Empathetic Deliberative Democracy

An aspect of the theory of democracy focuses on deliberative democracy. Simply put, deliberative democracy posits that political decisions should be the result of reasonable, fair discussion and debate among citizens. Some claim the primary benefit of deliberative democracy is its ability to arrive at the truth about an issue or a problem. Deliberative democracy promotes truth and accuracy, in other words.

Generating empathy

Michael Hannon, however, is developing another aspect of deliberative democracy. In a recent paper, he suggests that the primary objective of deliberation should be the production of empathy. He does not denigrate the significance of truth seeking but says that developing understanding among citizens may be even more important than truth seeking. Given the deep cognitive and affective divisions in our society today, he may be correct.

Deliberation can produce a willingness to compromise and can make citizens more informed. More informed citizens can make more rational decisions. Rational deliberation can produce decisions that are more truthful, more accurate. Yet today the notion of rational deliberation, of tolerance for the views of others, seems fanciful. Indeed some evidence suggests that deliberation can produce more intense polarization of political views. Reasoning may fail to persuade people when dealing with issues that threaten their core identity or values. [see also kahan 2011]

Can deliberative democracy help produce better understanding? Hannon’s answer is yes, or at least probably, if one defines understanding as the empathetic understanding of others. He argues, I think correctly, that empathetic understanding should be highly valued today. Without the appreciation of others’ views we may become antagonistic to others. As a result we may end up viewing others with disdain, fear, and even hatred. We may now live in times where we often assume that others are wicked or malicious, which may be called “judgmentalism.”

Understanding others requires, first, a willingness to listen Beyond this, we need to empathize with their thinking, “to take up” the perspective of another person. Here, Hannon focuses on re-enactive empathy – the use of our cognitive and deliberative capabilities to reenact or imitate the thought processes of others. Hannon quotes from Jason Hanley’s book, How Propaganda Works:

“The capacity to be reasonable to others requires…a disposition to take the perspective of others in the community in proposing reasons, to be empathetic to them, and to respect their dignity. A contribution to public reason is reasonable only if it takes into account the reasonable perspective of all those citizens subject to the policy under debate.” (102)

Empathetic understanding does not require us to change our opinions or to stop disagreeing. Disagreeing with one another while we seek to understand others better may help us work together. Misunderstanding can move us to hold others in contempt, to be cynical about their views, which increases polarization. We use empathetic understanding to get into an unfamiliar mindset where we must move past our adverse feelings about others.

Hannon identifies some difficulties in moving toward empathetic understanding. Sometimes we may find it impossible to place ourselves in the situation of another. For example, I cannot imagine what it may mean to be a black teenage girl living in a crime-ridden area. Second, it may be unhelpful to try to gain the empathetic understanding of a psychopathic serial rapist, for another example. Finally, if we are not intellectually humble, trying to empathetically understand others may be counterproductive.

We may try to understand someone and conclude there is absolutely no sense about this other person’s views. Consequently, we may become more polarized not less polarized. In other words, the near impossibility of getting oneself to reenact another’s understanding should have little impact on whether the other’s attitude is right.

Empathetic understanding and rational deliberation

Hannon’s perspective sees empathetic understanding not as a result of rational deliberation but as a precondition for it. To Hannon, empathetic understanding is not reasoned argumentation. Focusing too much on rational argument in conversing with others may prevent us from achieving a deep understanding of one another. We are not trying so much to change one’s minds as we are trying to better understand one another.

Using rational argumentation in political engagement with those opposed to our views may simply make things worse. Hannon is not saying that we should never try to change another’s mind. What he is saying is that we should not expect rational arguments to change the minds of those others when they have deeply held political views.

Understanding the viewpoints of others with whom we disagree may have several benefits. It may decrease affective polarization. The degree of passion and animosity we hold others may decline. Today, political partisans tend to hold very unfavorable views of one another. A lack of understanding may cause these negative views. Not understanding the views of others makes it much easier to feel contempt for others.

Second, successful efforts to understand the viewpoints of others may help us become aware of the value of cognitive diversity. Gaining the value of this diversity requires diverse groups to get along. Without understanding disagreement among groups will torpedo the beneficial aspects of deliberation.

Third, if we appreciate the perspective of others, we may be able to end being involved with others in echo chambers. In echo chambers we talk only with those who already agree with us. Echo chambers help us move simplistic and often extreme views to one another. Echo chambers may make us close-minded and lazy, which simply reinforces our interest in working only with those with whom we agree.

Interestingly, Hannon thinks that exiting echo chambers could make us less politically engaged. Some evidence suggests that exposure to diverse perspectives and interacting with people who hold contrary political views makes people more ambivalent, perhaps even more apathetic, about politics. Think about it: the most politically active citizens rarely talk with people who hold contrary views. Do we need a time where citizens become more ambivalent about being politically engaged?

Epistemic values of empathetic understanding

Practicing empathetic understanding may develop knowledge and assist the pursuit of truth. It may have epistemic value. If we lack empathetic understanding, we may too quickly lay adverse judgments on others. We may assign malicious motives to others that may be inaccurate. If we are unable to practice empathetic understanding, we may demonstrate several epistemic vices, such as “close-mindedness, dogmatism, self-deception, and superficiality of thought.” When people who we are unlike us provide us with information we tend to process that information more superficially than we otherwise would.

These epistemic faults often match more faults, such as “excessive self-satisfaction and arrogance, as well as the inability to appreciate one’s own moral frailty.” Hannon argues that we demonstrate intellectual courage when we try to understand viewpoints that are different than the ones we hold.

Comment

Hannon writes what I think is a thoughtful paper. If empathetic understanding increases the value of deliberative democracy, how does one develop it in a society? One answer Hannon gives is including empathy as part of democratic education. He thinks this may increase people’s capacities for perspective taking and empathetic concern. A second answer he provides using literature, film, and other arts to encourage people to become more empathetically sensitive.

His answers remind me of the lifeline exercise conducted as part of the opening residency for leadership doctoral students at the University of Charleston. Taken seriously and provided enough time for developing and commenting on individual lifelines seems to produce an increased understanding of why a person may hold the views he or she does. In this sense, it promotes becoming more empathetic about another’s views.

A political dilemma Hannon’s thesis may face is this: some people are much more open to developing empathetic understanding than others. My sense, and here is where others may hold a different perspective, is that members of the Democratic Party and liberals tend to be more inclined to develop empathetic understanding than are members of the Republican Party and ultraconservatives. For example recent research by Matthew Costello et al. in Sociological Inquiry (March 2019), Social Group Identity and Perceptions of Online Hate, concludes:

“Results demonstrate that males and political conservatives find hate material less disturbing than females and political moderates or liberals. These results are expected, as online hate is largely dominated by right?wing extremists who frequently target females and non?conservatives. We also find that individuals who see hate material more frequently find it more disturbing, as do those who have been the target of hate or criminality online. Finally, individuals who are more accepting of violating social norms are less disturbed by online hate.”

This is not to doubt the value of empathetic understanding but only to point out that people may vary in both their willingness and their capacity to develop it.

Hannon’s paper made me think about the perversity of gerrymandering. Especially since 2010 state legislatures have increasingly reorganized electoral districts geographically to enhance, sometimes dramatically, the election possibilities of their party. The Republican Party has largely done this although there are a few instances of gerrymandering by the Democratic Party. The immediate consequence of gerrymandering produces a percentage of electoral wins that is much larger than the percentage of votes cost.

Here’s an example from 2018 voting in Wisconsin. Despite Democrats winning every statewide office on the ballot and receiving 200,000 more total votes, Republicans lost just one seat in Wisconsin’s lower house. And that victory was by a razor-thin 153 votes. Democrats netted 1.3 million votes for Assembly, 54 percent statewide. Even so, in 2019 Republicans will hold 63 of 99 seats in the Assembly, a nearly two-thirds majority.

From the perspective of empathetic understanding gerrymandering probably leads to geographical echo chambers. Gerrymandering minimizes voter diversity resulting in most voters having very similar political values. Hannon’s notion of empathetic understanding may come into play here. Maybe some people may become more ambivalent or even apathetic but electing someone who is more balanced in political views, avoiding extremism, may be well worth the tradeoff. When many legislators, whether in state assemblies or in Congress, hold extreme political views, compromise become nearly impossible and deadlock increases significantly.