As an ELA teacher, I have seen “cultivating empathy” as a reason to make sure our students can access literature. My question is: does practicing empathy through literature translate the skill to everyday life?
If it can do that, then I’ll get behind the argument. There’s plenty of compelling reasons to teach kids to read already, but if the skills learned while using empathy to enjoy literature translate to real life, it would be worth some focus. Not because it’s moral, but because it’s a valuable skill to have while living in a society.
Feeling a little lost by what empathy means in this discussion. Maybe sympathy is a better fit.
In child development, studies find that children learn empathy by observing it being given, and by receiving it themselves.
One of the biggest variables then in children’s developing a capacity for empathy for others, is their parents modeling of giving it, both to others and to the child.
Irrespective of empathy, from reading this essay and discussion, I would say Shylock, like Trump simply does what bullies do: tells the story from the middle while entirely avoiding his own initial transgression.
That is how bullies are able to speak with such self-righteous, persuasive confidence and authority when claiming victimhood. Even to themselves, they start the story in the middle.
i wasn't going to read this, but did anyway, and once again was delighted by your writing.
My personal beef is with those who admonish us to have empathy for Trumpsters and to understand why they find a swine like Trump validating so we can change their minds.
No. They're my neighbors. I understand exactly where they're coming from. And it does not make me imagine that they're good but pitifully deluded people. Not a chance I'm gonna be that patroanizing. I've seen them in action. Plenty of empathy, still think they're a menace - mean-spirited bully wannabees who'd send kids and old folks to their deaths from COVID, measels and still not change their minds about anything.
The "reading is inherently good" idea is pervasive and well worth dismantling. What that judge, and many other people, lose track of is that reading, even if it lacks the pizzazz of TV or social media, IS still a form of escapism - emotional tourism, if you will. Maybe something reality-based such as community service would have had a slightly better chance of converting a young nazi.
I agree that walking a mile in another's shoes can be counterproductive to positive empathy. That neo Nazi kid undoubtedly found himself cheering for the villains.
I don't agree that by using Shylock as a character Shakespeare was being particularly antisemitic. We don't really have any evidence of his attitude towards Jews OTHER than Shylock. What he was interested in was the dynamics of revenge; one way to do that was to portray someone in a situation where the urge for revenge is likely. You can see it in Iago, too. "Revenge tragedy" was a big thing in Shakespeare's world. While The Merchant isn't in the mold of those (they have a particular format) it was clearly a popular theme. That does NOT mean that I think Shylock is intended to be a sympathetic character.
To put the Big Shylock speech into perspective of its focus: substitute "rich politician" for Jew and "liberal" for Christian. The main difference is that Shylock DID have good reason for his desire for revenge; it wasn't all in his head. Kid Neo would find HIS empathy with Shylock' situation pretty quickly and find himself drowning in cognitive dissonance.
BTW, there's a lot of misinformation about the play from people who don't have a clue about surety, Shylock didn't lend Antonio money. Antonio was surety (here a guarantor) of BASSANIO's loan from Shylock. This whole thing would have never happened if Bassanio had paid his damn debts on time. But then, where would the play be??
I at one point ended up teaching The Merchant to FIVE freshman English classes each day. I felt rather engulfed. It manifested in my being unable to walk down the halls without chanting to myself "in sooth, I know not why I am so sad."
we can't know what's in shakespeare's heart, I guess, but MoV is an extremely antisemitic play. If a play about how an evil Jew needs to be forcibly converted on pain of murder isn't antisemitic, I'm not sure what could qualify.
We do have evidence of shakespeare's view of Jews other than Shylock. his daughter is good *because she converts*, which is a very common antisemitic trope.
Revenge tragedies are a genre for sure, but genre fiction can advance bigoted narratives of various sorts. Birth of a Nation is also a revenge narrative; it's still really racist.
All I’m saying is that the PLAY may be antisemitic but that doesn’t mean he was actively. The world wasn’t PC back then. You used the tools at hand. On the other hand the AGE was, and persecution was part of the atmosphere they all breathed. I guess I just think the point of the play was subtler than “let’s show up a Jew.”
I’m not looking at moral character. What I’m looking at is what uses a gifted writer does with the tropes of his time. Shylock bashing back then would have been boring and predictable. Commentary on the desire for revenge we all feel sometimes when we feel wronged is something else.
Horn points out that modern day defenses of Shylock are really ubiquitous. So I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Shylock skepticism as boring. It’s the minority position by a lot.
also...I mean, Jewish people were aware that antisemitism was bad, for example. there are always people who resist bigotry in every time. and currently there's plenty of antisemitism...I'm just always very skeptical of "of their time" arguments, which I think flatter us in the present. we're not morally better than people in the past.
You have got my point backward. I meant in SHAKESPEARE's world it would have been boring for a writer as skilled as he was to write just another play focused on how "bad" jews were. That's why I think the USE of antisemitism is more subtle than simply playing to a crowd's prejudices. This where the play differs from Birth of a Nation.
All I can say is that if you can't figure out that an artist can USE a morally repugnant idea without endorsing it, you haven't read a whole lot. THAT is the point--not whatever Shakespeare's personal morality was.
Been hearing about empathy a lot lately so I am pleased to read your thoughtful and nuanced takes.
“Empathy” seems often to be used as a sort of shorthand for “good”. It takes a little work to be empathetic, though, so there is an aspect of righteousness to it as well. But beyond that there is a lot that goes unsaid when the word is used, and your essays have helped me to question the lazy assumptions that use of the word often begs.
We have big juicy brains because words matter, questioning assumptions matters, communication and thoughtful self-expression matters.
"If you understand why they hate you, you might cease hating them, sure. But you also might conclude that their hatred is unbridgeable, and that you’d better get them before they get you."
This moral aporia between love and vengeance is the teetering precipice at the edge of the fascist abyss. God help us.
As an ELA teacher, I have seen “cultivating empathy” as a reason to make sure our students can access literature. My question is: does practicing empathy through literature translate the skill to everyday life?
If it can do that, then I’ll get behind the argument. There’s plenty of compelling reasons to teach kids to read already, but if the skills learned while using empathy to enjoy literature translate to real life, it would be worth some focus. Not because it’s moral, but because it’s a valuable skill to have while living in a society.
Thank you for bringing this up.
Hm…
Feeling a little lost by what empathy means in this discussion. Maybe sympathy is a better fit.
In child development, studies find that children learn empathy by observing it being given, and by receiving it themselves.
One of the biggest variables then in children’s developing a capacity for empathy for others, is their parents modeling of giving it, both to others and to the child.
Irrespective of empathy, from reading this essay and discussion, I would say Shylock, like Trump simply does what bullies do: tells the story from the middle while entirely avoiding his own initial transgression.
That is how bullies are able to speak with such self-righteous, persuasive confidence and authority when claiming victimhood. Even to themselves, they start the story in the middle.
Thanks for a stimulating read all around.
i wasn't going to read this, but did anyway, and once again was delighted by your writing.
My personal beef is with those who admonish us to have empathy for Trumpsters and to understand why they find a swine like Trump validating so we can change their minds.
No. They're my neighbors. I understand exactly where they're coming from. And it does not make me imagine that they're good but pitifully deluded people. Not a chance I'm gonna be that patroanizing. I've seen them in action. Plenty of empathy, still think they're a menace - mean-spirited bully wannabees who'd send kids and old folks to their deaths from COVID, measels and still not change their minds about anything.
The "reading is inherently good" idea is pervasive and well worth dismantling. What that judge, and many other people, lose track of is that reading, even if it lacks the pizzazz of TV or social media, IS still a form of escapism - emotional tourism, if you will. Maybe something reality-based such as community service would have had a slightly better chance of converting a young nazi.
I agree that walking a mile in another's shoes can be counterproductive to positive empathy. That neo Nazi kid undoubtedly found himself cheering for the villains.
I don't agree that by using Shylock as a character Shakespeare was being particularly antisemitic. We don't really have any evidence of his attitude towards Jews OTHER than Shylock. What he was interested in was the dynamics of revenge; one way to do that was to portray someone in a situation where the urge for revenge is likely. You can see it in Iago, too. "Revenge tragedy" was a big thing in Shakespeare's world. While The Merchant isn't in the mold of those (they have a particular format) it was clearly a popular theme. That does NOT mean that I think Shylock is intended to be a sympathetic character.
To put the Big Shylock speech into perspective of its focus: substitute "rich politician" for Jew and "liberal" for Christian. The main difference is that Shylock DID have good reason for his desire for revenge; it wasn't all in his head. Kid Neo would find HIS empathy with Shylock' situation pretty quickly and find himself drowning in cognitive dissonance.
BTW, there's a lot of misinformation about the play from people who don't have a clue about surety, Shylock didn't lend Antonio money. Antonio was surety (here a guarantor) of BASSANIO's loan from Shylock. This whole thing would have never happened if Bassanio had paid his damn debts on time. But then, where would the play be??
I at one point ended up teaching The Merchant to FIVE freshman English classes each day. I felt rather engulfed. It manifested in my being unable to walk down the halls without chanting to myself "in sooth, I know not why I am so sad."
we can't know what's in shakespeare's heart, I guess, but MoV is an extremely antisemitic play. If a play about how an evil Jew needs to be forcibly converted on pain of murder isn't antisemitic, I'm not sure what could qualify.
We do have evidence of shakespeare's view of Jews other than Shylock. his daughter is good *because she converts*, which is a very common antisemitic trope.
Revenge tragedies are a genre for sure, but genre fiction can advance bigoted narratives of various sorts. Birth of a Nation is also a revenge narrative; it's still really racist.
All I’m saying is that the PLAY may be antisemitic but that doesn’t mean he was actively. The world wasn’t PC back then. You used the tools at hand. On the other hand the AGE was, and persecution was part of the atmosphere they all breathed. I guess I just think the point of the play was subtler than “let’s show up a Jew.”
Why defend the moral character of the historical figure William Shakespeare? The man's been dead for four hundred years; it scarcely matters.
I’m not looking at moral character. What I’m looking at is what uses a gifted writer does with the tropes of his time. Shylock bashing back then would have been boring and predictable. Commentary on the desire for revenge we all feel sometimes when we feel wronged is something else.
Horn points out that modern day defenses of Shylock are really ubiquitous. So I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Shylock skepticism as boring. It’s the minority position by a lot.
also...I mean, Jewish people were aware that antisemitism was bad, for example. there are always people who resist bigotry in every time. and currently there's plenty of antisemitism...I'm just always very skeptical of "of their time" arguments, which I think flatter us in the present. we're not morally better than people in the past.
You have got my point backward. I meant in SHAKESPEARE's world it would have been boring for a writer as skilled as he was to write just another play focused on how "bad" jews were. That's why I think the USE of antisemitism is more subtle than simply playing to a crowd's prejudices. This where the play differs from Birth of a Nation.
"All I’m saying is that the PLAY may be antisemitic but that doesn’t mean he was actively. The world wasn’t PC back then. You used the tools at hand."
I see no plausible reading of this other than to defend Shakespeare's moral character.
All I can say is that if you can't figure out that an artist can USE a morally repugnant idea without endorsing it, you haven't read a whole lot. THAT is the point--not whatever Shakespeare's personal morality was.
Been hearing about empathy a lot lately so I am pleased to read your thoughtful and nuanced takes.
“Empathy” seems often to be used as a sort of shorthand for “good”. It takes a little work to be empathetic, though, so there is an aspect of righteousness to it as well. But beyond that there is a lot that goes unsaid when the word is used, and your essays have helped me to question the lazy assumptions that use of the word often begs.
We have big juicy brains because words matter, questioning assumptions matters, communication and thoughtful self-expression matters.
Appreciate you.
"If you understand why they hate you, you might cease hating them, sure. But you also might conclude that their hatred is unbridgeable, and that you’d better get them before they get you."
This moral aporia between love and vengeance is the teetering precipice at the edge of the fascist abyss. God help us.
Empathy emanates from the story, whereas morality is imposed on the story by others besides the author. They are not the same thing.