http://www.crisisrelief.org/
.
It has recently been reported that Facebook is considering broadening the range of options for expressing emotional responses at the click of a button from just “likes” to “dislikes” and possibly others. The motivation behind this is reported to be users’ desire to express sympathy for a sad event (eg. the death of a friend or relative) without “liking” it. This has caused some consternation as to whether such automated reactions are sufficient for an emotion such as sympathy.
.
The concern seems to be centred around whether sympathy should be reduced to a relatively abstract, automated and easily quantifiable format. I would suggest that this could be an entirely appropriate way of expressing sympathy because it is itself often an abstract, distant way of engaging with an issue. This automation of sympathy perhaps lies with our increasing tendency to engage with situations we think are wrong through sympathy rather than thorough active involvement.
.
The increased use of the internet and World Wide Web has been trumpeted as enabling people to engage with important “causes”. It is rare for a day to pass without being asked to like a page in order to “show support” or “spread the message” and the signing of petitions has taken on a new life in the age of Facebook. There is now even an official Facebook app dedicated to “causes“. Of course, awareness raising and petitioning governments or companies can have a material impact but is no substitute for action. Last year Crisis Relief Singapore launched a campaign called “Liking isn’t helping” using images such as the one above. The aim of this campaign was to highlight that “showing support” through social media does not always lead to real change.
.
But sympathy is not always a sufficient response, indeed, it may even be counter productive to a cause if sympathy is felt but no action is taken or action taken which directly damages the cause for which sympathy or support was given.
.
Feminist writers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings have proposed a conceptual and practical distinction between “caring about” and “caring for”. The former is abstract and detached while the latter is practical and engaged. “Caring for” has largely been associated with the kinds of domestic labour traditionally conducted mostly by women and which has usually not being paid, or paid very low amounts. This kind of caring is hard work, requires ongoing engagement and the entwinement of the lives and futures of those involved. “Caring about” is a much easier “concern” for others and is closer to the kind of “sympathy” which is enabled through Facebook and is perhaps more prominent than ever.
.
Is the sympathy of the television viewer for the victims of a tsunami on the other side of the world useful? Is the sympathy of the colleague who crosses the picket line on a strike useful?
.
Of course sympathy is an important part of human engagement and potentially a spur to social relations and I would not want to denigrate it but a problem may emerge if it replaces active engagement. If we feel that we have done enough merely by expressing our sympathy for someone else’s plight does this mean we won’t take further action?. In the age of Facebook when such sympathy can be easily quantified through analysis of the amount of likes a page or comment receives or when significant efforts are put into the marketing of a cause through “raising awareness” it may be too easy to think that sympathy itself is sufficient. It may seem that something has been achieved simply because a lot of people “liked” or “disliked” a page.
Advertisements
Another interesting post Chris, its so easy in the modern age to not have to ‘do’ anything to make the world better in an active sense, but still feel you are ‘helping’ i.e. you can easy donate some money and feel your job is done. Are people more happy to ‘help’ as long as it doesn’t impact on their lives? It takes more to give time, less to give money, and even less to just click a button to show support, but in that we remove ourselves further from the actual issues and miss the benefits both to others and ourselves to make an active difference.
Thanks! Yes, this is true. Obviously sympathy is a really important aspect of social relations but there is a danger of taking over from other forms of engagement especially when we get a big pat on the back just for showing we care about something regardless of whether it there is any impact. Sympathy and action probably have to be interconnected.
Criminal that more people have no opinions on the subjects you cover. I see reams of comments about utter nonsense, but important issues, people seem shy or merely uninterested; another informative, erudite article Mr Till.
I once considered going to a poor country to do voluntary aid, building or something of that ilk.
Naively, I believed the offering of time to a distant cause would, in actuality simply require a visa and plane ticket; from there on in it would be a simple bed and simple food and the rolling up of sleeves to do some valuable labour. It was not so easy. The cost to do this was more than a holiday abroad. Not only are there the costs of travelling but you must pay high prices for accommodation along with who knows what; in short, it was unaffordable, something only one with spare cash could afford. My sympathy could not be transformed to action, for I needed to first acquire funds. What kind of system is that, to help one must have money? It seems a sort of poseur was involved, not solely helping but being able to say you did so, to bolster your personality as the sort that would do that. Not what I deem charity so much as the building of ego. One who is a true philanthropist, truly charitable needs no validation of their actions by others.
I work with a chap who is constantly giving, but in such a quiet manner. I recall once, we were all (the staff in my school) having a barbecue in Autumn, a poor old farmer-grandmother was toiling away in the background, quietly without alerting anyone to his magnanimity, he filled a plate with meat and kimchi, poured a big cup of rice wine and marched over to offer it her. I noticed this, no one else did. He did not know the woman, he just saw her bent over with age working away and thought that a good deed was in order; just one of numerous acts of unnoticed charity. This is charity. I didn’t mention anything just nodded my agreement toward his act.
On giving money to a charity that too is questionable. A large percentage of that money is, it seems logical to deduce, first given to the cause of the problems, rebels, corrupt governments etc, inevitably so, for they have an iron grip. That small percentage will help a handful, but enable the powerful to tighten their grip on the struggling populace. What is the solution? Take up arms, fight fire with fire?
I would in my early years of university believe in change and thought of solutions to problems, but I kept meeting dead ends. Now Facebook with its sympathy has an answer? unlikely.
Change is something that I believe will only occur after people extemporaneously realize the accumulative error of the centuries. This seems wishful, however it simply isn’t. It is an evolutionary process; that eventually people can only, logically, arrive at a moment of understanding, for it seems ridiculous that we will continue another millennium, murderous, corrupt and unflinching in our desire to change when the nature of things is flux and change; this is what nature and we are, fluctuating things, pliable. Thus that very mechanism of our wiring, our spontaneous potential is the hope I came to understand as the sole hope, and it will bring understanding, it must. When, goodness knows, but it was my best answer to the problems, what do we do until then, I have no idea.
I know a Korean wise man (dae sa nim = 대사님, which translates as saint, or master monk) who is a teacher of mine, an old man who lives in the mountains, his answer to problems is always: “Anyhow, we are all going to die eventually (어차피 죽을 예요! = eo-cha-pi jug-eul-yae-yo).” Maybe that is as good an answer as any.
Thanks for a fascinating comment! It is ridiculous that such barriers are put in the way of people who are willing to sacrifice time and effor to make some kind of impact but is sadly widespread. The attention given to the wealthy and priviledged (celberities and royaly usually) for their charitable works I feel may make people less likely to engage becuase helping others is only possible if you are rich and powerful like those people. I also agree that there are problems with lots of forms of charity (although I’m sure usually the intention is exemplary). For me perhaps the biggest problem is an issue of imagination, it seems to be increasingly difficult for people to imagine themselves as connected to others and as part of a community or society. This might initially seem odd given the much vaunted digitally connected society but as I suggested above awareness and digital connection to others does not necessarily translate into action. People may have awareness of others but not neccessarily feel responsibility towards them. The barriers you describe seem to be there to encourage the perspective that we have to look after ourselves first, I can only help others when I have absolute security myself. But the actions of your colleague show that this is not the case.