Is there really no room for empathy in the climate movement? I was shocked when I learned that there are experts arguing against empathy. Arguments against empathy point out that empathy is biased in favor of people who look like us and share similar experiences to us, can be narrow-minded, is not abstract, can be perceived as condescending, is emotionally exhausting, and causes burn out. I always thought that having and growing empathy was essential to living a moral life. When I’m upset with someone’s behavior, I try to put myself in their shoes. Most of the time, the person will try to stop me from removing their shoes from their feet and putting them on mine, so, next, I try to imagine the thoughts and feelings that are invisible and unknown to me that may explain why they did or said what they did or said. I thought that empathy was important because if we can understand someone’s pain we can connect with them, and connecting with people is a fundamental part of life. In favor of compassion, Ray argues that it allows boundaries, is renewable, builds resilience, and allows climate activists to hold on to their “righteous anger.” I think the points against empathy are valid, most of them are based on scientific research and I am not going to argue against that. I argue that although there are valid points against empathy’s role in the climate movement, it cannot be removed from the climate discussion altogether. Empathy should play just as important of a role as compassion does in the climate movement.

What is the difference between empathy and compassion? You may not know and are thinking, “compassion, empathy, potato, potahto.” At one point, I was also thinking “potato potahto.” I didn’t think there was a huge difference between empathy and compassion. If I’m being completely honest with you, I still have trouble distinguishing between the terms “empathy” and “compassion.” Ray makes arguments against empathy and in favor of compassion, so it’s important for us to understand the intricacies of each. Ray defines empathy as “feeling another person’s feeling, as if you’re experiencing the same thing.” She continues, “Compassion is the ability to care about another’s suffering” (109). I found myself still uncertain on what compassion was after reading this, so I looked for more information in Robert Solomon’s book True To Our Feelings. Solomon says that “in compassion one suffers with the other, but one need not actually feel his or her actual pain.” He also points out that compassion “involves distinctive action tendencies, namely, helping” (66). To me, it seems like empathy and compassion start from the same place: understanding the emotions of another person. From the information I’ve gathered, it seems like the big difference between the two is how vulnerable the person in contact with another person’s emotions allows themselves to be. If the person goes the empathy route, they will be more vulnerable with their emotions and allow themselves to feel what the other person is feeling. If the person goes the compassion route, they will understand the emotion of the other person, feel with them (but not feel the same thing), and react to it, doing so at an arm’s length of really experiencing the emotion. Ray’s arguments against empathy made me consider the question, is empathy as important as I thought it was, and is compassion possible without empathy?

Ray’s overall point in Chapter Five, titled “Be Less Right and More in Relation,” is that climate change is an issue that people of different groups must come together on. Not everyone has to agree on the semantics of climate change, but it is important for the climate movement that people on both sides of the political spectrum can communicate and work together. Most people use empathy to try to understand the other side’s perspective on an issue. However, Ray brings up five main points against empathy: we empathize mainly with people we identify with or see, empathy may come at the expense of our own feelings, it can be interpreted as patronizing, it is not necessary to empathize in order to understand and care, and empathy “dissolves boundaries” and causes empathy fatigue which leads to burnout. In my opinion, a lot of the points Ray makes against empathy make sense. Emotional empathy is feeling the emotions another person is feeling, and, if these are emotions of distress, the part of your brain connected to pain will light up. Those in professions who interact with people in pain and distress report feeling compassion fatigue, but Ray counters this by saying they are actually experiencing empathy fatigue. She points out that “boundaries are essential to our self-preservation” (109). I think this is one of the most convincing arguments against empathy. If we are constantly feeling the emotions of others, we would be exhausted beyond belief. It may be contested if empaths, people with an abnormally super ability to empathize with others, exist, but if they do I’m sure they’d be very tired. Sharing people’s negative emotions will lead to burnout. Ray offers that “an orientation of curious compassion alleviates suffering, and it also may lead us to find more effective political strategies to change others’ hearts and minds” (110).

I don’t think Ray is wrong, but I don’t know if she’s entirely right. It seems to me that in order to really understand what someone is feeling, we must empathize with them. In order for us to feel compassion for another’s emotions we need to somewhat understand them, so isn’t empathy involved in compassion? I agree wholeheartedly that overcoming party divides is necessary for the success of the climate movement. In the context of maintaining the emotional energy to participate in climate activism, I understand steering away from empathy for the sake of self-preservation. The reason I think empathy needs to be relevant in the climate movement is that I think it is the driving force behind why most of us began to care about the climate crisis in the first place. This may be out of pocket, but I think that because most humans can understand the fear of death, loss, suffering, and pain, we are all capable of caring about climate change. Ultimately, I think empathy drives connection and connection fosters love. I think it’s possible to cultivate people’s empathy for the Earth, and, by doing so, bring more people to fight for its survival and thriving. We should feel empathy for the Earth and its suffering, because how else will we feel empowered to fight for it?

Shared by: Emilie Fazio
Image Credit: Alamy Stock Photo