Suzanne Keen’s article, A Theory of Narrative Empathy, poses an interesting distinction between the
notions of empathy and sympathy. Empathy causes an individual to “feel what we
believe to be the emotions of others,” while sympathy only allows an individual
to experience “feelings for another” (208). In literature, the reader can only
ever hope to get as close to the characters as the author permits. If we are
only given a base description of a character, it is likely that we will become
significantly less emotionally invested in the character’s condition.
Alternatively, is we are given a good deal of insight into the character’s
thoughts and emotions, we stand a much better chance of coming closer to
understanding, appreciating, and ultimately feeling that which the character
feels. This does sound good in theory, which stands to support Keen’s choice of
title, however I am apprehensive to admit that a reader can ever fully
empathize with a fictitious character made of letters and sentences. At best,
we might hope to develop a sense of sympathy for the condition of a given
character.
That
is to say, while I, the reader, could certainly come to a conclusion where “I
feel pity for your pain,” like the physical pain experienced by Louisa from her
fall, or the emotional pain felt by those who witnessed it, I adamantly believe
that one can never truly feel the pain of another, especially not when the
other is comprised solely of symbols (209). It is entirely natural that we, as
insightful and intellectual creatures, can comprehend that the situation of
another is either bad or good or some variation. It seems that the only way one
could truly feel exactly the same physical or emotional sensation as another
would be to experience exactly what the other experienced and through that
individual’s perspective. The former would be difficult enough to orchestrate,
ensuring that each and every detail of the scenario is identical, but the
latter, as far as I am aware, is utterly impossible. Even if the replication of
a single experience were carried out flawlessly, it would be experienced
differently through the filter of the sympathizer’s perception than through
that of the initial subject. For this reason, I doubt whether true empathy can
ever be achieved, especially when the subject of the empathy is a series of
words on a page.
I find this idea extremely interesting, Jack, and I actually agree with you, to a degree. The entire concept of empathy relies on one's ability to "feel" what the other, in this case a character in a book such as Louisa, feels. However, to have "true" empathy, you would need to indeed experience the exact same situation. This seems to logically lead to a potential scale of empathy, or perhaps it is sympathy....nevertheless, it seems as if this scale would be influenced by several things, and this could be very interesting to look at in terms of experimentation. For example, how does one's reading experience affect their way to sympathize with the character? One would imagine that a reader who has read about a certain scenario before may have an easier time sympathizing with the character than a reader who is reading about that particular situation for the first time. Furthermore, how does a reader's personal experience influence their ability to sympathize? If a reader is reading about the death of a parent, and experienced this same loss themselves, then the hypothesis might be that they are more able to sympathize with the character than someone who has not experienced the death of a parent. One final thing I think could play a role is shear personality. Some readers may be more sympathetic by nature. I also completely believe that readers can choose to involve themselves in a story, or to simply read it as an outsider. There are several things that play in to the act of sympathizing with a character, and I wonder if the combination of all of these factors can lead to, or at least bring one closer to, the idea of "true" empathy.
ReplyDelete