Worldview, Empathy, and Expectations

I don't normally do this, but I'm going to share some off-the-cuff remarks on the impact that worldview exerts on our expectations, particularly with regards to our assessment of empathy.  My thoughts are sparked by a great gathering that we hosted here at Oklahoma Baptist University over the weekend - the regional meeting of Phi Theta Kappa, the Arkansas-Oklahoma Honors society for 2-year colleges.  There were about 100 students and various sponsors and faculty members in attendance, and I had the privilege of eating dinner with some of them, and then serving as the moderator for a panel discussion on Friday evening.

The topic of our panel discussion was "The University: Unity in Diversity - Cultivating Global Scholars."  The aim was to talk about how cultural and disciplinary diversity among faculty members and students contributes to a healthy campus environment, but need not prevent a university's strong unity in purpose and direction.  As a college builds unity amid diversity, we are then better able to cultivate global scholars, graduates who are confident and competent to engage a diverse world and (in our OBU context) integrate their faith with all areas of knowledge while living a life worthy of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

In the Q&A after the panel discussion, a couple of interesting things transpired. 

Understanding Others, Empathy and Worldview

First, there was suggestion from multiple fronts that we all need to hear from one another, and listen to the ideas and perspectives presented from others, even if we find their ideas off-putting at first.  The philosopher in me wanted to pounce, and to suggest that some ideas simply are not worth consideration (e.g., I am the only person who exists; the earth is flat and/or two-dimensional; hockey is not the greatest sport on earth).  But I resisted that temptation, firstly because I recognized the healthy motivation that lay behind the comments, secondly because I was serving as moderator of the discussion.

Second, immediately after that train of conversation, another student raised an excellent question, basically putting into words the heart of my concern.  Badly paraphrased, the student (from Carl Albert College in Oklahoma) said: "I understand the importance of listening to other people and learning from them.  But what about when the other person is expressing a totally unacceptable viewpoint.  For example, what if their perspective is totally void of empathy.  In those situations, wouldn't it be most appropriate to not accept their viewpoint as valid?"  Well put.

There are a couple of interesting things to say in response. 

1. I absolutely agree that there are some viewpoints and ideas that are not worthy of our consideration or respect.  They may be few in number, but they do exist.

2. The young lady suggested that a perspective that was "void of empathy" was one such perspective.  I told her I thought that was interest, for two reasons.  First, it acknowledges the existence of an objective moral standard - something which I am happy to embrace alongside her.  Second, it insists that possession and demonstration of empathy is morally obligatory.  Given Jesus's golden rule in Matthew 7, I am inclined to agree with her - but I think it is worth noting that many people in our society might choose to differ. 

3. I was curious about the worldview implications of this young student's on-point remarks.  There are two sides to this as well.

a) Often times, an opposing viewpoint is going to initially sound quite extreme.  In fact, as I articulated on Friday evening, there may be times that someone in our society intentionally or unintentionally phrases their thoughts in provocative (possibly insulting) fashion to gain attention - either because they feel ignored or unvalued, or for the sake of spurring necessary conversation.  As we engage with that person, however, and seek to understand more fully what they believe and why they believe it, I find that most frequently that initially extreme/insulting perspective is considerably softened.  Sometimes the person is just happy to be heard, and it turns out that their view is really not as extreme as their initial claim sounded - as we listen, their actual (and more moderate) perspective shines through.  Sometimes the person's perspective actually changes, moderates, in the very act of dialogue - as we allow them to speak to a real live human being who might disagree with them, they change their tune to a degree.  At other times, listening to a person does not result in their position coming out more moderate or less offensive.  But at least in those cases, you can be confident that you have understood the person fairly, and can now express your disagreement (and reasons for it) openly.  The heart of the matter is that we want to understand another person's worldview fairly and accurately.

Unfortunately, what usually happens in our society is that we shout one another down, unfriend people on Facebook if they disagree, and flame away at opponents.  There is very little by way of actual dialogue, and that is sad.

b) Furthermore, I think that the possession and demonstration of empathy is a complex concept that is going to be worldview-dependent.  If I had longer on Friday evening, I would have used this as an example to flesh it out.

Imagine that you overhear a conversation between two people, one strongly pro-life, the other strongly pro-choice.  The conversation goes something (in brief) like this.

PL: "I cannot believe the lack of empathy that you are displaying in your position.  Don't you care about all of those unborn babies that are being brutally murdered in the womb?"

PC: "I cannot believe the lack of empathy that you are displaying in your position.  Don't you care about all of those pregnant women who have to face the difficult decision of bringing a child into the world or terminating the pregnancy?"

Flesh the conversation out with your imagination - what we have here is fundamentally a failure to communicate.  Both PL (pro-life) and PC (pro-choice) feels that their own position is highly empathetic - to the unborn and to pregnant woman, respectively - and the other's position lacks empathy.  Why?  Because their position determines what is seen as empathetic and what is not.  If they were able to communicate more deeply, and understand where the other person is coming from, they would discover (I think) that the "other" is an empathetic individual - they just have a different idea of who should be identified as the primary party needing empathy.

I think this kind of "worldview-talking-past-one-another" happens with disturbing frequency.  An evangelical Christian, filled with love for other people and a concern for their earthly and eternal best, seeks to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with his neighbors - a Buddhist and an agnostic.  Those neighbors feel deeply offended, sensing that the Christian has not valued their religious or philosophical sensibilities and reasons.  The Christian feels driven by empathy, while the other senses a distinct lack of empathy.  A social democrat advocates for a higher minimum wage, desiring to see the working poor raised toward middle class status.  A libertarian opposes higher minimum wages, desiring to see the market establish appropriate wages.  The social democrat seeks empathy for the worker; the libertarian seeks empathy for small business owners (who may be bankrupted by mandated higher wages).  Neither lacks empathy writ large - they just direct the primary focus of empathy differently.

Worldview and Expectations

The other interesting aspect of this weekend's Phi Theta Kappa event is a bit more contentious.  I was not present for this particular scene, so am working off of multiple eyewitness accounts.  On Saturday, there were several breakout sessions and workshops led by various guests and many OBU faculty. 

In one OBU-led workshop, the presenter brought up several verses of Scripture on powerpoint slides which, in their estimation (and mine), provided wise input to the topic at hand.  A handful of students present for that workshop were offended by the introduction of Scripture, and stood up and left the room in the middle of the presentation.  This was not a Bible beat-down, just the introduction of biblical material that spoke to the subject of conversation.  I find it fascinating that students would be sufficiently offended in the context as to justify walking out of the room altogether.

1. The conference is a regional meeting of Phi Theta Kappa, a standard Honors society.  As such, the society should be understood as being worldview-neutral, or religiously-neutral - neither privileging nor dismissing any particular religious or philosophical worldview.  Given that, one might understand the students to be justified in leaving - after all, the presentation introduced clearly religious material, and that might violate the religious neutrality of the organization.

2. But, to be frank, that's a bunch of BS.  Worldview or religious neutrality does not and indeed cannot mean that material, topics, and/or issues that have worldview or religious implications are not permitted.  If that were the case, conferences would be downright boring - because it's almost impossible to find material to talk about that does not involve some sort of worldview implication!  Furthermore, as I can personally attest, it is disturbingly common to be present at regional or national Honors society conferences, and attend workshops or breakout sessions that have overtly a) naturalistic, b) anti-Christian, and/or c) religiously-pluralistic material.  For example, you can find sessions on: incorporating the wisdom of the world's great religious traditions into Honors programs; understanding the development of the human learner in a strictly biochemical fashion; tracing the increased secularization of Western society; investigating the human-nature harmony of traditional Native spirituality, etc.

3. The regional conference was being hosted at Oklahoma Baptist University.  Traditionally, a large number of the Honors conference workshops are led by faculty from the host institution.  Would it have been reasonable to expect there to be a modicum of religious information in the faculty-led workshops?  It seems to me that would be quite reasonable - in the same way that I should not be surprised by the presence of non-religious or anti-Christian content in workshops hosted at state schools.

4. Should/would the students have been offended if material went up on the powerpoint from Confucius' Analects; Homer's Iliad; Thoreau's On Walden Pond; or the Bhagavad Gita?

4. It seems to me that the really dangerous and unfortunate worldview expectation that the mid-lecture departure exemplifies is this: "I have the right to not be confronted with any material that opposes my existing worldview orientation."  While I can understand how someone might arrive at that conclusion, the position has no place in post-secondary education, and is particularly abhorrent in an Honors society.  One of the values of university education is being confronted with ideas that are not your own, facing the best arguments that others bring against your worldview, and, as the student on Friday night realized, even (understanding and) engaging with perspectives that seem initially bizarre or despicable to you.

We live in interesting times.