Empathy and the Realm of Us vs. Them

A lot has happened in the past week: a shooting in Texas on Friday 18 May (the third school shooting in two weeks), a plane crash in Cuba, and a stabbing in Paris, just to name a few. It is not a stretch to anticipate the wave of responses on social media over the next couple of days. Tears will be shed, emotions will run high, and accusations will be made. We will view, or ignore, the facts, and come up with a narrative on what happened and what should be done. Somehow, the way we perceive others and ourselves has to change if we are to have any chance of working toward peace.

via Prototypr

You are [x], therefore you [y]

Now fill in the blanks. Here are some options, some are light-hearted while others are more serious:

You are a good student/child/person, therefore you must get straight A’s (or something else) to prove it.

You are speaking Spanish, therefore you must be an illegal immigrant. *cough*Aaron Schlossberg*cough*

You are different from me/not doing what I want you to do, therefore you are evil/immoral etc.

Feel free to expand [x] and [y] to encompass issues of partisanship, policy-making on issues like gun control, and even everyday familial relations.

A frequent narrative, this “you are [x], therefore you [y]” equation is often applied to ourselves and others. We frequently do so unconsciously, often without malice, sometimes with. I know I have.[1] But the lack of malice does not make the over utilisation of this logic any less dangerous both to ourselves and others. On the first level, there are several glaring logical fallacies to conclusions obtained using this logic. These include Denying the Antecedent and Fallacies of Association.[2] Yet, philosophical flaws are really the lesser concern.

Manichaean

Our society is becoming increasingly Manichaean. A Manichaean outlook is one that is moral (every issue has a strong moral dimension) and dualistic (everything is in one category or the other, “right” or “wrong", “good” or “evil”). The implication—or even the stated idea—is that there can be nothing in between, no fence-sitting, no shades of grey. This leads to the use of highly charged, even bellicose language. An example and danger of such a perspective was eloquently expressed in George Lucas’s Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith:

Anakin Skywalker: “If you are not with me…then you are my enemy.”

Obi-Wan: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.”[3]

Ironically, Obi-Wan, in viewing Anakin as bad and beyond saving, was also guilty of a certain degree of Manichaeanism. What does a Manichaean perspective lead to?

Hate.

Manichaean perspectives drive much of today’s political dialogue. In fact, a Manichaean perspective is a key element of populism that has seen a worldwide surge in recent years. The face of populism was Hugo Chavez at the turn of the millennium, but now include Erdoğan (Turkey), Orban (Hungary), Duterte (Phillipines), Farage (UK), and Trump (US). The following assertions, and I picked the less inflammatory ones, might sound familiar to you:

“There are two Americas: the ruling class, and the groups it favors, and then everyone else.”

• Donald J. Trump, America First Means Veterans First, 11 July 2016

“And the American people are catching on that we have a broken criminal justice system. A system today that says some kid in Nevada or Vermont gets picked up with some marijuana, that kid will have a police record staying with him his entire life. But if you are a Wall Street executive and your illegal behavior destroys the economy and lives of millions of people, somehow nothing happens to you. And our job is to bring justice back to the criminal justice system.”

• Bernie Sanders, Nevada Caucus Concession Speech, 20 February 2016

“This is the extraordinary thing, those who of us who have these points of view are treated by the establishment as being so disreputable that we shouldn’t even exist.”

• Nigel Farage, 2016[4]

“…You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

• Hillary Clinton, New York City LGBT Gala, 06 September 2016[5]

This Manichaean paint-my-rival-as-evil perspective is not limited by geography and is present on almost all sides. Again, on a more general level, if you are [Republican/Democrat; Trump/Clinton; for/against gun control; of ___ religion/ethnicity; not in agreeance with me], then you are evil or something like unto it. Such rhetoric stems from strongly held personal beliefs that we obtain. These positions may also stem from religious convictions. There are strong emotions attached to Manichaean statements; these statements are also often motivated by fear or anger,[6] motivating individuals to take an extreme outlook on others. Perhaps you might be inclined to assume that because you are educated, you are neither susceptible to emotions skewing your actions nor is your rhetoric emotionally charged. One might be surprised to note, however, that more highly educated individuals are often most influenced by emotional appeals, especially in politics.[7]

Perspectives

What is the problem with a Manichaean perspective? Surely right is right and wrong is wrong. Game theory might also convince you that you are justified in always choosing a strategy of adopting a Manichaean position.[8] In making the argument against Manichaean rhetoric, I am not trying to excuse the inexcusable. There are a great many things that need to stop or be changed. The problem however is once we adopt an Us vs. Them, Good vs. Bad position, it becomes nigh impossible to achieve any reconciliation and peace. With said perspective we view “the other” as the primary cause of our grievance and lesser than we are. We are moral and they are not. We are right and they are wrong. Nothing they do, short of coming in complete congruence with our belief, is nearly enough. This widens the already present divide. The radical nature of such rhetoric used also makes it hard to retract our statements or moderate our position. Essentially, it becomes harder to reach a resolution.

Yes, perhaps we have been horribly wronged. Truly, grievously, undeniably. Still, we can develop empathy. We need to develop empathy.[9] Of course, such extremities are often adopted on both sides, but the change has to start with us. Peace and reconciliation have no chance if we cannot see those we disagree with as as human, if not more so, than ourselves. This peace extends beyond the community but includes tranquillity within ourselves.[10] Expressing empathy, instead of solely demanding justice, has the distinct effect of catalysing change.[11] As explained by conflict and mediation expert Chad Ford, we might be doing all we can to make the world a better place but all our efforts will be in vain if our perspective on others who differ from us remains in the realm of Us vs Them.

Empathy is not the end solution. It is the start.

---

[1] What sparked my thinking on this topic can be traced to last summer during an interaction with a woman I greatly admire. Upon learning that I am interested in conflict resolution, specifically integrating religion and mobilising the private sector to facilitate peace, this individual was shocked. She commented that there is nothing about Islam/Muslims that is peaceful or good and that is how it will always be. I sympathise with her, understanding that this opinion was formed as a result of negative experiences. In my enthusiasm to defend the men and women I served alongside in the Singapore Police Force (approximately half of whom were Muslim), I thought in my mind: you are my elder and deeply religious, therefore you are supposed to be charitable and not prejudiced. While disapproving of her “you are [x], therefore you [y]” I viewed the situation and her in the exact same way.

[2] Denying the Antecedent

A fallacy in formal logic where in an if-then premise, when the antecedent (e.g. if x) is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (then y) is not true.

For example:

If it is raining, then it is cloudy. (If x, then y)

It is not raining; therefore, it is not cloudy. (Not x, therefore not y)

Fallacies of Association

The fallacy of association is the discrediting of an idea/entity based upon a disfavoured people associated with it.

For example:

Hitler was a German. (A is B)

Hitler was evil. (A is C)

Therefore, Germans are evil. (Therefore, all B’s are C)

Both these fallacies are often used in politics and life.

[3] https://www.quotes.net/mquote/91343

[4] http://time.com/4564147/nigel-farage-donald-trump-populism-europe/

[5] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/context-hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables/

[6] Scholars are conducting randomized control trials to identify what specific emotions trigger populist support. This relatively new topic and methodology in academic research integrates politics, psychology, and economics. While still a fresh field, Team Populism, an international collaboration of scholars, has begun publishing findings.

[7] Brader, Ted. Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press, 2006.

[8] I first model the situation as a two-player signalling game of imperfect information. Nature first decides if “the other” is Malicious or Not Malicious. “The other” then makes the decision to act, which action is either “In Agreeance” with you or “Not in Agreeance” with you. Upon observing the action of “the other” but without informationation about "the other's" type, you then decide if you should adopt “a Manichaean perspective where if the other's actions are not in congruence with your expectation, the other is deemed evil; if the other's actions is in congruence with your expectation, you still have the moral high ground" or "a non-Manichaean perspective". Of course this game can also be played simultaneously (where you decide on whether you will adopt a Manichaean perspective even before observing the action of "the other") instead of sequentially as presented here. In this game, a pooling strategy for player 2 to always be aggressive with a Manichaean perspective is the most likely Perfect Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. This relies on the premise that as humans, we seek to reduce the level of cognitive dissonance we experience. Cognitive dissonance is the experience of mental discomfort when faced with an action that appears to conflict with your initial preference preferences. To mitigate this discomfort, individuals tend to take extreme actions to ensure harmony between actions and personal preferences. By adopting a Manichaean perspective, such cognitive dissonance is reduced by solidifying your preferences and eliminating any action or player contrary to that preference. Such a strategy dominates all other choices.

[9] Empathy solves cognitive dissonance in a healthier way compared to a Manichaean perspective. Empathy alters preferences instead of demanding specific action. Such a strategy is more long-lasting, less radical, and more inclusive.

[10] https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/the-healing-power-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

[11] Gubler, Joshua Ronald, Eran Halperin, and Gilad Hirschberger. "Humanizing the outgroup in contexts of protracted intergroup conflict." Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, no. 1 (2015): 36-46.

#Peace #Politics #Populism