Empathy or Metriopathy?

 

 

 

 

Appendix III

Empathy or Metriopathy?

 [Appendix III is from Survey of the Book of Hebrews, by Professor George Alder, which I transcribed from his recorded lectures in 2003]

 This exploration was inspired by Professor Alder’s discussion regarding forms of pathēin [paqein] used in Hebrews 4:15 and 5:2. There he discusses apathy (without feeling) and sympathy (with feeling), and talks about metriopathein (moderated feeling, “bear gently” in 5:2). This made me curious where the word “empathy” fits into such a progression of degrees of feeling.

It is interesting to note there is no distinction made in the Greek NT between sympathy and empathy. I could not find a form of path that began with “em” in the usual NT sources. This surprised me, as its form is obviously a Greek construction. Since it did not appear in the NT and since it became more emphasized in Christian counseling ministry in the late twentieth century, we might suppose empathy has a modern etymology. Such a recent development may have been necessitated by the lack of sincerity we have developed in caring for others, in our use of the word sympathy.

For example, one source put it this way, “In 1598 it [sympathy] meant ‘moving’ or ‘stirring’. By 1798 it still aroused pity. Now it is simply woeful.” Who wants to be consoled by someone who laments our loss and sorrow? Well I think that would suit me just fine but, as I found out, it was not good enough for modern psychotherapists.

Professor Alder points out sympathy means to “feel with”. You are weak and suffering, so I feel weak and suffering with you. Moderns do not like this idea because, first of all I am concluding that you are in some pitiful state and I need to lower myself to be of any help, and secondly I become so overwhelmed with despair that I cannot help you. Being overwhelmed is an obvious pitfall for those who wish to help others. However, the first point, this lowering process, came to be associated with shame, guilt, co-dependency and all sorts of modern taboos.

Well, if empathy is so important for ministry and it is not found in the NT, where did it come from? In their paper called “Empathy and Analogy”, Allison Barnes and Paul Thagard tell us,

“The concept of sympathy has a long history (Aristotle used it), but the term empathy is quite recent. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the German term "Einfühlung" was used by Rudolph Lotz and Wilhelm Wundt in an aesthetic doctrine, which was then elaborated by Theodore Lipps. For Lipps, Einfühlung is a mode of inner imitation. When empathizing with a work of art, the beholder physically imitates the object and imaginatively projects himself into the object. Lipps also extended Einfühlung to the domain of interpersonal understanding. E.G. Tichener, a student of Wundt, coined the English translation "empathy" in 1910. [emphasis mine]

“The German "Einfühlung" has a distinctive meaning of "feeling into" something. Unfortunately, Einfühlung was often translated as "feeling with", which is the usual meaning of Mitfühlung (sympathy). M.F. Basch (1983) notes that in the Greek derivation of empathy, the prefix em- means "in" or "within", while the prefix sym- means "with", "along with" or "together". Etymologically, therefore, the term sympathy means to share an experience with someone else. When one sympathizes with others, one "feels with" or shares their suffering. In contrast, Einfühlung is a more extensive concept than sympathy. It signifies the ability to comprehend another's state without actually experiencing that state. The term sympathy, then, refers to our awareness and participation in the suffering of another person, while empathy refers to the attempt to comprehend either positive or negative states of another.

“Sympathy is performed with altruistic ends, but empathy may or may not be motivated by good intentions. Indeed, one may empathize solely with narcissistic ends. It is said, for example, that Hitler empathized with the Jews in order to annihilate them.” ^[1]

 

Well given that final statement, are we not all very glad that the writer of Hebrews chose a different expression? Barnes and Thagard begin their exploration of the meaning of empathy by stating simply, “Since its inception, the sense of the term ‘empathy’ has wandered.” Yeah, well I guess so. Although the thought of stretching out on the couch of a therapist named ‘Dr. Hitler’ has a certain adventuresome quality to it, I think I would rather go visit my dentist. But remember, empathy has been a big deal in the world of counseling for a while now.

The authors of this paper set the stage for the problem of meanings, by citing the work of psychologist Robin Dawes. In 1994 he published the result of a study on the effectiveness of psychotherapy which they summarize:

 

“He determined that therapy does help people, but that the training and approach of the therapist have no statistically significant influence on the success of the therapy. Length of therapy is also unrelated to success. Dawes concluded, however, that "empathic" therapists are more effective, although he did not provide an account of what constitutes empathy. “^{[1] [2]}

 

In conclusion, I think it significant that Christians can claim a far more precise word for that fruitful space between not caring at all and caring too much, as given by the writer of Hebrews in the use of metriopathein. Perhaps we could call it “metriopathy (mĕt-rē-ŏ-päth-ē): a metered or measured response of caring.”

 

[1]  “Empathy and Analogy” by Allison Barnes and Paul Thagard, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1997

 [2]  House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth by Robin M. Dawes, New York, Free Press, 1994