Compassion

By

Stuart Yates

"Compassion is the sometimes fatal capacity for feeling what it is like to live inside somebody eles's skin. It is the knowledge that there can never really be any peace and joy for me until there is peace and joy finally for you too."

(Frederick Buechner)

There are a number of definitions of the word "compassion". For the purposes of this article I am defining it as it is above, especially in the context of another's suffering, mis-fortune or difficulties. Compassion can be felt for others even at a distance. It is a feeling very close to empathy and also to love. It is sadly lacking in the political and economic spheres and in some ways is actively discouraged at the right end of the political spectrum, eg. the unethical statements to the effect, 'If you give the poor/starving/refugees/asylum seekers etc help they will become dependent'. Compassion is beyond mere rational understanding of another's situation - the rational function serves to decide whether or not to act as a result of experiencing compassion - and involves feelings, bodily sensations, an intuitive knowing or awareness. We know when we experience compassion, but our rational self all too often suppresses appropriate action that might flow from the experience, finding all sorts of 'reasons' not to act.

What does compassion serve to do? Quite simply it enables us to connect with other human beings. It is a fundamental part of what makes us human, although some of the higher animals also exhibit compassion. Imagine a society in which compassion does not exist. A child would fall and hurt itself and the child's mother would look on indifferently. Rescue and health services, ambulances, hospitals etc, would not exist, unless illness, such as the plague, were at such extreme levels that the continuance of society itself were threatened. The legal system itself would be very different: do we not prohibit murder for instance because of our awareness of the effects, not just on the victim, but on the victim's family etc? We delude ourselves that we are rational beings and that society is based on rational principles, but many of our systems are based on the awareness of the effects of action or the absence of action on people. There is no rational justification for unemployment pay, free health care for instance and it is a sign of the dangerous eroding of acting out of compassion that such provision is increasingly under threat. Not that there is anything so new in this. The attribution to Marie Antoinette of the comment 'Let them eat cake' is an example of the lack of compassion.

However, modern society is increasingly at risk of losing this vital part of what it is to be human. Modern warfare, with long-range bombing and missile strikes de-humanises the victims. The bombing of Dresden for instance could not have happened if those planning it had allowed into their minds the effects on humans of the firestorms that were deliberately organised. I have no doubt that those responsible would never have set fire to another individual human being, yet set fire to thousands, once the compassion faculty was switched off. So war 'progresses' to Hiroshima, Vietnam, 'daisy cutter' bombs, cluster bombs. All justifiable because the victims are anonymous, that the relationship, such as it is, is 'I-it' rather than 'I-Thou' in Buber's terminology. This de-humanisation goes further and deeper today than ever before. It is the lack of access to compassion that results in Guanatanamo Bay, Abu-Grhaib, the bulldozing of houses in Rafah, although it has always been there: the Holocaust is the most horrific example of how human beings can treat individual other human beings with a total lack of compassion: each Jew being herded in to the gas chambers was visibly and demonstrably another individual human being, but the compassion faculty was not operating. Guantanamo Bay, Abu-Grhaib give the lie to the cosy belief that Nazi Germany was an aberration, that other Western societies would never behave like that. Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Grhaib are but short steps from indifferent killing and the contemptuous reference to all terrorist suspects as 'bad people' is not very different from the view of Jews as vermin. Each detainee in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and the other secret detention centres around the world overseen by the US are visibly and demonstrably individual human beings.

This eroding of compassion is noticeable too at the political/societal level, not just at the 'combatting our enemies' level. Tony Blair studiously avoids talking about 'equality' and uses the phrase 'equality of opportunity', but this phrase incorporates a lie. Does a Downs syndrome adult or a person with epilepsy and who is therefore not allowed to drive to employment, do they have 'equality of opportunity'? Only if special provision is made for them, in which case 'able-bodied' (whatever that means) people could argue that they are being denied 'equality of opportunity'. The phrase is meaningless and avoids the whole issue of equality, which is to do with fairness, justice, compassion. This brings us close to the Marxist principle of 'from each according to his means, to each according to his needs' which is compatible with the spirit of compassion. This principle is of course anathema to the US/UK political axis.

Compassion has built into it the principle that all human beings, whilst individual and unique, are also fundamentally equal. Is the black child starving to death in Darfur in Sudan different in any fundamental way to a white child of a billionaire living in Los Angeles? Are not both children entitled to the basic provision of care: food, water, shelter, one (at least) caring/loving adult? Can any parent, whilst fiercely protective of and caring for their child, honestly say that my child deserves better than another's child? Accidents of birth and of circumstance are however the easy justifications for compassion ('it's not their fault') but the world in general does not even act on these easy justifications. How much more difficult is it to act compassionately towards people whom we regard as being at fault, who have brought misfortune on themselves. Yet this is what compassion is. It is non-judgemental. This means - and this may be difficult for some to accept - that compassion for Saddam Hussein in his present plight can be experienced, in spite of what he has done, just as powerfully as compassion for one of his victims, because of what the victim has suffered. Compassion is independent of 'because' or 'in spite of', 'right' and 'wrong', 'guilt' or 'innocence', 'fault' or 'accident'. We can condemn the action and experience compassion for the perpetrator. The two are not incompatible.

Compassion not only links us with others, it links us to ourselves. When we allow our natural compassion to flow, rather than stifling it, it inevitably connects us with those parts of ourselves which are vulnerable, the parts that we often disown, pretending that we are OK only because of our strengths, rather than perceiving that we are OK because of those strengths and also because of our vulnerabilities. When we recognise and accept these vulnerabilities we can connect more with others' vulnerabilities, misfortunes, mistakes, because we recognise our essential similarities, our common humanity, rather than the differences. Compassion is an essential component of any meaningful relationship: this can be seen when kidnappers and hostages form relationships such that a hostage bears no ill-will towards the kidnapper.

If we are able to see ourselves in the other how might this change society, politics, economics, differences between individuals, groups, countries? Well, very significantly. Adding compassion into the way in which people relate to each other and in the way states relate to each other would be nothing short of revolutionary. Here are some of the ways in which the world would change.

Exploitation of others, at the individual and collective levels would be eliminated. How can anyone exploit anyone else when the potential exploiter is really aware and stays aware of how the exploited would feel? As with all these examples, when we feel for the other, then any harmful action would be as if we were doing it to ourselves. Just imagine a world in which the poor nations are not exploited by the rich nations, a world in which the elderly are not conned out of their life savings by crooked door to door operators.

The elimination or drastic reduction in the resolution of conflict by violence/warfare. The logical sequel to this would be a corresponding reduction in the money spent on armaments. Think how much better off people would be if that money were spent on education, health, basic services.

The world's resources would be more equally divided. Compassion enables us to give, to share. We could not tolerate the plight of the starving if we felt genuine compassion for them. Being without judgement, compassion enables us to share whatever the circumstances. Feeling for them we could not stand idly by, could not spend our wealth on ourselves whilst others starved.

Whilst there would still be political divisions about methods, many political divisions would melt away as the basic agenda would be the same. This would be to care for everyone: the rich through inheritance, the rich through effort, the poor through misfortune, the poor through carelessness or lack of effort. It would go further, much further. It would extend to the child murderer, the benefit cheat, the racist, the teenage vandal etc. Compassion does not divide human being into those who deserve care and those who do not, much less those who are regarded as human and those who are regarded as somehow less than human. It is obvious that if compassion were ubiquitous that the political and legal systems would change radically, whilst at the same time providing justice for those who have been exploited, mugged etc. For compassion is extended to all.

Difference would be tolerated. The differences between my beliefs and your beliefs would be acceptable if not welcomed for the diversity that this brings. Absolute positions of right and wrong would disappear as compassion enables us to understand the other even if we have a different view. Difference would be seen as enriching rather than divisive.

This would lead in turn to a greater degree of cooperation and trust. Competition is incompatible with compassion and together with the toleration of difference leads therefore to a greater degree of cooperation with accompanying trust. Just think for a moment of a world in which trust is the default position, that people see others as trustworthy unless proved otherwise, rather than the other way round.

What gets in the way of a compassionate way of being and consequent actions being the norm? Fear is I believe the main one. Fear of losing out, of being exploited, conquered. The Middle East is an obvious example: underneath the anger and the hatred lies fear: Israelis fear what the Palestinians might (do) inflict on them and the Palestinians fear what Israel might (does) inflict on them. The Cold War was based on mutual fear. I believe - but this would and may form the basis of another article - that the reduction and elimination of fear is primarily a spiritual one. If a person only has a belief in material and individual possessions, a belief that his or her own beliefs are right, a belief that others may threaten those possessions and beliefs, then actions will be based on fear. A way of being and consequent actions based on a 'life purpose' beyond the individual's material comforts leads to a very different way of relating, a compassionate way of relating, so long as that meaning does not exclude others', different, beliefs. This has to start at the individual level. It may seem utopian, but this is an argument based on pure logic: if, in a democracy, enough people said 'We want to pay more tax in order to help the starving and the dispossessed and we will vote for politicians who will do this', then such politicians will be voted in and such a course of action will be implemented. Politicians do not by any means always do what the people want, even in a democracy, but they cannot afford to stray too far away for too long from what the people want. It all starts with the individual.

Greed or selfishness is another reason why compassion is not acted upon. I am as guilty as anyone in this area but also recognise that my material comforts are just that, comforts. Even though my income is below the national average my standard of living far outstrips that of the majority of people in the world. It is easy to convince oneself that the old car 'needs' to be replaced but in truth, the vast majority of the time, it does not 'need' to be replaced, we want to replace it. These are conscious choices. Being choices there are alternatives. This is not a black and white issue, although many religions are quite absolutist about this and people fail, or believe they are failing, as a result. As always, something is better than nothing, compassion can start small and grow. Greed and selfishness are by definition self-centred. Compassion is other-centred. Shifting along the spectrum by being honest with ourselves, by being honest about differentiating between needs and wants, can help, can start to shift the balance between a competitive, violent world and a compassionate one.

Guilt is another factor which gets in the way of acting from compassion. If we feel guilty about our relative good fortune then we may act to a degree but will feel resentful as guilt leads to a 'have to' motivation rather than a 'want to' motivation. A mother does not feel compassion towards her children because she feels she needs to. Her compassion flows from a natural feeling, in fact demanding children reduce this natural compassion and increase the resentment at having to respond and care for them. In the same way, if pictures of starving children in Africa invoke compassion in us, we are more likely to respond in a caring way than if they invoke feelings of guilt at our relative wealth.

Denial of our own vulnerability also reduces our capacity to be compassionate. As long as we retain the illusion that we are in some way superior, different, could never be in need (whilst secretly fearing ever becoming needy), then we cannot feel another's need. Whilst of course for some people financial need may not ever be a threat, emotional and physical needs are universal. Even if money could buy us the best health care it cannot guarantee good health. Money and material possessions cannot guarantee life-enhancing relationships. Acknowledging our own weaknesses and vulnerabilities allow us to be open to others', maybe very different, weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

A way forward? Well, political leaders could in theory show the way but this is not likely because it is the relatively uncompassionate society that brought them to power in the first place. As usual it starts with ourselves at the individual level. It stems from the exercise of individual responsibility and the visibility of that individual responsibility to others who can then be minded to follow suit. This is the way that societies and cultures change. The critical mass for culture change is quite low, a few percentage points change suffices. Never believe that what you believe and what you do is unimportant. It is not a cliché to say that we can make a difference.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." (Margaret Mead)

June 2004