Generally agreed. I appreciate your post above on Knowledge, Skills, Abilities. That’s getting to the heart of the matter.
As a learning theory observation, when people are just arriving at some new perspective or skill set, they tend to overgeneralize it and apply it to everything. Also, they get very defensive and reactionary toward whatever it is they are trying to grow beyond. With increasing mastery of whatever the new skills or perspectives are, they get better at picking the right tool for the job, so speak, and more forgiving of their own earlier developmental accomplishments. So someone who is the new kid on the Green block is going to be multi-cultural everything all the time and absolutely allergic to anything resembling a previous level. The irony of this, of course, is that it leads to practicing Green approaches in a very red or amber sort of way. From that point of view, Teal or higher does Green better than Green does, because Green demands contextualization in theory, but is kind of weak at contextualizing in practice. Teal and higher can actually contextualize in practice.
I think this is true of a lot of people at Green, but not all people at Green. I think it’s just because red shadows are so common, in people and cultures. I think there can be many reasons behind it though and a Red shadow isn’t the only cause. I don’t really know if there’s any ‘right’ answer to this though, of whether it is ‘better’ to have a utilitarian approach rather than to be deintological. It could rather be that it’s someone with a Red shadow who would fight for their life but someone at a later stage without a red shadow might have transended the need to live being above their wanting to be peaceful while in the world. The same with amber - maybe if people have fully transcended and included amber they might think it’s better to not use violence even if it saves people yoi love. And so on through the stages.
Certainly though, if violence is ever used, it is always better to try and solve the problems through other means first. I’m reading this book on how to mediate, avoid and end wars peacefully:
“this book… demonstrates, above all, how empathy can often be far more persuasive than the most fearsome weapons”. I feel most people know this about how empathy can alter perspectives (because it can help people untangle their knots, and also grow and see other perspectives more clearly), but I think learning methods on how to do this would be very helpful for everyone.
@Julia248 Thanks for the book recommendation! I checked out the Table of Contents and was immediately sold. I hope to circle back on this book sometime down the road after having an opportunity to read through it.
@robert.bunge, youre welcome :).
It seems very enlightening and helpful, doesnt it.
I heard an interview with Gabrielle Rifkind on mediating the Israel-Gaza war and immediately went to find her and Giandomenico Picco’s book. I’ve only read a little so far
For Shadow Work I’m involved in a less academic and more “on the ground” program that also overlaps with a community. It’s a more flexible option that allows members to progress as fast or as slow as their lifestyle allows. As I’m surrounded by a community also doing shadow work it kind of becomes integrated into our social structure.
I don’t know where this places me on the Integral Scale, but I personally don’t practice empathy in hostile situations, but instead recognition. I recognize and accept the emotion of the other person from a firm, neutral, but also serene position. This allows me to avoid the enmeshment possible with empathy as well as stay safe from violence. It allows me to maintain borders and safety while also allowing the other to have their emotions recognized. Empathy may also lead to validation of destructive emotions like anger and fear and that they are “right” to be angry or fearful, rather than just providing a safe space for those emotions to rattle around in for a while and then get to the bottom of what the anger or fear are hiding.
Recognition is also a much easier threshold for people to cross than empathy. For example, it would really be miraculous to get Jews and Palestinians to empathize with the other, but recognition is a bridge much easier to cross. Empathy requires leaving one’s own emotions behind and feeling the other’s emotions, which is very difficult to get these groups to do with each other.
More important though, as a facilitator I don’t want to feel everyone’s negative emotions who I am doing work with. Empathy by definition requires sharing of emotions. That would do things to my own (Karma for lack of a western word) that I don’t want. Other people’s strong emotions can pass through me or be blocked or stay where they are and dissipate, but I don’t want to share them and ruin whatever emotional state I have achieved.
Shadow work in a community is lovely. I have a friend I do shadow work with sometimes and it makes it feel so much safer for me if it’s something difficult. I need to find a group too.
I’m curious about why you consider the shadow work in thw video academic rather than pracrical. Care to expand?
I consider this as using empathy from your description here but cognitive empathy specifically, and it’s emotional empathy you describe as not wanting in these kind of scenarios.
Cognitive empathy is awareness of what other people are thinking and feeling. It can be described as perspective taking. Emotional empathy is feeling other people’s emotions as if they were your own. It uses the mirror neuron system (and magic! Likely subtle energy). I agree that in conflct situations cognitive empathy can be more accessible and less risky. Emotional empathy can become overwhelming. It’s where the term ‘empath’ comes from. Increased cognitive empathy/perspective taking is what Ken Wilber sees as coinciding with increasing development. Increased emotional empathy can aid with understanding people cognitively too
Probably “academic” and “practical” is the wrong words. It’s more that the program seems to be oriented toward setting up a specific kind of Therapeutic practice, where shadow work is done by the Therapist to the client, most likely for a fee. Through this lens, the Therapist might think Shadow Work is a thing that is one and done, which it isn’t. There are layers. Spotting and addressing one’s individual shadows is one layer. Spotting and addressing organizational and community shadows is a whole different layer.
It’s a good program, sure and actually a bargain price for what you apparently get.
I’m kind of amazed that I’ve been exposed to several empathy centered methods and nobody ever mentioned “Cognitive Empathy”. I suppose I just discovered Cognitive Empathy without anyone ever telling me, which I find kind of reckless of people teaching “Empathy” approaches. It’s like they only learned half of a very important concept and are passing on the dangerous part. I hope that the book makes this distinction clear between Cognitive and Emotional Empathy. I think it’s one of the major dangers that is common in New Age circles to go to Emotional Empathy first in all cases and teach that this is the best way to do things.
Outside of survival situations where real physiological fear kicks in, most emotions people present to me are just made up psychodrama. Of course I don’t tell people this when they are emoting, but there is no reason for me to jon in the psychodrama. Nonsurvival fear, anger, shame, jealousy, pride, codependent or transactional love, disgust, anxiety - why would I ever allow this into me so that I then have to do more work to get it out again? Almost all are just cover ups of the root emotion of sadness, and even sadness is a reaction to the loss of joy.
Anyway, I hope more of the champions of Empathy based approaches consider teaching Cognitive Empathy more and compare that to the many disadvantages of Emotional Empathy.
To me, that sounds like the kind of learning that is supposed to happen in liberal arts programs. Putting yourself in other people’s shoes by imaginatively identifying with characters in literature, history, art, poetry, etc. Or is there more to it?
I don’t know, you tell me, lol. I did study Psychology 101 and I’m sure it was in there somewhere.
More than likely in the text they would describe more of what they are referring to. Just from the Table of Contents alone it’s hard to tell.
I mean, cognitive empathy develops naturally (so does affective empathy, but things can block both or either from developing) - it allows people to take other’s perspectives. Some people struggle with it though. Look up the Sally Ann test for more info. The majority of children can start seeing from others’ perspectives at age 4, and children with developmental disorders like autism often struggle with it. People with autism often struggle with cognitive empathy but not with affective empathy.
People can struggle with affective enpathy too, if they block out their own emotions etc, and some people consciously choose not to engage this kind of emapthy as you describe. There’s no right or wrong of which you have, choose to use, or are best at.
Reading and studying literature, history, engaging with the arts and so on can definitely help develop cognitive empathy too. I think reading literature especially is helpful because it goes deep into different people’s thought processes, both of characters and narrartors. I think the world would be a better place if people went through at least some of their life reading
Circumstances in life, like war, can also derail people’s abilitity and desire to empathise, especially with those they or their country are at war with. This is why once a war or attacks have started it’s so much harder to prevent it from continuing, whereas if it can be mediated before fighting begins its so much simpler to be able to stop.
Yes. Absolutely. That’s why I’ve been taking a pass on opinionating about the various shooting wars going on around the globe. Not that I don’t care, but my personal toolkit (developmental education) is better applied in situations in which students are not dodging literal bullets. Developmental education is more about preventing conflicts in future cycles, not so much in sorting out today’s hot wars. Wars are polarizing, so feelings of empathy tend to get projected to one side or the other. A sort of generalized sorrow that extends equally to all sides in deadly conflicts is very hard to muster, outside perhaps of spiritual communities very focused on transcendent views and practices.
One difficulty I see with Empathy of the affective variety is that the stronger the emotion the less it respects that emotion in the other. Can I really empathize with a person or group who has suffered atrocities? No. To attempt to say I feel the same thing as that person diminishes what they are feeling, as does taking a step back and analytically saying “I comprehend that you are feeling strong emotions.”
It’s kind of an attempt to form a “we” through shared emotion and get closer to the person when it’s actually impossible. Sometimes this backfires and it’s obvious to the person with the strong emotion that the person trying to empathize simply cannot. This sometimes results in judgements against the attempted empathizer as having ulterior motives to emotionally enmesh themselves with the person.
Here’s an example of how this might come out:
“My family was killed in the war in a concentration camp.”
“Oh, I feel for you. My own father died of a heart attack a few years.”
The temptation to Empathize when it’s actually impossible to do affectively and diminishing to do cognitively can lead to all kinds of problems.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
You make a good point. Here is a parallel case. Lately my school is paying a lot of attention to black experience. That works for me - I’m fine with learning more about anyone’s experience. But white guys like me need to walk a line in how much we try to project “I feel you, brother.” No, not really. Not all that way, in any case. Somewhere between “I feel your pain” and “I don’t give a rip” there is an emotional place that is sensitive to the other, that is affected by the other, but still acknowledges that walking a mile in someone else’s shoes is a metaphor, not a literal reality. It seems you are seeking to identify the right language for that sensitive middle place.
I would say it’s important to be aware that, unless youre a full on psychic, and likely not even then, you will never know another person’s experience fully, no matter how well they describe it. Yet i would also say we as humans all share commonalities that mean there is far more that unites us than divides us. I would say that empathy is recognising that other people are the same as you, and are also different. It is empathic to recognise that you cannot fully understand another person and their inner being, world, experience and so on. It is when lacking in empathy that we think we can judge and fully understand another. We can still understand some of another’s inner life though, and resonante with what people are saying even if it’s not something weve experinced in an identical way. And id say its okay to let people know this, because its true… if it’s pretend that isn’t empathising.
There are commanilities that help us empathise. We dont need to have shared the exact same experience with a person or animal to empathise. Empathy is part imagiantion - it is putting yourself in another’s shoes. Its not a metaphor 
Update 09/15/24
Ok so trying to balance the Eros Drive with the Agape Drive and Agency with Communion.