Empathy is seemingly either everywhere or nowhere, perhaps a reflection of our divided times.  In broader society, the current lack of empathy is causing increasing division, misrepresentation and conflict.   

In the research and insight sector, the desire for empathy is in the foreground, often driving attitudes, behaviours, methodologies and approaches. But is our embrace of empathy causing or exacerbating some fundamental problems?

Empathy or understanding?

Empathy is a term and concept denoting a process of care, active connection and the sharing of worlds. In contrast, ‘empathy’ in our sector manifests as something very different: the gaining of insights about ‘others’ (who are not like us). There is a tension between the ideal and the reality, which results in our ‘acts of empathy’ being represented as more meaningful, connected and reflective of true lived experience than they could ever (really) be.

Understanding people can be achieved without ever striving for, or needing to show, empathy. We don’t need to ‘walk in other people’s shoes’ before we can craft at least a semblance of understanding. This is not perfect, but the absence of perfection doesn’t invalidate what we do, how we do it or the results that are produced. 

We may also benefit from reminding ourselves that empathy is not ‘baked into’ the research tools most often used in research and insight. For example, observation – the research practice often cast as the essential tool of empathy – can be detached, remote and lacking empathy in any real sense. Indeed, a strong argument can be made for the importance of detachment when engaged in observation.

Is empathy even possible?

Imagine two worlds. One, a world of privilege, education, stability; a world in which moments of existential crises were few and far between. The other, a life lived on the periphery, extreme poverty creating enduring limitations, neurological paths formed through repeated existential threat. The experiential gulf is enormous, and the cultural contexts are radically different. 

Can these two individuals understand each other? Undoubtedly. Can each truly empathise with the other? Could such empathy be possible even after years of friendship? Anthropologists have crafted numerous cautionary tales about interpretive errors, even after years or decades of attentive localised study. What chance, then, for encounters lasting an hour or two, or even days, maybe weeks at best?  Are we asking and claiming too much? Are we creating an empathy conceit that is dangerous on multiple levels?

Empathy as aspiration

It is clear to me that many researchers and insight specialists frequently hold fairness and equality as ideals. Many also believe passionately that greater and more inclusive representation in our sector is essential. There is often an ingrained desire to shine a light on the world and upturn the surfaces of everyday life to reveal meaningful truths; to make hidden worlds visible. This is admirable and says a lot about our sector and the qualities of the people within it. 

Maybe, then, we need to re-frame empathy and to see it as a value and an aspiration. The mistake is to substitute aspiration for reality – doing this runs the risk of undermining some of the very principles driving action in the first place.

The problem of representation

We can (and do) understand people from many different worlds – cultural, geographical, religious, neurological – but we do this, for the most part, without empathy, in its true sense.

The reality is that getting closer to true empathy will require greater representation in our sector. The research sector is nowhere near being inclusive of the people we claim to represent through the work that we do. To really feel the experience of another, to truly ‘walk in their shoes’, means something more than simply having the willingness to observe, engage and learn.

Maybe we have become victims of our recognition that lack of representation is so evident in our sector.  Our response is to over-compensate and to try to transform ourselves into those ‘other’ people. But are we promising the impossible? Are we papering over industry fault-lines? Are we muddying waters that actually require greater clarity?

The limits to empathy

If empathy really is important, much more needs to be done to achieve greater representation, so that our agencies and client-side teams reflect the world as it is. Otherwise, let’s not promise too much and, instead, show up as people who can provide some understanding of the world, albeit partial, and bring value to the questions we are asked, without ever thinking or feeling the need to justify our outputs under the umbrella of empathy.

Acting in this way will require us to be more humble about who we are and what we do, and cognisant of our privileged position as cartographers of social and cultural landscapes.

Mark Thorpe is board director at Truth Consulting