i went to the library the other day. i look for books on mainly two topics: daoism and photography. i’m very close to running out of books at our local library. i might have to diversify my interests, but to liberally paraphrase a warren buffet quote completely out of context, “diversification is for the unsophisticated.”
this book was there on the shelf and i was immediately drawn to it. not sure if i had missed it before or just never noticed it. i’d actually never heard of eve arnold. which, after reading this book, makes me wonder, “how? how had i never heard of her?” i’ve not got an answer to that question other than possibly because she wasn’t the type of photographer that allowed ego to drive her work. that and she’s a women. from reading this book and some of her notes, it appears that she was a compassionate, caring individual that photographed people and events through the lens of those very traits.
looking at her photographs in this book, i can see that. it’s the kind of photography that i’ve always dreamt of doing; with the exception of photographing american nazis at a black muslims convention (they were unlikely allies in the 1960s); young, female haitian insane asylum patients used as “guinea pigs” by american pharmaceutical companies; the ravages of apartheid in south africa; mccarthy and his sycophantic acolytes during their hearings; or a ku klux klan imperial wizard in texas; and many other things that most people would find despicable.
but, maybe it was her compassion, her empathy, that allowed her to capture those photographs. she does, however, describe how some of her assignments left lasting damage to her spirit, though not exactly in those words. i presume that her feelings for the oppressed and abused allowed her to capture it all in the hopes that it would help effect some form of justice. justice, however, is subjective and always from the perspective of the powerful.
as i was reading this book, with the literal word “empathy” in my head, i remembered how in some segments of today’s society empathy is now a weakness and/or a sin—of course, religion tells us sin can only occur through weakness. the idea seems to be gathering steam. i did a little reading on this from a scattered few proponents. here’s one from several years ago:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-enticing-sin-of-empathy
and some excerpts:
compassion only suffers with another person; empathy suffers in them. it’s a total immersion into the pain, sorrow, and suffering of the afflicted.
. . .
empathy demands, “feel what i feel. in fact, lose yourself in my feelings.”
i’m not sure i agree with that particular definition or explanation. i think compassion is to have concern for another’s feelings or suffering. empathy, on the other hand, is to recognize and share it through one’s ability to see things from another’s perspective. in this case, i understand joe rigney’s assertions on empathy and compassion and i can certainly see how empathy could possibly be a detriment if someone completely and wholly lost themselves in the feelings of a truly troubled person. if a person was to completely subsume themselves into someone else, of course that first person is going to be lost. but, in life, nothing is quite as cut and dry as joe here proffers and to say that empathy “demands” this is, i think, quite misleading. that’s not to say that someone suffering may not demand it of a person. that is completely possible and i’m sure i’ve seen it happen (a drug addict’s demands to get high with them or you don’t love them), but to say that empathy, to be empathetic, demands and is adamant it happens, is missing the plot.
but, here we are. i think society has lost the plot. or maybe, i’ve lost the plot. i guess it depends on who’s writing the story.
i’m writing this one, so . . . i believe that we are called to be compassionate, empathetic/empathic, caring, kind, loving, understanding, forgiving.
maybe that’s why i’ve never heard of eve arnold. the impatient materialistic world really doesn’t value those characteristics i feel. they tend to overcome their opposites (e.g., love over hate) only in time. and in that respect, unfortunately, joe rigney is correct: society considers empathy (and eve arnold) a weakness.
how unfortunate.