Posted on

The Identity Game

If you’ve ever studied the art of argument, you’ll know that there are very specific ways we get it wrong when we engage in an argument. There are specific ways that our logic becomes, all of a sudden, not so logical. Among these are the fallacies of ad hominem (or being a jerk and name calling), straw man (mischaracterizing the opposite side), slippery slope (assuming that one thing will necessarily lead to another and another), circular argument (this one baffles me in that it seems to ignore all logic), or the red herring tactic (What I like to call the “Squirrel!” tactic. It’s the art of distraction from the issue at hand by drawing attention to something else.) There are many of these, but the one I see most often in society has not been articulated clearly enough in my opinion. You could make the case that one of the other 6-15 fallacies covers it, but for the sake of clarity, I suggest on giving this one a category all its own. 

I’m going to call this the “identity fallacy.” You may know where I’m going with this. You may have heard the phrase “identity politics.” It is mostly used by moderates and right leaning people to disparage what I think of as the identity fallacy. Even though people who are concerned about this have a right to be concerned, I think we have some work to do in defining the issue. We have a tendency in today’s culture to just slap a label on something when it feels out of bounds without using logic to underpin what we are doing. Not clearly defining terms allows us to maintain our hypocrisy because we cannot effectively judge ourselves by the same standards if we don’t know what those standards are. 

I see both people on the right and left and in between committing this identity fallacy. Let me explain now what I mean. 

In this new millennium, we are less focused on facts and figures and more and more interested in stories. This is not a bad thing altogether. It helps us understand each other in a more culturally diverse society. If you know the stories of another person, it’s a great way to quickly and effectively understand them. So, while this may be a good practice for enriching the fabric of society, it can cause a logical breakdown in our ability to reason and argue effectively. 

As our culture gets more interested in cultural differences, we can tend to judge everything that comes out of that persons mouth through the lens of their most obvious characteristic. After all, we are accustomed to reading the opinions of people we’ve never met over social media. Rather than chatting with the guy down the street and becoming familiar with his particular story, we have to make assumptions about people from what we see. The first thing we see is the color of someone’s skin or that person’s physical attributes. We see the type of clothing that they wear. We hear the type of language coming out of their mouths and the accent with which they speak. Then we make assumptions about his or her (or some androgynous “them”) based on all of these assumptions. I’ve written before on the caution against labels and assumptions, and I think we are all aware of those to one degree or another. But how do we break the wrongheaded cycle of assumption when we have no mechanism to catch ourselves in the fallacy of it? 

Let me first define the identity fallacy. Any time someone takes into account the personal attributes of the person who is making the statement to judge the validity of the statement, that is an identity fallacy. To be sure, The practice of jumping to conclusions about what a person says based on what we know about them is actually helpful in our everyday lives. I mean it’s natural and even wise not to put a lot of stock into what someone says if we don’t trust them or if they have less knowledge about a topic, etc. However, in a logical argument, the person’s background has nothing to do with the truth value of what they are saying. 

We pride ourselves on the pursuit of equity in our nation. Just think about how much the principles of logic contribute to this sense of equality. Any person (young/old, rich/poor, famous/unknown) should be able to come to the table of conversation with something valuable to offer. But these wonderful ideals begin to break down when we engage in the identity fallacy. 

Let me start with race. As of late, there have been some brave African American individuals who have said some things that have questioned the stereotypical views of their culture. We all are well aware that there are things that a black person can say that a white person cannot. The fact that this is true is evidence that we have an epidemic of this identity fallacy. 

Take sexual orientation or gender expression, or take income levels. We know that people who have a more traditional expression feel that they have very little voice to speak into issues of sexual identity. Those with more money feel that they cannot speak to issues of poverty (at least not out loud). We are finding ourselves with a soft cultural form of censorship. We are censoring ourselves out of fear of being disqualified and judged according to our outward identity. And by doing this, we are having weaker and fewer conversations. 

You’ve seen evidence of the identity fallacy on those “gotcha” videos in which statements from Hitler’s speeches were attributed to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Depending on the person’s politics and who they thought said it, they would praise whatever was said without really stopping to consider the logic or thought process behind what was being said. 

On the right, people may be silenced for not knowing anything because of their youth or their lack of experience and so we stop listening. On the left, people are silenced because they are not a member of the oppressed population. On the right we stop listening to a person because they are “entrenched in politics.” On the left we stop listening because a person has been irrevocably labeled as some kind of “—phobe.” 

In days of old, our labels may have looked different. They may have been slave and freeman, aristocrat or commoner, clergy or layperson. We think we are more sophisticated now. Now we prize ourselves on a sophisticated web of terms that we lay one over the other, to describe one another. And as I said, these have some value. But when engaging in a logical argument, we need to work hard to put these aside. Laziness will cause us to always shift toward a more identity oriented approach, but this will lead us down a path that leads to more and more ignorance, fewer and fewer productive conversations, and ultimately toward less and less understanding. 

The easiest way to test how much you are being influenced by identity is to ask yourself, “What would I think if this argument/logic was coming out of another person’s mouth?” What type of person would have to say this in order to make me okay with this? If your answer changes based on the identity of the speaker, you need to question the way that you come to conclusions. You may have an identity paradigm that needs to shift. You never know when the wisest insight you need in the moment may come out of the mouth of a person that you may at first reject by simple virtue of their identity. 

What is more important to you, who said it or what is said? 

Posted on

We’re Not Fighting, We’re Discussing! (How to recognize the difference between a debate, a discussion, and a fight.) 

We’ve all avoided conversations or steered it another direction because we were afraid that the conversation would get out of hand and become destructive to the relationship. Many of us have heard our parents getting heated over something and we’ve said, “Why are you guys fighting?” Then we hear back, “We’re not fighting, we’re discussing!” 

All of us have different thresholds for intense conversations. But what are the real markers of whether or not a conversation is going “out of bounds” and no longer moving the people towards understanding and connection? After all, we don’t want to pursue brave conversations if we think they are going to be destructive or a waste of time. 

I’m convinced more and more that an understanding of boundaries is key to our ability to have not just debates, but real, productive dialogues and discussions.

The goal of the debate is to “win” which means that the conversation partners are, by definition, opponents. In a debate, each partner is trying to defeat the other by means of a combination of logic and rhetoric. Debates are common in American culture. So common that we believe that it is impossible to have a conversation about something controversial without a debate. It is common to see debates among people who presumably should have extended knowledge and expertise on a subject. Politicians, religious leaders and other public figures can debate in a public place to represent the views of many and to rally people to their cause.  They are challenged to produce valid information to prove to everyone that they know their stuff. 

Many people do not like debates because they don’t feel qualified, equipped, or invested enough in a topic to engage in it at that level. They are rightfully afraid of being defeated and shamed. Therefore, many steer clear of all conversations that might become a debate.

But there is a different way to engage in important, though controversial topics. And that method is called discussion. Unlike the fighting parents who insist that they are “discussing,” real discussion has some key elements that move us forward in culture and in relationship. When you know the elements of discussion vs. debate, you can follow these ground rules and bow out when the discussion becomes more of a debate or an outright fight. 

By contrast to a debate, with the goal being to win, the goal of a discussion is connection and understanding. Whether this conversation is being done one on one or in a group, the goal is mutual understanding of the other person’s stream of logic and the meanings of the words and phrases that they use. You will know someone is ready for a discussion when they have a value for you as a person as much as they have a value for their own opinions. Common ground is sought and built upon. Often, new ideas will spring forth from a discussion as possible solutions to the problem at hand. 

While debates may be appropriate for politicians and other public figures, discussions should be the preferred mode in day to day life. Discussions make up the fabric of a peace loving society and can help provide solutions to very real and troubling dilemmas. Discussions can also involve high emotions. Discussions can be quiet or loud, so don’t judge a conversation by it’s volume. People have different cultural ways that they engage in discussion. Another important element of a discussion is that it acknowledges the human dignity of each individual no matter what level of education, racial background, or experience. 

There is a third ugly type of conversation that we should be willing to acknowledge. Sometimes, without realizing it, our conversations devolve into verbal fights. Debates can easily sink to this level through tactics such as name calling, threatening, and devaluing the humanity or dignity of individual. When people stop listening, debates and even discussions can sink into the territory of verbal altercations. Fights, though some forms are and should remain protected under the first amendment, are rarely productive. Any time we see fights ensue in the media or in our own lives, it is time to call “foul.” I am incensed when I hear fighting language such as the dehumanizing of an individual in a so called “intellectual debate” and then I hear the audience respond with applauding. No matter how much we agree with the offender of the cheap shot, applauding behavior like this does nothing to help society or to encourage serious thought. We should require our political pundits, politicians, and other thought leaders to work harder to maintain our respect in the public arena. In the same way, when we choose to rise above such tactics ourselves, we can slowly create a better world. 

So the next time you feel afraid that you’re getting swept into a debate, don’t run away or put up your dukes. Instead, ask the person if they are willing to engage with you in a respectful conversation. If you are unsure how to navigate such a conversation, bring along a friend who knows how to disagree peaceably. Then feel free to end the conversation if it becomes disrespectful or if your partner stops listening. Don’t let your voice be silenced just because of fear. Your perspective, your voice, your opinion matters. 

Posted on

Empathy is the New Compassion (and why that’s not a good thing)

Everywhere I go I hear about the need for empathy in our society. Empathy has this sort of wide appeal to almost everyone. It is used in popular social psychology. It has been wielded by politicians, religious clergy, fundraisers and salespeople. 

But where did this word come from and why did it become so widespread? 

The word comes from Greek roots, literally meaning “in feeling.” It was coined by a German philosopher in 1858, more widely translated in 1909. It was first applied to the way a person views artwork. It was applied to anyone with the ability to project his or her personality into the artwork. Thus, “feeling in” the piece. 

Today, the concept of empathy has morphed. We have heard the contrast between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy is said to feel FOR someone. Empathy is to feel WITH someone. Obviously, the latter is preferred as a mode of connection with a person. No one wants to be pitied or felt FOR. They want to be felt WITH. 

And so, our infatuation with the word “empathy” has grown over the last hundred years. 

Empathy is very engaging. That is why we watch movies. We want to enter into a character’s world, to feel what it is like to be them, to experience the things they experience and to have to make the choices they face. 

When people raise money for charities, the smart ones don’t only rely on big picture facts and figures. They will inevitably pull out a single story, one that showcases the plight of a single individual. The communicator knows that if he or she can get you to enter into someone’s story— to engage and project your own experiences on to the story, you will be much more likely to engage your emotions and, in turn, your pocketbook. 

Politicians play to empathy when they talk about their own life experiences and those of the people groups that they want to fight for. 

Empathy is part of the human experience. It is a very important part. People who have no capacity for empathy are not healthy individuals. We feel with people. Even little babies will cry when they hear another baby crying. Empathy stretches our intellect. The ability to see outside of our own skin and put ourselves in someone else’s shoes is very helpful. Children who are avid readers can experience greater empathy than those who read less. It can lead to greater levels of compassion and altruism. 

However, new research has come to the surface to suggest that empathy has a downside too. A recent paper published in the Personalty and Social Psychology Bulletin states that people who felt empathy toward another person were more likely to engage in aggressive behavior when they thought that the person they felt empathy towards was threatened. 

Prabarna Ganguly writes, 

“Participants were, to a surprising degree, willing to inflict pain on a certain person to help a distressed individual they felt empathy for. What’s more, it can be activated even “in the absence of wrongdoing or provocation from the target of aggression.” That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.”

Did you read that correctly? It says, “That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.” 

So it seems that empathy can cause scary ethical problems for us in its real life application. 

Well, as a Christian, I would like to use the Bible, particularly the example of Jesus, as my standard for character, virtue, and morality. We just learned that the word empathy was not circulated until 1908, so it would stand to reason that the word is not used in the Greek text of the New Testament. However, a comparable word is used— compassion. The word compassion is an emotional word in the Greek. It means to have an altruistic feeling in your gut toward someone. 

Moved by compassion, Jesus was about to go about his business, but compassion moved him to stay a little longer teaching the crowds. Compassion moved him to heal their sick. Some translations will say, “he had pity on them” because they were like sheep without a shepherd… But we don’t like that word, pity! It makes us feel too… well, pitiful.

Compassion differs slightly from empathy in that the person having the emotion remains distinct from the object of the emotion. When Jesus had compassion on the crowds, he felt their emotions, but he wasn’t consumed by them. He remained himself, a distinct person who was presumably, not one of the sheep, but in that moment, the shepherd. Of course, he would go to the cross as a lamb, fully identifying with us in his death, burial and resurrection. He felt all the feelings of humankind, and yet he did not succumb to our moral weaknesses. 

Part of the problem with empathy is that it can only be directed specifically. While logic can be applied to all people under all circumstances, empathy can only feel for one person (or people group) at a time. After all, looking at the original use of the word, it’s pretty hard to engage in multiple pieces of art all at one time. Compassion, then, is that unique ability to feel for multiple individuals or groups of people at the same time. Jesus was able to see the big picture. He saw his overarching mission and he was headed in the direction of his mission. However, when his compassion moved him, he stopped what he was doing and he met that need. He didn’t instantly take on every problem that the particular group faced. He didn’t lose sight of his mission for the whole of humanity just to “feel with” that one group. I’m sure there were many who wanted him to stay and fight every battle for them, but he didn’t. Because his compassion allowed him to see both emotional suffering and big picture logic simultaneously. To understand the plight of the poor, while allowing the woman to “waste” her expensive alabaster box of perfume preparing his body for burial, to risk offending a woman by calling her a dog but then healing her daughter anyway, to having compassion on his mother at the cross while forgiving his murderers saying, “They know not what they do.” If Jesus’ goal was empathy (rather than compassion) he might have gotten swept away in the problems of others and not been able to offer them a way out of the messes they were in.

It is conceivable that a person full of empathy for unborn babies could place a bomb in an abortion clinic. They so over-identify with the poor little babies that they lose their powers of reasoning and big picture principle that all life is valuable. It is conceivable that the statistics of illegal immigration could get lost on someone who has their empathy directed toward only “undocumented immigrants” or only toward “legal Americans.” Empathy is insufficient in that it can cause a person to lose their big-picture critical thinking skills that are needed to solve big societal problems. Suddenly, the person who serves the poor begins resenting the middle class or upper class for just “not getting it.” The businessman who begins identifying only with other wealthy businessmen no longer has any patience for someone who cannot “pull himself up from his bootstraps” and make something of himself. Immature forms of empathy can have a tendency to pull us to the lowest common denominator. We allow our own experiences to get jumbled up in the experiences of others and it clouds our logical thinking. I believe that compassion is the mature and full expression of the more underdeveloped emotions of empathy. 

Logic and emotion do not have to be enemies. We just have to know where to place them and the reasons they exist. In the meantime, I would encourage you to pursue, not empathy as your ultimate goal, but compassion— the ability to feel for another deeply, and and to yet remain distinct from. Can you help me bring compassion back in style? 

Please share and engage in our conversation. I plan on discussing this topic more in my soon to be released podcast. Also, you can join a real face to face conversation on this and other interesting topics at Brave Conversations on Facebook!