“Hearing” Others by Dr Elizabeth McCardell, M. Couns., PhD

 

February 2021

      I’m  intrigued by the way in which we  get a sense of unseen other people through the narrative of the people talking directly with us. In literary terms, this is known as narrative empathy and it may because my first degree was a major in English Literature, that the idea fascinates me on several levels.

      A while ago, I was listening to a man describing a few ex-girlfriends and I could barely get any real sense of the personhood of these women. It dawned on me that my feelings of disquiet had a lot to do with this man’s own lack of a sense of the “otherness” of the women. If they were characters in a novel, they would be like wraiths, with no substance. We speak, after all, much as we experience.

      We fill in, with our imaginations and felt sense, what we think is going on in another person’s mind when we listen to them speak or write or otherwise depict, the object of their interest. If a person’s focus is on outward appearances, as it was with the man described above, we get very little information on what these other people are actually like. It’s sort of like flicking through a Vogue magazine where women are objectified; nothing more, nothing less.

     This man, who did not have a real sense of the subjective nature of his ex-girlfriends’ experiences, could not understand the effect his actions had on them and the not knowing caused him and, presumably them, real distress. His lack of empathy seemed to be generated by an unawareness of the subjective presence of others. This, I think, was the result of being thrust into an adult world when he was still a child. We develop much of our capacity for empathy though peer contact in a casual environment where ideas of relationship are tried and tested and tried again, and he didn’t have much of this. He was forced to grow up too quickly.

     Getting a sense of how others are feeling is a sign of emotional intelligence and it is the capacity for empathy. Not “hearing” how others are feeling means that they don’t really get a sense of what they themselves are feeling. This is not to say they have no feelings, but rather can’t identify what’s going on within themselves and in the behaviour of others and have difficulty adjusting their behaviour to make space for others’ responses. There is a clinical word for this personality trait: Alexithymia, and being a  trait, it is possible to learn, to heighten, awareness of the feelings of self and others.

     When I was studying couples counselling in my Master of Counselling course we did a lot of practice runs working with people who were not “hearing” the perspectives of the other person they were in a relationship with. We had them do a bit of play acting whereby each had to pretend to be the other person, saying the words they’d heard the other say. This simple task quickly gave each person a felt sense of the other person and a bit of an awareness of other lives, other sensibilities, other perspectives.

     A study needs to be done to investigate how such a technique changes the quality of “voice” in a person’s narrative accounts of others. The quality of “voice” after all changes the capacity to “hear” another person, other people. When we speak of others, what we know of ourselves and how we perceive the other lives of the people we speak of, is reflected in the quality of our narratives. To speak of others without feeling something of what another is feeling is to speak as if “tone deaf”: there is sound, but not much content.  To “hear” another allows us to speak of them in a deeper, fuller way. The man I mentioned above, could well benefit from psychotherapy, if he ever should wish it. The purpose of therapy here would be to learn how to fill out a life with reciprocated relationships that feel good, by recognizing the felt being of others. That makes for a life among others rich and fulfilling.

 

 

On Knowing the Essence of the Other by Dr Elizabeth McCardell, M. Couns., PhD

Jan 2011

     Call it empathy, call it emotional compassion, call it ‘putting yourself in the other person’s shoes,’ call it what you will; at the heart of the matter it is knowing the essence of the other. It is  recognizing the realness of the humanity, in its complexity, of the other person in their flesh and blood.

     We are not born having empathy, for it is something we usually grow into.  As little children we start to recognize what another person is feeling from cues such as facial expressions, laughter, or crying, and how they might be responding from various contexts or situations, like cutting a finger. At first we may experience the distress of the other person as our own distress  (their tears are our own) – which can be overwhelming, but then we develop something called reflective empathy where we gradually learn how to helpfully deal with the suffering of others. This reflective empathy may eventually develop into altruistic behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is where you act for the benefit of another person, without necessarily seeing their discomfort first.

     So what does this word empathy actually mean, and is it adequate in its present form? Does it actually connote a much deeper interrelational process?

The word empathy is a relatively recent concoction combining two Greek roots, pathetos referring to “suffering” and the prefix em referring to “in”. As such, the whole word means “in-suffering”.  The dictionary defines it as ‘mental entering into the feeling or spirit of a person or thing’ as well as an ‘appreciative perception or understanding’.  But is it merely mental? It is useful to dig deeper into the origins of the word.

     The term empathy was coined by Titchener in 1909 to serve as a translation to the German word einfühlung, which had been appropriated by a man named Lipps in 1903, to be applied in a psychological context. Einfühlung was originally used in the study of aesthetics to describe the way in which observers are able to project themselves into a work of art or a thing of beauty. To know the grain of the art work within the body of the perceiver. The Greek word aisthetikos meaning "sensitive, perceptive," from aisthanesthai "to perceive (by the senses or by the mind) is origin of aesthetics. So the origins of both words, empathy and aesthetics, are far from being understood as arising from wholly mental processes.

     Unfortunately, as with the drift of the study of aesthetics to an elitist value-driven critical study of the beautiful, so the word empathy has moved from the realm of sense-perception, of knowing in your bones, to a moral cognitive one. No longer concerned with our participation in another’s sufferance as part of a matter of knowing the essence of the other, the term has come to mean anything from an imagined feeling with the other person to a communicated by parallel-felt distress. Thus a group I’ve come across known as “Laws of Attraction” adherents can say that as empathy is a mental activity,  taking on the negative emotions of others is a harmful practice because you are attracting those same negative circumstances into your own life. Better, they say, to empathize with people who have what you want!!! There goes any consideration of the needs of others and any reason whatsoever for working towards a more equable world, and here comes a totally selfish way of being, where all work is for the satisfaction of ourselves. The spiritual dimension of empathy, which is what I know as “knowing the essence of another”, has been abandoned by these “Law of Attraction” crowd, for the pursuit of self gratification.

     Choosing not to be empathic and not knowing how to be are two different things. It is possible to learn how another person feels. In my clinical practice when something of this nature comes up, I might get them (M.) to “put on the shoes” of the other person they are not “getting” and speak the words the other person might say, using “I” words (swapping roles around).  For example, “I can’t seem to make sense of M.,” “I feel M. is missing me; she’s not feeling my pain.” “M. just wants things all her way…”  Something often happens, a sparkle of recognition occurs. A small bit of awareness of the other person twinkles into being and broadens and shifts the whole feeling situation and changes the way they interact with this other person.

     Knowing the essence of the other is a deep process. It is much more lovely than a mere cognitive acknowledgement of another’s being. It is a whole body, mind, spirit, sharing that allows us to not only acknowledge the rights of others to their unique experiences, but puts us firmly into being here on earth ourselves in inter-relationship with them. Knowing the essence of another is being with them in a vital, sensitive way; it is being here-now with zing and being in community with the capacity for interactive sharing.

On knowing the essence of the other by Dr Elizabeth McCardell, M. Counselling, PhD

Jan 2011

     Call it empathy, called it emotional compassion, call it ‘putting yourself in the other person’s shoes,’ call it what you will; at the heart of the matter it is knowing the essence of the other. It is  recognizing the realness of the humanity, in its complexity, of the other person in their flesh and blood.

      We are not born having empathy, for it is something we usually grow into.  As little children we start to recognize what another person is feeling from cues such as facial expressions, laughter, or crying, and how they might be responding from various contexts or situations, like cutting a finger. At first we may experience the distress of the other person as our own distress  (their tears are our own) – which can be overwhelming, but then we develop something called reflective empathy where we gradually learn how to helpfully deal with the suffering of others. This reflective empathy may eventually develop into altruistic behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is where you act for the benefit of another person, without necessarily seeing their discomfort first.

     So what does this word empathy actually mean, and is it adequate in its present form? Does it actually connote a much deeper interrelational process?

     The word empathy is a relatively recent concoction combining two Greek roots, pathetos referring to “suffering” and the prefix em referring to “in”. As such, the whole word means “in-suffering”.  The dictionary defines it as ‘mental entering into the feeling or spirit of a person or thing’ as well as an ‘appreciative perception or understanding’.  But is it merely mental? It is useful to dig deeper into the origins of the word.

     The term empathy was coined by Titchener in 1909 to serve as a translation to the German word einfühlung, which had been appropriated by a man named Lipps in 1903, to be applied in a psychological context. Einfühlung was originally used in the study of aesthetics to describe the way in which observers are able to project themselves into a work of art or a thing of beauty. To know the grain of the art work within the body of the perceiver. The Greek word aisthetikos meaning "sensitive, perceptive," from aisthanesthai "to perceive (by the senses or by the mind) is origin of aesthetics. So the origins of both words, empathy and aesthetics, are far from being understood as arising from wholly mental processes.

       Unfortunately, as with the drift of the study of aesthetics to an elitist value-driven critical study of the beautiful, so the word empathy has moved from the realm of sense-perception, of knowing in your bones, to a moral cognitive one. No longer concerned with our participation in another’s sufferance as part of a matter of knowing the essence of the other, the term has come to mean anything from an imagined feeling with the other person to a communicated by parallel-felt distress. Thus a group I’ve come across known as “Laws of Attraction” adherents can say that as empathy is a mental activity,  taking on the negative emotions of others is a harmful practice because you are attracting those same negative circumstances into your own life. Better, they say, to empathize with people who have what you want!!! There goes any consideration of the needs of others and any reason whatsoever for working towards a more equable world, and here comes a totally selfish way of being, where all work is for the satisfaction of ourselves. The spiritual dimension of empathy, which is what I know as “knowing the essence of another”, has been abandoned by these “Law of Attraction” crowd, for the pursuit of self gratification.

      Choosing not to be empathic and not knowing how to be are two different things. It is possible to learn how another person feels. In my clinical practice when something of this nature comes up, I might get them (M.) to “put on the shoes” of the other person they are not “getting” and speak the words the other person might say, using “I” words (swapping roles around).  For example, “I can’t seem to make sense of M.,” “I feel M. is missing me; she’s not feeling my pain.” “M. just wants things all her way…”  Something often happens, a sparkle of recognition occurs. A small bit of awareness of the other person twinkles into being and broadens and shifts the whole feeling situation and changes the way they interact with this other person.

       Knowing the essence of the other is a deep process. It is much more lovely than a mere cognitive acknowledgement of another’s being. It is a whole body, mind, spirit, sharing that allows us to not only acknowledge the rights of others to their unique experiences, but puts us firmly into being here on earth ourselves in inter-relationship with them. Knowing the essence of another is being with them in a vital, sensitive way; it is being here-now with zing and being in community with the capacity for interactive sharing.

Copyright @ 2013 Dr Elizabeth McCardell