The
terror attack on Charlie Hebdo has a root cause in common with many other
shitty events over the past year. Some people, in their attempt to understand
the attack, decide that Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish demeaning depictions
of Mohammed, thereby assigning some blame to them. They further argue that not
only was it wrong to make fun of Islam’s prophet, it is wrong in general for
Charlie Hebdo to publish offensive content, pointing to other Hebdo covers and
calling them racist. Firstly, those images dubbed “racist” certainly seem so on
the surface and out of context. However, digging deeper and finding the elusive
French satirical double meaning reveals that the image is not condoning racism,
but lampooning it. It is the Colbert Report scenario, in which some people
might actually take it seriously, but the intent is to show just how ridiculous
the idea is through exaggeration and zeal. On the Mohammed images, the purpose
is to highlight the disparity between France and Islam on the topic of free
speech. In France, the right to free speech trumps rules of all religions,
including the rules of Islam. To those who blame Charlie Hebdo for being
offensive, I hope that you are swayed by what I have to say, as we embark on
another journey to make the world a better place by searching for right and
wrong in the context of current events.
The
right to free speech must include the
right to offend. We must be permitted to question authority, to question
religion, to question our own governments, the establishment, our peers,
friends, and enemies. When we stop questioning, we stagnate while those in
power accumulate more of it. We need to be able to think and speak critically
of our world, as a litmus test for how we’re doing as the only sentient species
on the planet. The freedom of speech, inclusive of the right to offend, is not
exempt from this questioning, but is upheld each time the question is asked. Is
there more goodness in the Universe today than yesterday, because of human
activity, or are we a pox on our world, an embarrassing excuse for an
intelligent species who cannot even realize the value of life? Without a vector
for relentless criticism of our world, its people, and their actions, we have
no way to answer this question, let alone do something to change the world if
we dislike the answer.
If we
give in to censorship, to sensitivity of others’ religion (or other beliefs) at
all costs, we are giving up one of the largest steps forward humanity has ever
accomplished. We would be conceding that people cannot be trusted to react
peacefully when others disagree with them, a requisite for successful Democracy.
If you believe in Democracy, in the idea that the power of a nation should stem
ultimately from its People, you are buying into the idea that people can and
should be trusted with such a responsibility. If our government were based on
the presumption that people cannot have an intelligent debate on a subject and
agree to disagree, then we would be catering to the most offendable groups, walking
on eggshells in hopes that we don’t upset them. This is not the way of an
advanced intelligent civilization. This is a medieval and anti-democratic course
of thought. The problem isn’t that people are too offensive, it’s that people
are too offendable. Radical Islam is to blame for the Charlie
Hebdo attack, period. Nobody outside of a religion should be subjugated to its
rules, and everyone within a religion should at least tolerate, coexist with,
or agree to disagree with those outside.
I am
Charlie, not only because I believe that Charlie Hebdo’s satirical criticism exposes
certain truths about the world we currently live in, shedding light on issues
that need to be addressed, but also because I believe that humanity can and
should evolve to the point where we turn to conversation before violence, a
value for which Charlie Hebdo has become a symbol.
This
type of evolution, where we attempt to understand one another before we react
to one another, is an evolution of a greater empathetic ability. This attack
and other tragic events in recent history (ISIS, Ebola, Boko Haram, Mike Brown,
and Eric Garner), and the conversations they have inspired, have revealed
something to me that I very desperately wish weren’t true: human beings have
not yet fully evolved this ability to empathize with one another. I believe
nearly all humans are capable of sympathizing
to a certain extent (as a reminder, sympathy is where you’ve actually had the
same experience and gone through the same feelings), but the events and debates
over the last year (and all throughout history, really) show little to no signs
of empathy.
And
that’s a crying shame. I’ve gone through many hypotheticals, aiming to discover
how to make the world to be a better place. What needs to change in order to
slow (and eventually stop) the unjust ruining and ending of lives? The bottom
line, always, is that people must
change. People must see the value of others’ lives. People must understand the
circumstances of others’ lives. And people must strive first to understand
others, before reacting to them. This goes for the villains and the victims
both. If our response to the Mike Brown killing was to get revenge by killing
Darren Wilson, very little would change, and the world would not get better. If
our response was to applaud Wilson unquestioningly, very little would change,
and the world would not get better. We need to try to understand both
individuals, their backgrounds, and their reasoning for their actions,
regardless of which side you support. Failing to appreciate the importance of
understanding all sides of a story, even if one of those sides is your enemy’s,
is a failure of a basic test of empathetic ability and by extension, a
backpedaling of human progress. Without empathizing with one another, we cannot
fully comprehend the value of each other’s lives, and we will be hindered in
learning from the incident what needs to be changed to make the world a better
place.
I may
be setting the bar a little too high here, but I’ve got standards that must be
met before I’ll call something empathy. First, the empathizer must not have had
a similar experience (because that would be sympathy). Second, the empathizer
must truly understand, to the best of their ability, the experience. And
finally, the purpose of the empathy must be to directly assist the other person,
or those with whom they could sympathize, and not one’s self or those with whom
one could sympathize. Basically, you must have nothing to gain but
understanding through empathy. With these guidelines in mind, let’s explore
empathy in the context of this year’s terrible events.
ISIS: The Islamic State is a militarized
radical faction of the second-largest religious group in the world. Their
actions can be compared to countless cases throughout history when people
killed in the name of their religion. It is abundantly clear that the ideals of
ISIS are without empathy. The thing which prevents them from empathizing with
their victims is blind belief. If we ask why ISIS kills, we can say that they
kill because they believe their killings to be just. If we ask why they think
so, we can say that they are convinced by higher powers (either superiors
within ISIS, or their interpretation of the Koran).
Now
let’s try to empathize with ISIS. This is psychologically difficult to do, and
some would argue that even attempting would equate to capitulation. However, if
we allow our detest for ISIS to prevent us from attempting to understand them,
then are we really that different? I like to think that I’m better than that,
so I’ll move on. I can only imagine the world in which ISIS members grew up. In
a place like Iraq or Syria, the promise of eternal reward must have special
appeal, and I do not fault them for their faith. As much as I hate the
individuals in ISIS for their actions, I have to try to understand that their
actions are a result not only of their own natural tendencies for violence, but
also of the environment in which they live. I can understand that someone who
grows up with next-to-nothing and little hope for success in life, could turn
to religion for solace. I can understand the importance of being extremely
convicted in that religion. And I can understand that when the chance to use
violence is promoted by their interpretation of that religion, that one might be
convinced that these violent actions were just. If this broad generalization
counts as empathy, we can finally assign a value to ISIS with a fuller picture,
and identify a narrower target for making the world suck less. ISIS is still
awful and should not be allowed to continue its violent acts. Empathy does not
preclude a warranted violent response, and I fully support the militaristic
efforts to combat ISIS overseas. However, violence is not the only solution to
the problem. The only reason such a group can exist is through the absence of
empathy, and as such, instilling empathy into current and would-be ISIS members
would also solve the problem, with the added benefit of such an issue never
being able to come up again, as long as empathy holds.
Ebola and Boko Haram: The U.S. reaction to the
Ebola outbreak is an example of sympathy reigning over empathy. Before there
were any Ebola patients in the country, the general sense that I got was along
the lines of “Africa is so far away” and “oh, that’s awful, but what can we
do?” Fast forward a couple months, with people contracting Ebola in the States,
and the shift was apparent: “I hope wearing these trash bags and duct tape on
the plane saves my life” and “QUARANTINE EVERYONE FLYING IN FROM AFRICA!” What
changed was the perceived likelihood that Ebola could actually affect ourselves
or people we know. Why is it that we care so much about people we know, and so
little about people we don’t know? It is because we do not assign a value to
unknown people’s lives, which is due to our lack the empathy to do so. If we
cared as much about the Africans in danger of contracting Ebola as we did for
our own loved ones, you can bet the world would be a better place.
The
same goes for Boko Haram, a scourge on the Earth which has been terrorizing
Africa since 2002. Like ISIS, they are a radical militarized faction of Islam,
and exist only due to the inability of its members to empathize with anyone
outside their specific interpretation of the Koran. Like Ebola, this problem is
concentrated in Africa, and the US populous seems not to care. Maybe they
figure the world is a shitty place, and we’re lucky to live in a less-shitty
part of it. I say let’s not leave it up to luck. Let’s take action to make the
whole world less shitty.
Mike Brown and Eric Garner: Let’s first empathize with
the deceased. Mike Brown grew up black in a poor part of the city, where
(whether you’d like to admit it or not) his chances for success in life were
lower than if he were born rich and white. Eric Garner was similarly
disadvantaged due to his race. Their upbringings were affected at every turn by
the racism inherent in the systems of our society, and also by the racism of
certain people. With less opportunity and more strife than they deserved, I can
understand that robbing that store (if he did) or pushing that clerk, or
selling loosies might have seemed to them ways to forcibly and/or illegally
take what is rightfully owed them. I can understand that if they entered their
encounters with the police with the mindset that nothing good could come of it,
that assaulting the officer (if he did), or resisting arrest might have seemed
like a way to be able to walk away from the situation better off than if they
did nothing. Do I think they should’ve robbed, pushed, and assaulted, or sold
loosies and resisted arrest? No, but I do understand what might have motivated them
to do so, and I don’t think we should allow systemic and unabated racism to continue
to motivate prejudice’s victims to act unjustly. Racism is a form of
non-empathy, which again seems to be a root cause of so much hurt in the world.
Now I’ll
attempt to empathize with the police officers who shot and killed Mike Brown
and used a disallowed chokehold on Eric Garner, leading to his death. I can
understand that these cops grew up in the same world as those they slayed, only
the reason in their eyes for someone to turn to crime might not be systemic
racism, but a personal choice. I can understand that if they have been affected
by racist thoughts (spoiler alert: they have), that the discretionary force they
used during these encounters might have been augmented by their feelings. Do I
think these cops should have used as much force as they did? From what I
believe to have occurred during the incidents, absolutely not, but I do
understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think that we
should allow unabated racism to continue to block the empathic ability in
police officers that might have prevented these deaths. We should also not
allow systemic racism to protect them from the appropriate consequences of
unjustly taking these lives.
I don’t
mean that people should be let off the hook because they are products of their
environment. I only mean that disregarding the influence of their environment
is a form of non-empathy which prevents us from understanding the person, hinders us from identifying the underlying
sources of the problem, and allows the problem to continue. If we don’t realize
that being dealt a bad hand in life can contribute to one’s propensity to do
wrong, we are turning a blind eye to one of the root problems in our society,
and will never be able to fix it. It is through empathic attempts to understand
why people do terrible things that we have the chance to change the situation,
and prevent further atrocities.
In
every situation, tragedy could have been avoided, and progress could have been
promoted, if there were more empathy. Even now, as we discuss our opinions on
these issues, the empathy deficit slows our progress towards understanding and
ultimately fixing them. These events are terrible, and the loss of life and
goodness attributed to each is unacceptable, but what is also unacceptable to
me is the way that empathy is shunned in the face of these issues. Let’s
suppose we move forward un-empathetically. We continue to frown upon radical
Islam, and fight it militaristically, but even if we killed every member of
ISIS and al-Qaeda, what’s to stop the next jihadist group from doubling their
death count? We turn a blind eye to Ebola and Boko Haram, but if we don’t do
something about these troubles in Africa, who will? We blame Mike Brown and
Eric Garner for their own deaths, but what’s to stop police officers from using
their power to further their own agenda, by killing those they despise?
We
need empathy, now more than ever. Sympathy can only take us so far as to help
the people with whom we can easily relate. With the task of making the entire
world a better place, we have no other choice but to try and understand and
reconcile the differences between starkly different people. It is the golden
rule: to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We cannot allow
ourselves to put on the same blinders that ISIS and Boko Haram don to convince
themselves that their cause is just. We must continue to criticize, and be able to be criticized, in order
to allow humankind’s progress to continue. Censoring free speech is not the
answer. Conditioning ourselves to react civilly to free speech is a start, but
evolving true empathy for our fellow humans is the key. With the understanding
we gain through that empathy, we will be able to identify the root causes of
these shitty parts of life on this planet, and we will be able to make the world
a better place, together.
And
if you don’t agree with me, then you’re an unevolved, pathetic, scum-sucking,
idiotic, greedy, evil part-of-the-problem asshole, and the best thing you could
do to make the world a better place, would be to kill yourself (consider that
your first test in free speech conditioning)
