The Priceless Value of Empathy

 

Empathy, “the capacity to place oneself in another’s position,” is one of the hardest things for anyone to achieve. It is almost impossible to change someone’s mind unless you first understand how they think, what makes them tick.

One of the hardest things in the world to do is to set our own perspective aside, and see things from someone else’s point of view. A true friend is someone who listens. A great salesman is someone who knows what you want – even need – to hear. A writer can be great if they can truly get inside the mind of the reader, and pre-emptively understand how their words will be read.

A failure to communicate stems from the failure to have empathy. Engineers usually do not fall short because they are bad at engineering; they fail when they cannot put themselves in the minds of their audience to understand how their words and PowerPoint presentations will be received. An engineer who cannot communicate effectively is worse than useless.

Rabbi David Fohrman offers a brilliant analysis of our foremothers Rachel and Leah. He explains that Rachel’s greatness is found when her sister rebuffs childless Rachel’s request to share in a precious moment when a child comes home with flowers for his mommy. Leah fires back: “You first took my husband, and now you take my son’s flowers?”

Rachel replies: “Therefore he shall lie with you tonight, in return for your son’s flowers.”

What’s going on here? Fohrman explains that Rachel, who was obsessed with the fact that she had no children, and that her sister seemed to be getting all the good things in life, was immediately struck by an epiphany: from her sister’s perspective, it is Leah, not Rachel, who is the victim in the relationship. In contrast to Leah, Rachel was shapely and beautiful. It was Leah who had to pretend to be someone else on her own wedding night. It was Leah who had to be married to a man who hated her, a man who openly preferred her sister.

But in that moment, Rachel managed to flip her perspective, and see it from her sister‘s point of view instead of her own viewpoint, barren and bitter that it was. Fohrman puts words in her mouth: “How could I ask you to share the joy of your child, without me sharing in return with you?”  She declared a truce and gave her husband to her sister in return for the flowers. Rachel gave Leah and Jacob a do-over for the wedding night.  The child that was conceived that night is named for “reward” – the reward both sisters get for that moment of empathy, for that truce between them.

It is the first act of empathy in the Torah. And it tells us a lot about much more than this. The entire episode is a validation that BOTH sisters have valid points of view. There is no single “truth” of the matter, and anyone who has empathy has to be able to validate someone else’s point of view, complete with different notions of what is important in life, and even of the facts themselves. To even ask which version is “true” would be to miss the entire point.

In every human interaction, there is a clash of perspectives, of different versions of what is true or accurate. The Torah does more than accept this: it endorses it. It is through understanding other people that we learn to grow. Having empathy does not invalidate your own version of reality, your own truth. But it tempers it with the knowledge that there are other valid ways of looking at a situation.

Every proper marriage is an ongoing test in this regard: marriage forces us to wrestle with trying to come to grips with a different point of view. No good marriage can be built on a perfunctory dismissal of your spouse’s way of seeing things. And it is why the High Priest had to be married – if we are not confronted with the challenge of understanding the perspective of a wife, we have no chance at being able to understand the perspective of G-d Almighty. This is not because G-d necessarily sees things as a woman does, but because G-d sees things differently than we do, forcing us to question our perspectives in order to wrestle with the divine.

The Torah is full of examples of different facts emerging. Jacob names a place – but the Torah takes pains to tell us what other people name that same place (e.g. Gen. 28:19 – “Bet-El” versus “Luz”; Gen 31:47 “Jegar-sahadutha” versus “Galeed.” Both names exist and are used. A similar thing happens when Rachel names her son “Ben-Oni”, and Jacob renames him “Benjamin.”  Neither name is “true” – each perspective is validated.  The names are the way in which we choose to label our world, the prism through which we see it.  And if we use different names, then we have accepted that each person has their own version, their own truth. The Torah seems to be telling us that this is perfectly fine.

The text goes much farther than merely different names for places and people, though. The entire last book of the Five Books of Moses, the text I refer to as “The Torah,” is a radical departure from the earlier texts. Deuteronomy is, except for a few verses at the end, a set of speeches given by Moses.  These speeches are radical for a very simple reason: the version of events described in them can be very different from how the same event is described earlier in the Torah. Deuteronomy contains Moses’ perspective, and he can present an entirely different set of facts.

Numbers 13:

And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying, “Send thou men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I give to the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall you send a man, every one a ruler among them.”

But in Deuteronomy (1:22), Moshe tells the people:

Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send men ahead to reconnoiter the land for us and bring back word on the route we shall follow and the cities we shall come to.” I approved of the plan, and so I selected twelve of your men, one from each tribe.

See the enormous disconnect? In the first telling, the idea is G-d’s. In the second, the idea of sending the spies comes from the people!

I am well aware that one can try to square the circle and try to make both versions somehow true, though such an attempt flies in the face of the actual words. Nevertheless, that is not nearly as interesting as understanding why the text gives us an entirely incompatible set of explanations for who decided to spy out the land!

We can understand why Moses might have changed the story: he was not inclined to blame G-d, and he wanted the people to own their own history and be able to consciously grow past it. He wanted the Jewish people to take responsibility and grow even from their failures. Even if it did not really happen that way!

Yet however we parse it, we have the text with BOTH versions. This means that the Torah is teaching us, the readers, a very explicit lesson: It is OK to have different – even incompatible – versions of the same story. The purpose of the story is, after all, to grow connections and relationships, to help people make sense of their past, and find pathways into the future. One could even argue that the Torah’s purpose in telling us the story for a reason easily explains why different explanations of the origin of the world are offered by geologists, physicists, chemists, and, of course, founding religious texts for different religions. There can, thanks to the prism selected, indeed be a vast range of differing accounts of the creation of the world – with none of them necessarily being wrong.

And so the purist ideal of “one version,” or perhaps even “one true version,” becomes collateral damage, sacrificed when the purpose justifies it. We can – and should – customize the story for the listener, always seeking to find ways to constructively move forward. It is why it is good and right and proper to find ways to compliment others instead of insisting on “telling it as I see it.” The latter is an act of supreme selfishness and indifference, while the former shows sensitivity and consideration.

I fear this lesson is often missed by those who insist that there are somehow no inconsistencies in the Torah, that everything dovetails and aligns perfectly. I take the text seriously, so when there are differences within it, then we are to learn from those differences as well.

The lesson seems evident: there is a deep and inherent value in each person’s perspective. And the notion of a single “true” version of an event is antithetical to the purposes of the Torah. Empathy is a higher goal, because it allows us to build a common vision, an understanding between each other, and between man and G-d.

It is no accident that the Torah gives us different and contradictory versions of events. It is on purpose, to teach us that, as long as we act in good faith, validating different perspectives, names, and even events, it is an act of love, constructively building relationships. That is what we should be all about.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 6 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    The view among ‘educators’ that children can only possibly be interested in books where the protagonists are the same race…same gender…same economic class…and facing the same kind of problems as the children in question is extremely destructive of the development of empathy.

    • #1
  2. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Also: there is actually research suggesting that reading novels develops improved empathy.

     

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    David Foster (View Comment):

    Also: there is actually research suggesting that reading novels develops improved empathy.

     

    I believe the same applies to movies.  Not the research, but the concept of good fiction making readers or viewers empathize with one or more of the characters.

    • #3
  4. devodivo Member
    devodivo
    @devodivo

    Through a 50 year friendship, I am thoroughly acquainted with the brain research on the deep relationship between mimetic cells, empathy and cognition. Your piece pointing out that empathic understanding of another’s point of view is a biblically based key to relationships that begins with patriarchs  in the Torah is a nice insight. Also that different points of view and different accounts are recognized as legitimate.  Explains the differences in the Christian Gospel accounts. 

    So…do you have any thoughts how this insight would help us 1776 people figure out how G-d would have us deal w the 1619 folks? (Many of whom are long time close friends who are now distant.)

    I think about this sad state of affairs just about every day.

    Thank you!

    • #4
  5. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    iWe:

     

    It is no accident that the Torah gives us different and contradictory versions of events. It is on purpose, to teach us that, as long as we act in good faith, validating different perspectives, names, and even events, it is an act of love, constructively building relationships. That is what we should be all about.

    I wonder if this is at the root of the passage from Pirkei Avos that states: “( When serving as a judge),do not act as a lawyer; while the litigants stand before you, consider them both as guilty, but when they are dismissed from you, consider them both as innocent ( provided they have accepted the judgment)”?

    • #5
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    devodivo (View Comment):
    Your piece pointing out that empathic understanding of another’s point of view is a biblically based key to relationships that begins with patriarchs  in the Torah is a nice insight. Also that different points of view and different accounts are recognized as legitimate.  Explains the differences in the Christian Gospel accounts. 

    It does! This had not occurred to me

    devodivo (View Comment):
    So…do you have any thoughts how this insight would help us 1776 people figure out how G-d would have us deal w the 1619 folks? (Many of whom are long time close friends who are now distant.)

    I guess we first have to ask whether they are dealing in good faith or not. I assume that at least some of them are. 

    I can tell you what does not work: insist that the facts are on our side. That is a losing argument, as has been clearly demonstrated.

    From a strategic perspective, the best reply is to attack where the enemy is not defending. Their argument is that America was founded on racist principles, for the purpose of maximizing slavery. From a strategic perspective, the attack that Candace Owens has used has been quite effective: “Good point. Did you know that Democrats were the worst offenders? After all Lincoln was a Republican, while all the old segregationists like Woody Woo were – gasp –  Democrats. Which party insists on racial preferences going forward? Could it be… the Democrats again?!”

    I have found that wedge issues also work great: we should empower black people with maximizing legal gun ownership and school choice! Surely nobody in America wants to further oppress black people by not letting them defend themselves from lynch mobs, or keep them down through inferior, inner-city schools?!

     

    • #6