History, Geography, Empathy

My friend Lionel, from the Isle of Wight, passed on this quote from Alan Furst, the American historical novelist:

            (We) aren’t good at understanding history. I know a woman who teaches history in a D.C. high school and she says Americans are ahistorical. They just aren’t taught history. How much we have to pay for that I don’t know, but you do have to pay for that.  …  You shouldn’t have a population that doesn’t understand history, or geography…

Lionel went on to say "This never occurred to me before. Do you think this is perhaps why the US struggles with coherence in its foreign policy ( to put it mildly)? Would a knowledge of history and geography somehow make Americans less fearful of those they do not understand, generate an enhanced tolerance of those who do not think exactly like they do?"

I've been thinking about Lionel's observation while reading -- better yet, wincing through -- the daily papers: we're sending "advisors" to Syria a la Kennedy in '63; we're surprised by Putin, whose ambitions have been as naked as his shirtless PR and as telegraphed as was Hitler's in Mein Kampf; we're bewildered at the unfolding sectarian chaos in Iraq; we have long failed to grasp Afghan's hatred of foreign occupiers; we continue to forge entangling alliances with small Baltic  and SE Asian states -- as short-sighted as was Tsarist Russia's ties with Serbia; we cling to a naive hope that Israel is really willing to give up the west bank; we defend arbitrarily contrived borders separating "nations" that are nations in name only, where nationality is trumped by clans, tribes and families.  Looking back a bit: our disdain for Ho Chi Minh and belief in the myth that Viet Nam was an allay and satellite of China; sending troops to Siberia in 1920 to help restore our autocrat in Russia and displace their autocrat; Bremer and his earnest young, freshly-scrubbed nation builders designing a "democracy" to drop full born onto Baghdad; and on and on.... Yes, our actions certainly do not exhibit lessons learned from history. And to add to our cluelessness, we tend to be a short-memory society; the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Turks, Irish, Armenians whose passions inflame -- they are long-memory societies.  Perhaps it takes being oppressed for generations to develop and nurture long-memory.

It's not that we don't create historians and experts well versed in other cultures.  We do.  But politicians are mainly interested in managing their stock: herding us, calming us; crooning to us to keep us from stampeding.  (And lobbyists are interested not in policy but in keeping their stock -- the politicians -- well fed and watered and sheared on a regular basis.) One example of how historians and experts are treated in the chambers of policy: Paul Kattenburg, a specialist on Viet Nam since the early '50's, by '63 heading the State Dept.'s Vietnam Task Force.  In a meeting of the National Security Council that fall, after returning from two months in the field, he recommended that we withdraw from Viet Nam.  He was thereafter excluded from all NSC meetings touching on SE Asia, and by '64 had been transferred to a post in Guyana.  Administration politicians do not want to hear that the emperor has no clothes (perhaps fearing that they don't either?)  Journalists and commentators are little better; they find the nuances and complications of experts' knowledge too messy to attract ratings or grow circulation. 

Maybe we're not well educated in history but we are not indifferent.  No.  Histories and historical novels regularly top the best seller lists and history even has its own TV channel.  Sure, we like it simple and dramatic, but we love history and are no less interested in it than other peoples.

Now geography?  That's a different story.  Not just maps and boundaries, but how the terroir shapes peoples and cultures -- in that most Americans are ignoramuses.  Teaching geography (and civics and music) have especially suffered in this no-child-left-behind era. But to return to Lionel's question: would knowledge of history or even geography make Hondurans less needy in our eyes, or Somalis less foreign, or Koreans less driven, or the Japanese less ambiguous?  Not likely.

History may provide perspective, geography some understanding, but that is not enough to engender tolerance of foreignness and a willingness to try to understand others.  The necessary ingredient is empathy.  Empathy is the building block of human relationships, the lubricant that allows us to live together in communities.

Empathy is an ability, but subtle to define. My favorite definition, from psychologist D M Berger is The capacity to know emotionally what another is experiencing from within the frame of reference of that other person.  It is the capacity to sample the feeling and grasp the intention of another, to put one's self in another's shoes.

Empathy differs from sympathy or pity.  Sympathy is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Pity is feeling that another is in trouble and needs help as they cannot fix their problems themselves, often described as "feeling sorry" for someone.  But empathy is entering into the feelings and motives of another without losing your own emotional and cognitive identity. You can be empathetic without pity; you can be sympathetic—feeling for – but not truly empathetic.

Empathy thus involves both an emotional and a cognitive element.  That's where history and geography might help -- the cognitive understanding of others' intentions -- an understanding that others' actions are goal-directed and arise from particular attitudes, desires and background values.

Empathy is a natural ability.  Infants of 8 or 9 months begin to discern that others’ minds are different from their own, to develop what psychologists term a 'theory of mind'.  At one year, infants have some rudiments of empathy, in the sense that they understand that, just like their own actions, other people's actions have goals.  And by the age of two, children normally begin to display the fundamental behaviors of empathy by having an emotional response that corresponds with that of another person. Sometimes, toddlers will comfort others or show concern for them, and show an understanding of the other’s goals or motives – what they want or intend.

Not only is it natural in humans, but it occurs in higher mammals.  Chimpanzees are empathetic.  I asked Jane Goodall – yes, that Jane Goodall –whether chimps empathize with each other and with humans.  She told me that chimps empathize within their families, and sometimes with others among their troop.  But with strangers they do not.  With humans, she said, in captivity or in her case with her troop in Gombe, they will empathize with a keeper they have come to trust or someone they have come to regard as part of their family.  But generally, chimps do not empathize with strangers. Neither do we.

Considerable evidence exists that women have a higher “empathy quotient” or EQ, than do men – but whether that is natural or culturally determined is so far unknown.  Men, conversely, show a higher systematizing quotient (SQ), the categorization and analytic assessment of others. 

In most of us, empathy can be developed – it can be reinforced by practice and positive feedback or suppressed by indoctrination, brain washing and negative feedback.  It is a skill that gradually develops throughout life, and which improves the more contact we have with the person with whom one empathizes.

Empathetic engagement helps one to understand and anticipate the behavior of another. Empathy increases understanding and trust – both ways.  When people empathize with each other, bonding and trust and comfort are created.  Empathy improves relationships.  In fact, I contend, our relational, transactional, communal society is dependent on empathy – shared values, feelings, the ability to walk in each other’s shoes.

Ethics are grounded in empathy. Morality stems from a basis of empathic response.  In situations of frequent and close contact, as with family or friends, our moral obligation seems stronger to us than with strangers at a distance. So our challenge is to extend the limits, to span distance and infrequency with empathy bridges. 

Does this not sound familiar?  Are these not the foundations of all the world’s major religions? Do unto others what you would have them do unto you? Go, and care for one another? 

The United States is an increasingly heterogeneous society.  In one more generation, because of immigration and birth rate differentials, Americans of color – Asians, Latinos, Africans – will make up the majority of our nation. We white Anglos still will be the plurality cohort but I suggest that the strains and potential for conflict that this trend portends can only be relieved by increasing the empathy quotient of our society – not just among families and our “tribes” but across ethnic and color lines. 

Empathy can be encouraged, trained, and strengthened.  Reward children for showing their natural empathy instead of telling them “oh, we don’t associate with those people”, or “those people are not to be trusted.”  Tell young men it’s OK to care, to feel, to be vulnerably sensitive; enough of “man up", "be tough", "walk tall", "be a man.”

So yes for history, yes for geography, but even more yes for engagement and empathy.  Empathy is the lubricant of relationships, an oil we will need ever more of if we want to make this salad bowl of a nation a true community of equity and justice and productivity.  If we become a deeply empathetic society, America can truly be the world’s exceptional nation of the 21^st Century.