Empathy, empathy! They've all got it empathy

I'd champion an ability to empathise over most human traits but in some circumstances can it actually hinder the progress of humanity?

Previously, I've waxed lyrical on the readiness of celebrities to associate with charity but on reading this article last week, I've finally been able to put my finger on a different aspect of prime-time fundraising television that has always disconcerted me...

"The concept of empathy—putting yourself into another's shoes—has fuelled political and moral thinking of late, inspiring presidents and academics to hail the feeling of another's pain as necessary to curing the world's ills. Crucial to empathy is "victim identification", by which we come to know the human face of tragedy. As a result, we are far more likely to give donations to a person whose picture we see on the news than seek solutions for systemic problems, such as underfunded hospitals, that affect the lives of far more individuals. In other words, empathy can result in the sacrificing of the many for the one." - The Case Against Empathy - bigthink.com

Children In Need and Comic Relief clearly fall into this trap because of their desire to show the "human face of tragedy" so forcefully. In doing so they miss a key facet of what should be the overarching question i.e. 'why have the political powers responsible not addressed the issues that led to this suffering?'

I always suspect the organisers (and the public for that matter) are far more concerned with which BBC newsreaders will be wheeled out for the annual dance routine. At least Bob Geldof physically and metaphorically loomed over Thatcher in the run up to Live Aid. He wasn't just looking on dutifully as an African child showed him round their woefully inadequate home. He wasn't just yelling "Give us yer money!"

It's this lack of focus on the 'systemic problems' that I can't abide. After all, isn't prevention always better than cure?

Children in Need alone raised over £26million in 2012. A fantastic sum. However, put into context (and this is where I wave the red flag), UK bankers bonuses alone totalled £13billion in 2012. That's more than the total GDP of Equitorial Guinea; a country, lest we forget, crippled by the cost of its debts to us in the developed world.

"Even though Africa has only 5 percent of the developing world's income, it carries about two thirds of the debt - over $300 billion. Because of this, the average African country spends three times more of its scarce resources on repaying debt than it does on providing basic services" - allAfrica.com

The funds and awareness that charities raise for their cause are extremely important; the good will and kindness of those that work for a charity is to be commended, yet, however good the intention, when we ourselves donate, I wonder whether we aren't just letting our politicians off the hook? Whether we aren't just perpetuating the status quo (and I don't just mean prolonging the careers of Francis Rossi and Rick Parfit. I've moved on from Live Aid now)?

Contrary to the article I quote here, I don't really think that empathy is the problem - you can't have enough of that in society to my mind - rather it's the action this "victim identification" catalyses.

It's an objective and politically engaged response we need rather than a guilt relieving, emotive knee-jerk reaction. After all, however much we raise financially, we won't cure the problem. 12 months later we'll see the same upsetting images on our TV screens again.

Next year I suggest that, instead of Bill Turnbull and Charlie Stayt performing Abba for our amusement, we should demand David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the rest of the House of Commons take their place. We might suddenly find there's a permanent change for the better. A change that money can't buy.

Charity ends at home

How distant that summer seems now. How absurd our dreams of utopia. As autumn brings wind, rain and darkened skies so too that symbolic torch of light seems to flicker and fade from our collective memory. It was always to be that way, of course, but could anyone have predicted such a sense of betrayal...?

The unmasking of Jimmy Savile strikes to the heart of a nation that seemed so sure of itself but a few months ago. The crimes of the man, as hateful and numerous as they are, only reveal part of the horror. More significant is the question of how this was allowed to happen?

The fact it was, for decades, and under the blind eye of one of our greatest and most celebrated public institutions, only adds to the sense of shame. Even more unnerving is the number of people claiming to have known, or at least suspected, his transgressions. Yet, to a man and woman, they never thought, or felt able, to unveil them.

This is the most frightening revelation. One man nesting himself in a protective cocoon of contacts so stymied by fear of his power and influence that none would speak against him; not dictator, nor terrorist but light entertainer!

Pillory Savile, pillory the BBC, rightly, but don't ignore that worm of the soul which allowed each of those individuals to ignore such crimes. Something not inherent to institutions or organisations but to the heart of everyman.

***

It's been a difficult time to call myself a Chelsea fan. A team that continues to employ John Terry, who, on the balance of probability, racially abused a fellow player. Many at the club ignore the facts to protect their own, citing his utter commitment on the pitch as if that mitigates against all.

Irrelevant, insignificant and further evidence of unwillingness to accept responsibility. Against Shaktar Donetsk in a recent Champions League match, Terry sported a captain's armband brandishing the logo of a registered charity campaigning to rid the game of that very ill which he had helped cultivate.

***

Charity. "His many years of work for charity". "The thousands of pounds he raised for charity". Celebrities who throw themselves so wholeheartedly into such an arena have always bothered me. Frankly, I question their motives. To erase the guilt of their own success? To shift focus from their otherwise considerable flaws? In Savile's case, it seems to be both these and worse - a convenient way to access the vulnerable.

Every year I bridle at the eagerness of our celebrity aristocracy to lend their services to Comic Relief or Children in Need, asking myself if altruism is just a myth?

By all means contribute money - anonymously; set up a foundation - anonymously; visit a homeless shelter without a camera crew following your every move.

Perhaps many do, I hope so, but when Savile's uncloaking follows so closely the rank exposure of cyclist Lance Armstrong as the most prolific cheater in sporting history - a man supposedly representing the values of his own 'Livestrong' campaign - it becomes the ultimate manifestation of those fears, embodied in men who were once acclaimed respectively as the greatest celebrity fundraiser and greatest sportsman of our time!

***

Just last weekend, I was in my local off licence. As I queued at the counter, ahead of me, a threatening and aggressive character begun tacitly abusing the young Asian man serving him. "I don't like him" he exclaimed to everyone and no one in particular; "he's different" he mumbled almost incoherently under his breath. The implication was abundantly clear.

Yet not one of us in that queue acted. No one called him to account, no one defended this poor man from the abuse he was receiving. I felt my cheeks blush and my blood boil but I too chose to turn my head away, ignoring that which I knew had taken place.

Who's responsible for Savile, Terry, Armstrong and their ills...?

I am.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Often attributed to Edmund Burke