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 21st
Century.
