which, of course, means an end to that system.
All relationships basically work the same. When a person or group refuses to engage in a non-empathic system, the system has to change for better or worse. I cannot force another to be empathic. I can, however, always be empathic and stay open to receiving the empathic response of others. In the end, I only have the power to lovingly own my own humanness and to see the mirror as it is reflected from others.
Obviously this is not easy for any of we humans. Yet, if we can identify and own our part in a system we will be doing our part to create a more empathic and compassionate community.
Written June 6, 2016
RSS Feed