Mr. Eli Schneider
Journal Editor and Student Support Teacher
In the days and weeks after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, local officials struggled to cope with tragedy at the same time as attempting to provide for the physical and emotional needs of a traumatized community. In addition to providing counseling, attending to security needs and basically living through a crime scene, these leaders had to manage all of the attention that was focused on the community from people outside of the Newtown, Connecticut area. As people throughout the United States and beyond were understandably horrified by this latest episode of gun violence against children, many sought out opportunities to help those impacted. One of the most common expressions of grief and empathy for the victims, was the sending of toys, specifically stuffed animals, for the children in the community. So many animals were sent to Newtown in the the weeks after the tragedy that warehouses set up to receive donations were completely filled, overwhelming the local workers and volunteers who were tasked with managing deliveries and finding more storage space. Eventually Sandy Hook parents and local officials made a pleafor these donations to stop, but with the increased media attention the pace of deliveries only increased. All in all, it’s estimated that over 65,000 teddy bears were delivered to a town of approximately 27,000 people.
Picture from Newtown, CT (Rick Hartford, Hartford Courant/MCT via Getty Images)
While it’s easy to see all of this simply as an outpouring of love and support for a grieving community, (and who can fault anyone who is trying to bring comfort to children?) there are important questions about how we act on our feelings of empathy within a broader society. In the case of the Sandy Hook tragedy, what causes so many people to assume that the residents of Newtown, Connecticut would benefit from this kind of attention and support? What drives the decision making that leads to providing the type of assistance that is so out of step with the wishes of the community? These families were struggling with so much. What they did not need was more teddy bears.To begin to understand how empathy (from the German word Einfühlung, or “feeling into“)works in these situations, we should consider how our sense of connection to others can impact our priorities for better or worse. According to Paul Bloom, the author of the problematically titled Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, the Sandy Hook case represents the ways in which empathy can lead to unexpected and negative outcomes. In an interview with the CBC, Bloom describes the Sandy Hook teddy bear phenomenon as an expression of empathy that was an impediment to actual help: “It’s a simple example of the difference between wanting to make the world a better place, and really helping people, vs. feeling empathy and wanting to scratch that itch.” Bloom suggests that empathy as we understand it can lead us to unconsciously work to satisfy our own desires to help rather than spending energy fulfilling authentic needs.
Given that we can work to improve our ability to reach out to and support others, what can our tradition teach us about the role empathy should play in our decision making? Amos Hakham suggests (Da’at Miqra; Tehillim 27:4) that there is a significant difference between the use of the verb “לבקר” (le’vaker) in modern and biblical Hebrew. Hakham argues that the verb we generally translate as “visiting” was used in antiquity to describe the actions of “observing and checking.” As a result, in contrast to current understanding, the obligation of ביקור חולים (bikur cholim) should not be understood as limited to spending time with a person (a common response from someone who wishes to comfort), but rather to attend to the needs of the חולה (the afflicted person) on a more holistic level. This requires a commitment to contributing to his or her physical, spiritual and/or emotional well-being in the way that is most helpful to them. Through such an understanding, it is possible that in certain cases not visiting a person may actually be a better way to fulfill the mitzvah of bikur cholim.
So what does all of this mean for educators in a Jewish context? How does our מסורה – our tradition – intertwine the values of living an empathetic and ethically meaningful life? It is my belief that far from being “against empathy,” as Bloom’s title might initially suggest, that we are obligated as educators to impress upon our students the value and importance of developing a broad empathetic disposition in regards to others. While empathy as an emotional connection cannot be forced, it can be guided, facilitated and modeled in the ways that we engage with one another, not only within our community, but also in how we relate to those who reside outside our regular circles of concern. According to the philosopher Nel Noddings, this is one of our obligations as educators because it does not come naturally:
Because we are naturally disposed to respond empathically to those closest to us does not imply that we cannot learn to extend our empathy to strangers and distant others. If we are committed to care, we meet proximate strangers prepared to care; they address us directly, and we must respond. Singer (and others) would have us believe that the plight of a distant stranger puts exactly the same moral demand on us as that of the person right before us. (Noddings, 2010, p. 11)
But empathy for others is not enough. We learn through our social and Halakhic obligations of ביקור חולים (bikur cholim) that we are required to go beyond our initial empathetic response to another person and consider what is most needed from their perspective. While we might want to bring a gift and stay for a chat, a better response could be offering to pick up the dry cleaning. There are many opportunities to teach young people about their ethical and social obligations within a meaningful Jewish framework. Beyond visiting the sick, we can teach them how to approach a mourner or to listen at a shiva. All of these opportunities to do Mitzvot can help students fulfil their obligations to others while developing a broader sense of empathy that can be universalized beyond their immediate communities.
Ultimately I would argue that we best develop young people’s capacity for empathy by meaningfully exposing them to the experiences of others. This can be done through exposure to more personal narratives as well as a wide variety of local and global literatures. I would also argue that as educators we have a responsibility to teach directly about the experiences of others so that students’ empathy (“feeling for”) people can be informed by deeper knowledge of how people might view their own experiences. Our responses to the needs of others are far more helpful and meaningful when we are better informed.
