The other day my husband told me that he was listening to gaming podcasts on his way to work instead of National Public Radio. NPR had been deluging him with human interest stories on Syrian refugees and other people in desperate circumstances. The constant tug at the heartstrings was making his morning drive a depressing and exhausting start to the day.
I've heard that listening to stories about other people is a good way to develop the ability to empathize, to see the world through someone else's eyes. I firmly believe this. Stories also give us a way to peek into other cultures and other living conditions. We need these stories. And some of these stories, certainly, should be about refugees. About migrant workers. And about children trying to survive in lands controlled by warlords.
But it is also true that one can get too much. Being bombarded by intense depictions of all the terrible things going on in the world can result in a sense of helplessness. Feeling helpless leads to paralysis, not action.
Obviously it is far better to be a commuter listening to a heart-rending story about a Syrian refugee, and feeling depressed about it, than it is to be the Syrian refugee. I don't want to lose sight of that. But sympathetic suffering is not in itself an improvement in the world. It is good when it leads to reducing others' suffering. No doubt the reporters on NPR hope their stories will inspire people to act. Probably they do, sometimes.
But compassion and sympathy are not sufficient for right action.
I don't listen to NPR (or any radio, really) but there is something I have noticed both in Facebook posts and, I think, in newspaper editorials. There is a lot of appeal to emotion. For example, I see a lot of the stories about undocumented/illegal immigrants that are focused on good people in untenable situations. I hear, for instance, about the children of such immigrants who fear being sent back to a country they have never known. I hear about people who have been valued contributors to their community for many years, but who could lose everything they have worked to build.
I don't hear much about how we can create a workable, fair, compassionate and enforceable immigration policy so that we can avoid such situations in the first place. I don't hear much about it from the left, and I don't hear much about it from the right either. The appeals from the right seem to be equally emotional stories about hard working men and women (especially men) who can't find jobs because the work has been taken by undocumented/illegal workers. (Exactly what jobs these are is a bit vague--presumably not the jobs that went overseas or that became obsolete, since they couldn't have taken those jobs.)
Having a strong desire to improve things is not enough. Coming up with good policies requires knowledge of facts and context. Knowing which policies to support requires the same. Heart-stirring stories are good (in moderation.) Thoughtful discussions of cause-and-effect, historical background, and basic principles are also important.
If people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, then possibly I shouldn't be posting this. My knowledge of practical details on most of these subjects is embarrassingly low. Then again, the fact that I'm falling short doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.
So, don't get overwhelmed by the vastness of human need. Just pick your patch and dive in. That's what I'm telling myself, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment