Paul Bloom’s article on the Boston Review titled “Against Empathy” is a thought-provoking piece that distinguishes between empathy and compassion. Bloom argues that empathy can be draining and limiting, while compassion is more enduring and beneficial.
Bloom emphasizes the importance of understanding the difference between empathy and compassion, as some people mistakenly believe that empathy is the sole motivator for kindness. He illustrates this by comparing two scenarios: if a friend’s child drowns, an empathetic response would involve feeling the same deep sorrow as the friend, whereas a compassionate response focuses on caring and helping the friend without sharing in their anguish. Bloom also notes that compassion, unlike empathy, doesn’t require an emotional mirroring of others’ pain.
In discussing long-distance charity, Bloom argues that empathetic distress is not necessary for charitable actions. A compassionate person can be motivated to help starving children without needing to imagine the pain of starvation.
Bloom points out that empathetic distress can be detrimental in the long run as it exhausts individuals and causes burnout. He references Buddhist teachings, specifically the concept of a bodhisattva—a person who remains in the cycle of life and death to help others. In Buddhism, “sentimental compassion” (akin to empathy) is discouraged because it exhausts the bodhisattva, whereas “great compassion” involves caring for others without personal distress and is sustainable indefinitely.
Research by psychologist Tania Singer and Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard supports Bloom’s view. Their studies using fMRI scans show that compassion meditation activates different brain regions than those activated by empathetic distress. Ricard’s experience during these studies revealed that empathy led to emotional exhaustion, while compassion created a positive state with a strong motivation to help others.
Further experiments by Singer’s team found that empathy training, which focuses on experiencing others’ suffering, increased negative emotions and the risk of burnout. Conversely, compassion training, which involves responding to suffering with warmth and care, was more effective in promoting positive emotions and altruism.
Bloom’s differentiation between empathy and compassion has significant implications for spiritual practitioners. Ancient Buddhist commentaries suggest that true compassion cannot arise when one is overwhelmed by their own suffering, a state often induced by empathy.
Bloom’s argument is not against all forms of empathy but targets the kind that leads to personal distress. He acknowledges that some level of empathy is necessary for caring about others, which can drive compassionate actions. Ultimately, Bloom advocates for a balance where compassion, free of empathetic distress, can sustain long-term altruism and well-being for both the giver and the receiver.
In professional fields such as counseling and therapy, where burnout is common, this distinction could provide insight into maintaining emotional resilience. Some practitioners worry that disregarding empathy entirely might hinder the human connection essential in healing. However, they also recognize that a sustainable practice must incorporate self-care, avoiding the pitfalls of empathetic exhaustion.
In conclusion, Bloom’s article encourages a reflection on how empathy and compassion are practiced, suggesting that compassion might offer a more enduring path to kindness and support for others without the adverse effects of empathetic distress.