NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17055

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 6.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk!gdb15
From: [e-mail] (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:46:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Lines: 126
Nntp-Posting-Host: grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk

I think Ciaran and I may be slightly at cross-purposes here.  I'm viewing
"understanding" in this context as primarily an emotional thing, whereas
he's viewing it as primarily an intellectual thing.  I think that's what
forms the basis of our disagreement.  There's a sort of emotional
understanding which is just reacting to people's feelings on a gut
level, quite independently of any sort of intellectual content.
Maybe if I use "empathy" for the first and "comprehension" for
the second it'll help to clear things up.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>In <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Guy Barry) writes:

>>/1/ I would say that when a member of group B says of another group A that
>>"A's can't understand B's", they're actually saying "I don't *want*
>>A's to understand B's", or (implicitly) "I don't want A's to
>>understand *me*".
>>/2/ If person X wants to understand person Y, and
>>person Y wants to be understood, then there's no reason why
>>understanding shouldn't take place.
>
>[I've annotated Guy's comments with /1/ and /2/ for ease of reference]
>
>/1/ I disagree. I think saying "A's can't understand B's" is likely to
>be borne out of frustration and personal experience. "The last 9 dozen
>times I have tried to explain something to A, they didn't understand so
>I have concluded that they are incapable of understanding."

Probably because the B wanted the A to empathize, whereas the A was
trying to comprehend.

>/2/ One reason why understanding may not take place is that Y may have
>met with frustrating failure the last 9 dozen times s/he tried to
>explain things in the past. In this case, I do not think it is
>constructive to blame Y for not making an effort to be understood.

Same point.  I can certainly identify with Y's position; if you
meet with a blank wall too often it's very easy to feel demoralized.

>>Why not try to empathize *first*, and rationalize afterwards?
>
>Empathy requires some level of understanding. If I "don't get it" then
>I don't think I have enough understanding to be able to empahise.

Translated into my terms, you're saying "empathy requires some level
of comprehension".  I don't think it does.  If you can perceive that
someone feels hurt, that's enough; you feel for them.  It doesn't
matter *why* they feel hurt.  Once you've built up that
fellow-feeling, you can start to try to comprehend the situation.

>>In other words, if someone tells you they feel hurt or angered or
>>betrayed or whatever by a particular experience, just imagine a
>>situation where you've felt hurt or angered or betrayed yourself.
>
>But if I can't understand *why* they are upset then I am likely to
>think that they are over-reacting. Isn't this one of the often used
>lines to dismiss women: "You're over-reacting/too-sensitive."

If you think they're over-reacting then you're probably contributing
to their feelings of hurt or anger.

>Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point. If you can manage to
>empathise with a person when you have no understanding of their
>anger/hurt then good for you. But I can't do it so good.

It only requires an ability to summon up a similar emotion in
yourself.  If you know what it's like to feel angry or hurt, then
surely that's enough.  Unfortunately, it's the step that many people
are reluctant to take; they'd rather stay in their current position
(for whatever reason) than take some time to put themselves in the
other person's shoes.

[on reading books]
>>That's certainly very useful if you want to gain an appreciation of
>>the experiences of women *in general*, but it's not the same as
>>relating on an individual level.
>
>My point was that reading such books might help you understand the
>general concepts. If you can manage that then it should help quite a lot
>if/when a person tries to relate their own specific story. Besides, very
>often, men want to understand the general issues rather than the
>specifics of one woman's experiences. In this case, the book will be
>just as suited (probably more so) as hearing one woman tell her specific
>story.

I agree -- but we're back to comprehension rather than empathy.  The
two are both worthwhile, but they're completely different.  Ideally
you need both -- one is no substitute for the other.

>>That just sounds like a cop-out.  No book can be a substitute for
>>someone's individual experiences.  Reading the book *as well* as
>>hearing the person's experiences may be useful, since it serves
>>to put them in a broader context, but just giving someone a
>>book is absolving yourself of the responsibility of having to
>>relate your own experiences honestly.
>
>Let me rephrase the above into the following dialogue.
>
>    Man:    Please tell me about what it's like to suffer sexual
>        harassment on a dail basis.

Whoa, stop.  Do you *really* ask women questions like this?  If that's
really all you want to know, then yes, go and buy a book on it.  But
I want to understand people as people, not as case studies.

>BTW, I do *not* have a responsibility to educate every single Jo Soap
>who comes along about queer issues. I may *choose* to educate a person,
>but it is by no means a responsibility.

I agree totally -- I'm sorry if I gave you any other impression.  If I
want to increase my comprehension of queer issues, then I may buy a
book on it, or indeed read groups like this (by the way, thanks again
for tolerating this poor ignorant outsider!).  But when I talk to
people I want to know about their subjective experience of the world
-- not particularly as a member of this or that social group, but just
as a human being.  There'll be some aspects that I find it easy to
identify with, and others that I find it harder to.  But if that
person puts up a barrier saying "Your lot can't understand my lot",
then there's no hope of communication, even if I go away and read
a thousand books.  Empathy is a personal thing.

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: [phone]
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: [phone]
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: [e-mail]
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: [e-mail]