Empathy is the ability to model another individual's internal state. Sympathy is resonance with the emotional value of that state.
The more empathy you have for someone, the better you are able to anticipate and meet (or thwart) their needs. I can hope you will win a game of chess (sympathy) whether or not I can guess the next move you will make (empathy).
Empathy is the outcome you want. Racism, sexism - objectification is the inability to model another's internal state sufficiently.
Material restitution would not change these underlying dynamics, and, moreover, is hinged on an implied subsequent social egalitarianism that it does little to bring about. Reverse those material inequities without denormalizing the attitudes that put them there, and it's only matter of time until the inequities will return: nothing has been actually been done about the root cause. For that, empathy for the outgroup in question has to occur, to the point where people do not make the misapprehensions that are dehumanization, and treat them with the respect they deserve in an egalitarian society.
If you think this is impossible or unnecessary to achieve, then the reversal of material inequities you seek will only happen under the barrel of a gun - one pointed specifically at those groups who you consider responsible for the status quo. Moreover, in order to take that attitude, you implicitly judge them as incapable or undeserving of an egalitarian status in society. In other words, the specific discrimination of a group, based on their dehumanization. So, how is this not 'fostering oppression'? :)
Society exists under the tacit assumption that all our needs are being met appropriately. This may not be accurate, but only through empathy can that assumption be challenged appropriately.
>Reverse those material inequities without denormalizing the attitudes that put them there, and it's only matter of time until the inequities will return: nothing has been actually been done about the root cause.
Yes, but this problem is not a lack of empathy. Racists have plenty of empathy, it's just conditional on race. This liberal doctrine that empathy is the real problem is completely absurd. Empathy is for little kids who hit somebody and need to be taught to apologize.
The kind of environment that we have which fosters racialized hyperviolence is a little beyond the scope of empathy. Stuff needs to change at a material and structural level, reducing this to empathy at an individual level is a key fallacy of liberalism.
>the reversal of material inequities you seek will only happen under the barrel of a gun
You do realize that this is a very key strain of radical thought starting in Maoism, right? I'm not saying I'm a Maoist, I'm just saying that yes, there are people who believe that, and yes, they have a lot of reasons for it.
>one pointed specifically at those groups who you consider responsible for the status quo.
And why shouldn't it be, metaphorically speaking? The responsibility for oppressive systems which were constituted by a certain class to benefit said class (white, wealthy, male, etc) absolutely falls at the feet of that class.
>Moreover, in order to take that attitude, you implicitly judge them as incapable or undeserving of an egalitarian status in society.
They are deserving of egalitarian status just as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, the culture we live in is currently structured such that they are the only people who are treated as equals. Everyone else is the result of an imperfect striving towards that ideal.
This is the difference between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. Of course All Lives Matter, but certain lives are under direct threat for the color of their skin and nothing else.
If I sound like I'm dehumanizing white men, it's because white men took it upon themselves to dehumanize everyone else, and I consider that violently inhumane. Nonetheless, their humanity is not in question, and they are in a good place to defend it themselves, and thus it needs little protection from me.
>So, how is this not 'fostering oppression'? :)
Yeah, completely lost you here. Sorry.
>Society exists under the tacit assumption that all our needs are being met appropriately. This may not be accurate, but only through empathy can that assumption be challenged appropriately.
But that is a terrible assumption to operate under. Humans are shitty, shitty people in general (I'm no exception) and if history has taught us anything it's that oppression and violence are constants in human society to some extent.
I'm all for transcending this past, but I think you're severely mistaken if you think we can do it through appeals to an abstract concept of empathy. We've been trying that since at least the Greeks, and it doesn't seem to have worked out too well. Better solutions are needed.
Empathy is the ability to model another individual's internal state. Sympathy is resonance with the emotional value of that state.
The more empathy you have for someone, the better you are able to anticipate and meet (or thwart) their needs. I can hope you will win a game of chess (sympathy) whether or not I can guess the next move you will make (empathy).
Empathy is the outcome you want. Racism, sexism - objectification is the inability to model another's internal state sufficiently.
Material restitution would not change these underlying dynamics, and, moreover, is hinged on an implied subsequent social egalitarianism that it does little to bring about. Reverse those material inequities without denormalizing the attitudes that put them there, and it's only matter of time until the inequities will return: nothing has been actually been done about the root cause. For that, empathy for the outgroup in question has to occur, to the point where people do not make the misapprehensions that are dehumanization, and treat them with the respect they deserve in an egalitarian society.
If you think this is impossible or unnecessary to achieve, then the reversal of material inequities you seek will only happen under the barrel of a gun - one pointed specifically at those groups who you consider responsible for the status quo. Moreover, in order to take that attitude, you implicitly judge them as incapable or undeserving of an egalitarian status in society. In other words, the specific discrimination of a group, based on their dehumanization. So, how is this not 'fostering oppression'? :)
Society exists under the tacit assumption that all our needs are being met appropriately. This may not be accurate, but only through empathy can that assumption be challenged appropriately.