Empathy
From Notes
Empathy is at the heart of Marshall's process. However it is a difficult thing describe and easy to misunderstand. Marshall's book defines empathy as:
- "A respectful understanding of what others are experiencing"
- "empathy occurs only when we have successfully shed all preconceived ideas and judgements"
If you want to check your understanding further, the earlier work of Carl Rogers (one of Marshall's teachers) is more explicit as illustrated by the following section from "On Becoming a Person" by Carl Rogers, 1961.
It is the most effective agent we know for altering the basic personality structure of an individual, and improving his relationships and his communications with others. If I can listen to what he can tell me, if I can understand how it seems to him, if I can see its personal meaning for him, if I can sense the emotional flavor which it has for him, then I will be releasing potent forces of change in him. If I can really understand how he hates his father, or hates the university, or hates communists -- if I can catch the flavour of his fear of insanity, or his fear of atom bombs, or of Russia -- it will be of the greatest help to him in altering those very hatreds and fears, and in establishing realistic and harmonious relationships with the very people and situations toward which he has felt hatred and fear. We know from our research that such empathic understanding -- understanding with a person, not about him -- is such an effective approach that it can bring about major changes in personality.
Some of you may be feeling that you listen well to people, and that you have never seen such results. The chances are very great indeed that your listening has not been of the type I have described. Fortunately I can suggest a little laboratory experiment which you can try to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your wife, or your friend, or with a small group of friends, just stop the discussion for a moment and for an experiment, institute this rule. "Each person can speak up for himself only after he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately, and to that speaker's satisfaction." You see what this would mean. It would simply mean that before presenting your own point of view, it would be necessary for you to really achieve the other speaker's frame of reference -- to understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarise them for him. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But if you try it you will discover it is one of the most difficult things you have ever tried to do. However, once you have been able to see the other's point of view, your own comments will have to be drastically revised. You wil also find the emotion going out of the discussion, the differences being reduced, and those differences which remain being of a rational and understandable sort.
Can you imagine what this kind of an approach would mean if it were projected into larger areas? What would happen to a labour management dispute if it was conducted in such a way that labor, without necessarily agreeing, could accurately state management's point of view in a way that management could accept; and management, without approving labour's stand, could state labour's case in a way that labour agreed was accurate? It would mean that real communication was established, and one could practically guarantee that some reasonable solution would be reached.
Congruence
Fundamental to Roger's notion of empathic understanding is the concept of congruence, - the degree to which our actual experience, our awareness of it, and our communication are aligned. This sheds further light on the empathy, and in particular how authenticity is attained. It's by being congruent that authenticity is communicated, and this is one key to empathic connection.
I think this also helps to explain why, when we think we are "following the process" (or more commonly when we think we've gone beyond the process and are doing the real thing), others do not respond to us as though we are being "empathic". Probably we are not, no matter how strongly we feel we are.
Here's a sample from "A General Law of Interpersonal Relationships" by Rogers where he illustrates how empathic understanding develops, using a protracted example dialogue - this is one snippet...
... The more Smith is congruent in the topic about which they are communicating, the less he has to defend himself against this area, and the more able he is to listen accurately to Jones' response. Putting it in other terms, Smith has expressed what he genuinely feels. He is therefore more free to listen. The less he is presenting a facade to be defended, the more he can listen accurately to what Jones is communicating...
... he finds himself experiencing fewer barriers to communication. Hence he tends to communicate himself more as he is, more congruently. Little by little his defensiveness decreases.
As Rogers points out, there is an unexpected consequence of fully realised congruence. If we are truly congruent, fully aware of our experience, awareness of it and communication - then we cannot talk about external facts. That is, we can only honestly talk about our experience of the world, not how things really are, because that is really only opinion and interpretation. Compare this to Marshall's differentiation of observation and evaluation - which he uses Krishnamurti's quote to support.
Safety
Rogers also explains how the safety necessary for empathic connection develops. It is achieved through empathy itself. This from "Toward a Theory of Creativity".
Understanding empathically. It is this which provides the ultimate in psychological safety... If I say that I "accept" you, but know nothing of you, this is a shallow acceptance indeed, and you realise that it may change if I actually come to know you. But if I understand you empathically, see you and what you are feeling and doing from your point of view, enter your private world and see it as it appears to you - and still accept you - then this is safety indeed. In this climate you can permit your real self to emerge, and to express itself in varied and novel formings as it relates to the world. This is the basic fostering of creativity.
With Giraffe ears we benefit from this safety ourselves, hence Marshall's introductory "After today, you will never hear criticism or blame..."
Other notes from Carl Rogers
There are many things from Marshall's process that can be found, either complete, or presaged in Rogers, which to me is a rather wonderful thing as I like the interconnectivity of it all. Here's a few sections from dipping in to the book. I hope to read Roger's work more fully, and get around to making a comprehensive commentary on it.
- Away from "oughts" [p168]
- Away from pleasing others [p170]
- Toward being process [p171]
- Social implications (of using Rogers' "path of life" in national and international negotiations) [p178]
- A Therapis's view of the Good life: The Fully Functioning Person [p183]
- Basic Trustworthiness of Human Nature [194]
- General Semantics - Rogers notes that his work has appeared in the Journal of the Society for General Semantics [329]
- An internal locus of evaluation - "that the source or locus of evaluative judgement is internal...value established not by the praise or criticism of others, but by himself" [p354]
- "... when we cease to form judgements of the other individual from our own locus of evaluation, we are fostering creativity" [p357]
