Empathy (Thoughts)

Has empathy become quaint and idealized? As a constant consumer of media, in full disclosure liberal media, I have perceived an important and amazing trend towards the philosophy of inclusion. I will preface by saying that I doubt the rhetoric parallels the reality, but I do believe the rise of the currently inclusionary rhetoric does speak to a possible shift in societal opinion, if not in action. On every podcast, interview, and newscast the issue of societal inclusion has become a vital focal point of discussion, especially noteworthy within the arts, a field in which expression and, most importantly, connection reigns supreme. With that we feel the need that character roles in film, television, and stage productions (to name a few)  are to be played by the adjacent demographic. Example: that disabled characters should be played by disabled actors (under reasonable situations of course), that LGBT characters should be played by LGBT actors, and that all ethnic characters should be played by similarly (if not exact) ethnic actors [I give only a few examples out of the necessity of both space and time for the reader and I]. Do I agree with the above ideal? Absolutely, who better to understand the plight of an LGBT character than an LGBT actor? Who better to understand the difficulties of living with a disability than an actor who has a disability? Who better to understand ethnic nuances than an actor immersed in said environment? Yet, despite the beauty of such an ideal, of such an exclusionary philosophy, perhaps we are losing on another beautiful, if foolishly (?) angelic ideal. Empathy.
   
Empathy is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” and comes from the greek prefix “em” - in, and the greek word “pathos” - feeling, to create the concept of being “in-feeling,” able to share feeling, and perhaps beyond. So how does our exclusionary philosophy, as found within the rhetorical underpinnings of our society, negatively impact our beliefs in empathy?
   
It is important to note that empathy is a nuanced word that can be construed differently depending on individuals experiences and definitional outlook and so I may very well be arguing a definition you will disagree with, if that is the case it may very well be possible that our currently inclusionary path does not negatively impact our angelic ideal of empathy, but I ask that you hear me out anyways.
   
Our exclusionary philosophy appears to assume a limit to our ability to empathize with our fellow human being. It assumes a man can’t possibly understand what it means to be a woman. I will always take the stance that I cannot understand a woman, someone within the LGBT community, or someone from a different ethnic and cultural background in their totality. Yet I still wish to believe that my imagination and my own shared human experiences, grounded in both practical and emotional knowledge, is enough to allow me to walk in the shoes of that person on an emotional level. Why can’t I, as both a song writer and a dabbler in short fiction, write a well rounded character from a different economic, social, ethnic, cultural, and sexual background? As an artist I crave to connect, to understand and to grasp the lives of others. The moment society unveils me a ceiling, a level of empathy deemed a philosophical impossibility, my fear is that the ceiling does not exist as a reflection of reality but a self imposing restriction, a height we can attain if we only allowed ourselves to attain it. Or perhaps, as I mentioned before, I am but a believer in a foolish and angelic ideal long past its usefulness.