I have been following the comments, and there is a clear common denominator - empathy vs democracy. A few comments on that.
First, the nature of the adversarial I-win-you-lose winner take all system of ‘democratic’ government common in the West is completely antithetical to empathy. In order to beat your opponent, the last thing you can be towards them and their followers is empathic. The goal is to totally destroy them. American politics more so than Canadian. But as the sides become more and more polarized, all vestiges of empathy are eliminated. Yet I think of Jack Layton, and the Orange Sweep of federal politics. That was really the last hurrah for empathy in our democratic process in Canada. Why did it die with him? Why did it not survive and prosper after his death?
Second, with the rise of ‘profit at all costs’ in corporate America, thanks to Friedman and his Nobel prize, it is seen as the duty of board members to put maximizing profit above all other considerations, including empathy and social responsibility.
But it all feeds directly from the adversarial nature of our Western society in general. In our court system, in our sports model, in our University admissions policies, in our structure of labour unions, even in our concept of the ‘economic class’ system, it is all about pitting one side against another, or the individual against the competitors. When winning by ensuring the other side loses becomes the over-riding goal, empathy takes the back seat.
It all comes down to the difference between the zero sum philosophy of our Western culture, where the goal is to strengthen your side by weakening the other side, vs a win-win philosophy, where the goal is for both sides to get stronger, that is more predominant in socialist cultures. In the first case, empathy is a direct detriment and is to be avoided at all costs. The very last thing one considers in such a system is the well being of the other side, when the goal is to weaken them. In the second case, empathy is a fundamental prerequisite. In order to ensure both sides come out ahead, it is necessary to fully consider the well being of the other person, because the goal is to strengthen them as well as yourself.
I have been following the comments, and there is a clear common denominator - empathy vs democracy. A few comments on that.
First, the nature of the adversarial I-win-you-lose winner take all system of ‘democratic’ government common in the West is completely antithetical to empathy. In order to beat your opponent, the last thing you can be towards them and their followers is empathic. The goal is to totally destroy them. American politics more so than Canadian. But as the sides become more and more polarized, all vestiges of empathy are eliminated. Yet I think of Jack Layton, and the Orange Sweep of federal politics. That was really the last hurrah for empathy in our democratic process in Canada. Why did it die with him? Why did it not survive and prosper after his death?
Second, with the rise of ‘profit at all costs’ in corporate America, thanks to Friedman and his Nobel prize, it is seen as the duty of board members to put maximizing profit above all other considerations, including empathy and social responsibility.
But it all feeds directly from the adversarial nature of our Western society in general. In our court system, in our sports model, in our University admissions policies, in our structure of labour unions, even in our concept of the ‘economic class’ system, it is all about pitting one side against another, or the individual against the competitors. When winning by ensuring the other side loses becomes the over-riding goal, empathy takes the back seat.
It all comes down to the difference between the zero sum philosophy of our Western culture, where the goal is to strengthen your side by weakening the other side, vs a win-win philosophy, where the goal is for both sides to get stronger, that is more predominant in socialist cultures. In the first case, empathy is a direct detriment and is to be avoided at all costs. The very last thing one considers in such a system is the well being of the other side, when the goal is to weaken them. In the second case, empathy is a fundamental prerequisite. In order to ensure both sides come out ahead, it is necessary to fully consider the well being of the other person, because the goal is to strengthen them as well as yourself.