Educated empathy in the charitable sphere
A review of the book in the New York times, published in December, stated that Against Empathy’s “wingspan is too wide to be a simple guide to philanthropy.” While the guide may not be simple, it is a source of reflection, forcing its readers to reconsider the way in which they allocate resources.
Bloom’s second warning is that empathy is self-interested. He recounts a radio presenter’s discourse on giving to beggars: “I feel human contact and intimacy. I want more” she proclaims. It doesn’t take an in-depth analysis to understand that this is selfish and unsympathetic to the Slumdog Millionaire power structures that feed off such egotism. A popular focus for student media is the long term damaging effects of what has been dubbed “voluntourism.” This recent phenomenon has resulted in the appearance of fake orphanages in countries such as Nepal and the construction of dangerous buildings by well-meaning but ill-equipped volunteers. Although, this is not to say that charity is doomed. In the same way that people criticise the Public Sector for being wasteful and poorly managed, the Third sector needs to ensure a standard of excellence which capitalist-economics would argue can only be achieved through competition. Philosopher Peter Singer, to whom Bloom refers, makes his concept of effective altruism accessible in the TED talk on “The Why and How of Effective Altriusm.” This can be applied on both a micro and macro level. When deciding which charities to donate to, you shouldn’t fall prey to black and white conjecture. The easiest assumption to make is that Charities with large overhead costs are wasting money. Effective management, which may come at a cost, is necessary to ensure the effective distribution of funding.
Charities must incite empathy in order to survive. The bias nature of empathy was recognised in 2014 by the film makers Don’t Panic on behalf of Save The Children. The “Most Shocking Second a Day Video” , the YouTube title of the “If London were Syria” project had over 23 million views during the first week after it was posted, immediately boosting Save The Children’s online presence. The video was “designed to create empathy among the British public by following a girl’s fight to survive in war-torn London” as explained by Jack Lundie, the brand director. One can argue that the exploitation of this bias had positive outcomes, increasing awareness and donations for Syria exponentially. I am guilty of having shared the video on Facebook when it was first published, thinking how innovative the filmmakers were, using a new and creative, Black-Mirror-esque depiction of the crisis in Syria. However, it is a sad state of affairs that this work of fiction starring a Caucasian British middle class family has over 55 million more views than the second most popular video which features real children from the developing world.
Bloom concludes his interview with Vice by summarizing his underlying aim: “I would like to see people say, ‘Screw that, it’s a dumb way of doing things – let’s hear the actual arguments.’” Whilst the creative efforts of Save The Children can be commended, on a moral level is it a dumb way of doing things? Contrarily, I would argue that we have a dumb way of looking at things and the charity merely honed in on it. Emotive, empathetic arguments are enough to spark interest in issues. Compassionate rationality, on the other hand, will solve them.