Paul Bloom has an intriguing article on the Boston Review called “Against Empathy.” His argument isn’t about being uncompassionate; instead, he differentiates empathy, which he says can be draining, from compassion, which he believes is more sustainable.
Bloom points out that many people confuse empathy with compassion. Empathy involves feeling the same pain as another person, like feeling intense sadness when a friend’s child drowns. Compassion, on the other hand, is about caring for the friend and wanting to help without necessarily sharing their sorrow.
Consider long-distance charity. While someone might imagine the suffering of starving children, this empathetic distress isn’t essential for donating to charity. A compassionate individual recognizes the suffering and is motivated to help, without the need to experience that suffering themselves.
In summary, Bloom believes compassionate acts benefit both the giver and the receiver, whereas empathetic distress can harm the individual and might not help others effectively due to emotional burnout. This concept is explored in Buddhist literature. For instance, a bodhisattva—a person committed to helping others achieve enlightenment—distinguishes between “sentimental compassion,” akin to empathy, and “great compassion,” which is loving and sustainable over the long term. Sentimental compassion is discouraged as it can exhaust the bodhisattva, while great compassion remains balanced and enduring.
This idea finds support in studies by Tania Singer and Matthieu Ricard. Ricard’s brain scans showed different results when he practiced compassion meditation versus empathetic states. Compassion meditation led to positive, prosocial feelings, but empathic states caused emotional exhaustion. Similar studies show that empathy training increases negative emotions and risks burnout, whereas compassion training boosts positive emotions and altruism.
For spiritual practitioners, genuine compassion must be free of empathetic distress. Real compassion, as an ancient commentary suggests, can’t arise if we’re bogged down by our own suffering.
Bloom argues that his stance “against empathy” targets a specific kind of empathy. Someone completely lacking empathy wouldn’t care about others’ suffering and thus wouldn’t be motivated to help. Bloom advocates against empathetic distress, not the basic empathy that forms the foundation for compassionate action.
The article invites reflection from professionals like counselors and therapists, emphasizing the distinction between empathy and compassion to manage burnout effectively. While empathy is essential for understanding and helping others, it’s critical to balance it with compassion to avoid emotional exhaustion and sustain one’s ability to help over the long term.