Compassion Journal

"The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without an understanding of compassion." -Socrates
You are here: Home / Archives for Opinion

Compassion: The Rise of Man

By

The Latin origin of the word compassion literally means co-suffering. When we see Syrians running in terror on our TV screens, our hearts run with them. When we see homeless folk selling magazines, our hopes stand with them. That’s compassion. As a society we have compassion for these people but is it enough?

Is it enough?

Society shows compassion for the refugees and the homeless magazine sellers, but what about the others? What about those Syrians and Iraqis that we don’t see? Those faceless souls being tortured in The Islamic State hidden away from the media gaze and excluded from public chatter. And how about those homeless people who don’t sell magazines? You know the ones, slumped in shop doorways looking downcast, the ones we like to call beggars. Where is the compassion for them? What about the people in life who don’t fight for themselves? Either because they can’t or won’t. Are they somehow less worthy of compassion?

I see the battle for compassion as one of the titanic duals of modern times fought in many arenas. As a species we have evolved greater compassion now than at any time in our recorded history. And yet conversely we have also developed a ruthless approach to life that for the first time, threatens the very notion of compassion itself. If somebody makes an innocent mistake through oversight or incompetence, we want them fired instead of asking how we can help them improve. We stigmatize the depressed. If somebody won’t work because they can’t find the motivation to get out of bed in the morning, we say let them starve instead of let’s help them even more. Logically speaking though, since when did taking something from someone who has so little ever act as a good motivator? Surely a forward-thinking compassionate society would be asking are we doing enough? Can we pay more? Can we do more for them? Is it enough?

Ruthless business leaders, politicians and many others like to invoke Charles Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ explanation of biological evolution as a mantra for life. This can be used to defend the gross accumulation of wealth at the expense of everybody else including the vulnerable. However, it’s also a gross misrepresentation of the great man himself. Physical health aside, when used metaphorically, some people use the term “survival of the fittest” to talk about those most competent or those most financially successful or those with some form of power. The funny thing is though, those who believe the strong defeating the weak is some kind of natural happening to be encouraged can never call themselves Darwinian.

In “The Descent of Man, And Selection in Relation to Sex,” Darwin wrote “the highest moral achievement is concern for the welfare of all living beings, humans and nonhuman.” Furthermore, consider this which he wrote specifically about compassion:

“In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it would have been increased through natural selection, for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best.”

When I talk about compassion, I’m not even saying we should give more money or time — I guess all I’m saying is let’s be less judgmental. At my secondary school, a lot of my fellow pupils were vicious individuals, in some cases psychotic. However there were also some who weren’t so bad. Whenever I hear of another of the not-so-bads making the news for having turned to a life of drugs or petty crime, I try to think of them not as the hardened users or criminals they have become, but more rather as the children they once were.

The homeless (both sellers and doorway dwellers), Syrians and Iraqis (both refugees and those left behind), the unemployed, the mentally ill (both psychologically and psychiatric), the incompetent and the rest are not criminals. They are people. If we want to be the fittest, we need to be less judgmental. We need to be more compassionate. Compassion is a virtue of the giants, spread it and ye shall walk among them.

This article was first published in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Compassion is Guaranteed to Make You More Attractive

By

Flash back to ancient times, as two young cave dwellers return home from a hunt to report separately to their mates, “I didn’t do well. I caught nothing. Everyone else got something.” The cavewoman who stroked her partner’s face soothingly and said, “Don’t worry, you will be the best tomorrow. I know you will. I believe you will,” both supported him and strengthened their bond. The cavewoman who retorted, “You caught nothing?! How could you catch nothing?!” did the opposite.

Eons later, when these couples’ descendants attended a conference in Las Vegas, which do you think had a better time?

We all want to be attractive to our mate; we all want our mate to desire us. And while a look in the mirror might lead you to think you’re a beauty, if you’re an unsupportive husband or wife, you’re more likely a beast.

Being supportive to your partner when she or he is feeling down or has experienced a setback rebuilds their confidence, and it is confidence, and the positive feelings it breeds, that fuels their belief that they can rebound and be more successful tomorrow. This is one of the evolutionary functions of support: It helps people recover from adversity and increases their chances to survive. Being a supportive mate makes you moreattractive because, over time, a supportive partner is perceived as a confidence builder.

We all want to feel confident, so it is only natural that we would be attracted to people whobuild our confidence. “I couldn’t have done it without my spouse,” is an homage to the supportive partner. Being supportive to a partner makes you desirable; he or she wants to be with you because your support provides them with positive energy. And there is overwhelming contemporary research indicating that marital discord is often rooted in a lack of support.

How do you express support to your partner (or, for that matter, to your child, assistant, staff, or team)? One way is to be encouraging by making direct statements that you believe in their ability to be successful in their endeavors. Be a positive thinker for them, especially when they have setbacks—because your support helps them make a comeback.

When your partner experiences success, express pride; too many people feel threatened by a partner’s accomplishments. And when he or she comes to you with a problem or shares a troublesome situation from work or with a friend, demonstrate support by simply listening in a non-evaluative manner. Help him or her clarify and validate feelings, and help them problem solve—if asked. Too many of us respond too quickly with “solutions” or with blame for the individual for creating the plight, or are simply dismissive—“It’s not a big deal. Forget about it.”

 

The article first appeared in https://www.psychologytoday.com.

Can Compassion Change the World?

By

The Dalai Lama has a long history of meeting and collaborating with social scientists—psychologists, neuroscientists, economists, and others looking to understand the science of human emotions and behavior. Through these collaborations, he has learned about the research in this area and has encouraged scientists to pursue fields of inquiry more directly aimed at serving the public good.

Now that he will be turning 80 this year, the Dalai Lama asked psychologist and bestselling author Daniel Goleman to write a book outlining his vision for a better world and the role science can play. The result of their collaboration, A Force for Good: The Dalai Lama’s Vision for Our World, is both a translation of the Dalai Lama’s ideals and a call to action.

Recently, I spoke with Goleman about the book.

Jill Suttie: After reading your book, it seemed to me that the Dalai Lama’s vision for a better future comes down, in large part, to cultivating compassion for others. Why is compassion so important?

The Dalai Lama and Daniel Goleman

Daniel Goleman: He’s not speaking from a Buddhist perspective; he’s actually speaking from a scientific perspective. He’s using scientific evidence coming from places like Stanford, Emory, and the University of Wisconsin—also, Tanya Singer’s project at the Max Planck Institute—which shows that people have the ability to cultivate compassion.

This research is very encouraging, because scientists are not only using brain imagery to identify the specific brain circuitry that controls compassion, but also showing that the circuitry becomes strengthened, and people become more altruistic and willing to help out other people, if they learn to cultivate compassion—for example, by doing traditional meditation practices of loving kindness. This is so encouraging, because it’s a fundamental imperative that we need compassion as our moral rudder.

JS: You use the term “muscular compassion” in your book. What do you mean by that?

DG: Compassion is not just some Sunday school niceness; it’s important for attacking social issues—things like corruption and collusion in business, government, and throughout the public sphere. It’s important for looking at economics, to see if there is a way to make it more caring and not just about greed, or to create economic policies that decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. These are moral issues that require compassion.

JS: Compassion can be cultivated through mindful meditation. But, I think a lot of people start meditating for personal reasons—to decrease stress and to learn to be more accepting of what is. How does that lead to social activism?

DG: I don’t agree with that interpretation of what meditation or spiritual practice is for. That view of mindfulness leaves out the traditional coupling of mindfulness with a concern for other people—loving kindness practice, compassion practice. I think the Dalai Lama’s view is that that’s inadequate. Meditation does not mean the passive acceptance of social injustice; it means cultivating the attitude that I care about other people, I care about people being victimized, and I’ll do whatever I can to help them. That he sees as true compassion in action.

JS: Is there any research that supports the idea that mindfulness and social activism are linked?

DG: There’s some evidence that mindfulness not only calms you and gives you more clarity, but it also makes you more responsive to people in distress. In one study, where people were given the chance to help someone in need—offering a seat to someone on crutches—mindfulness increased the number of people who did that. And, if you extrapolate from there to helping the needy whenever they cross your radar in any way you can, it suggests that mindfulness would help. However, there’s even more direct evidence that cultivating compassion and loving kindness enhances the likelihood of helping someone. Putting the two together is powerful.

JS: In your book, the Dalai Lama refers to something he calls “emotional hygiene”—or learning how to handle difficult emotions with more skill and equanimity. He says it should be as important as physical hygiene, and that we should all improve our “emotional hygiene” before trying to tackle social problems. Why is that?

DG: That’s the Dalai Lama’s perspective—we need to get all of our destructive and disturbing emotions under control before we act in the world. If not, if we act from those emotions, we’ll only create more harm. But if we can manage our distressing emotions in advance, and have calm, clarity, and compassion as we act, then we’ll act for the good, no matter what we do.

It’s not that any one emotion is destructive, though; it’s the extremes that can harm others and ourselves. When emotions become destructive, you need to manage them and not let them run you. For example, anger: if it mobilizes you and energizes you and focuses you to right social wrongs, then it’s a useful motivation. However, if you let it take over and you become enraged and filled with hatred, those are destructive, and you’ll end up causing a lot more damage than good.

JS: I think it’s difficult for some people to actually know when their emotions are causing them to act inappropriately, though.

DG: That’s why self-awareness is absolutely crucial. Many people get hijacked by their emotions and have no idea, because they are oblivious, because they lack self-awareness. And what meditation and mindfulness practice can do is to boost your self-awareness so you can make these distinctions more accurately, with more clarity.

JS: One of the Dalai Lama’s tenets you articulate in the book is that we should have a universal ethic of compassion for all. Does he suggest we extend compassion even to those who commit atrocities, like murder or genocide?

DG: He holds out an ideal of universal compassion, without exception. That’s something we can move toward. But he also gives us a very useful instruction: He says, make a distinction between the actor and the act. Oppose the evil act—no question—but hold out the possibility that people can change. That’s why he opposes the death penalty, because a person can turn their life around, and we shouldn’t exclude that possibility.

Universal compassion is a high standard, and I don’t think most of us can meet it. But we can move toward it by expanding our circle of caring. Paul Ekman has had extensive dialogues with the Dalai Lama about this, and he says that this is a good target, but that it’s very hard to reach. It goes against natural mechanisms that make us favor our own group—our family, our company, our ethnic group, etc. So, the first step is to overcome that tendency and to become more accepting of and caring toward a wider circle of people. Caring for everyone is the final step, and I don’t think many people can get there. But we can all take a step closer.

JS: It sounds like many of the Dalai Lama’s suggestions are aspirational in nature.

DG: The Dalai Lama often talks to people with great aspirations, and, after he’s gotten them all roused up, he says, “Don’t just talk about it, do something.” That’s part of the message in my book: Everyone has something they can do. Whatever means you have to make the world a better place, you need to do it. Even if we won’t see the fruits of this in our lifetime, start now.

This article originally appeared in http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/.

Training Compassion

By

Compassion, often reckoned to be the “highest personal virtue,” is held to embody the very essence of humanity. It is widely attributed to play a fundamental role in pro-social behavior, cooperation and human morality. But there is compelling evidence that the “compassionate instinct” to care and cooperate is not the sole preserve of humans. Across species — from elaborate elephant funeral rituals to kindness of dolphins in rescuing swimmers from sharks and guiding stranded whales back to sea — compassion is vividly manifested in a range of settings. As Darwin surmised long ago — sympathy is our strongest instinct.

A revealing experiment by Elizabeth Dunn, published in Science, showed that participants who had spent money on others felt significantly happier than those who had spent the money on themselves. Brain imaging studies reveal that compassion activates the “pleasure centers” of the brain associated with reward. Steve Cole has found that social connection strengthens our immune system as the genes impacted by social connection are the same ones responsible for immune function. We are designed to care and to connect. By helping others we help ourselves, improving our health and even our longevity. “Survival of the kindest” is more apt for the collective flourishing of our species than “survival of the fittest.”

And yet, in innumerable contexts, self-serving interests can override compassion as we are overwhelmed by the stresses, pressures and experiences of everyday life. Loneliness, isolation and depression can, in part, be explained by a decline in social connectedness — 25 percent of Americans say that they have no one in whom to confide. The consequent stress exacts significant costs. There is a 46 percent increase in health care costs associated with workplace stress. By one estimate, stress in the workplace costs corporations approximately $7,500 per employee per year.

However, the good news is that although compassion is a naturally evolved and adaptive trait, it can be deepened by training and elicited quite rapidly. Developments in neuroscience have shown that the brain is plastic and malleable, offering the promise of change, growth and understanding. Interventions such as the Stanford Compassion Cultivation Training Program, a completely secular synthesis of Eastern contemplative practices and Western psychology, can help change how we respond to adversity. The training emphasizes compassion, both to oneself and others, and thereby activates perspective and resilience indispensable to effective decision-making and moral sensibilities.

Research by Northeastern University professor David DeSteno suggests that a sense of connection with others is more likely to make us compassionate.

Compassion training extends beyond merely invoking empathy and concern for others but seeks to infuse the strength to be present with suffering, the courage to take compassionate action, and the flexibility to prevent compassion fatigue. These qualities, in turn, support a broad array of goals such as improving personal and professional relationships and making a positive difference in the world.

Compassion is not limited to the personal level of our individual relationships but can also permeate the interaction of societies and cultures with one another. In substantive ways, the vicious cycles of poverty, ecological catastrophe and wars also arise from the lack of compassion. Of course compassion, on its own, will not totally overcome all that afflicts people, individually and collectively. However, it will certainly dictate the fate of our world in significant ways. As social psychologist and sociologist Rob Willer says, “Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish.”

 

John Hoffmire is director of the Impact Bond Fund at Saïd Business School at Oxford University and directs the Center on Business and Poverty at the Wisconsin School of Business at UW-Madison. He runs Progress Through Business, a nonprofit group promoting economic development. Pankaj Upadhyay, Hoffmire’s colleague at Progress Through Business, did the research for this article.
This article was originally published at national.deseretnews.com.

How Far Can and Should Your Compassion Go?

By

We all want to live in a more compassionate world, don’t we? Who wouldn’t want more compassion, kindness, and graciousness in our community and world? And with such horrific stories reported daily in the press about terrible self-centeredness, aggression, brutality, and cruelty it is all the more reason to engage in an all-out effort to do whatever we can to support compassionate behavior. Right?

But what is our part in creating a more compassionate world? We might desire compassion and kindness from others but do we offer it ourselves? How far are we willing to go to be compassionate?

I was struck recently by the message of an engaging and very articulate homeless activist,Matthew Works(link is external), who spent about a month giving talks here at Santa Clara University. His message, in a nutshell, is that the faith community, most especially Christian churches from all of the various denominations, should routinely open their doors to the homeless for shelter. He complains that as a homeless person himself (from Boston which is certainly a challenging environment for living outdoors, especially this winter), too often Church communities open their doors to worshipers during scheduled services yet lock them tight when their services are over leaving those who truly need shelter and support, the homeless, out in the cold. He makes a good and perhaps prophetic point: faith communities who take their religious and spiritual beliefs and perspective seriously should do much more to help the homeless and let their church buildings be safe havens for those most in need. After all, regardless of your religious affiliation what do you think would please God more? Beautiful worship and liturgical services or caring for those who suffer such as the homeless?

It is a terrible tragedy when those who suffer the most and have no shelter are asked to fend for themselves while so many people of faith have so many (and perhaps too many) material resources. Of course, homelessness is a highly complex problem without simple solutions. But his point begs the question regarding what really is the purpose of religious communities when so many people are sadly at risk for violence, suffering, and death without adequate shelter in communities across the country.

It is very easy to talk a good line about compassion but it is very challenging to actually perform compassionate acts. While homelessness may be just one of numerous problems needing more compassion it well illustrates the startling contradictions of what we espouse and what we actually do. If we truly believe that we need more compassion and kindness in our communities what are we really willing to do to achieve this ideal? Think about it. I know it is hard to be more compassionate for a multiple set of reasons and certainly people have busy lives but if we stop and think about it carefully we may find ways to develop a more compassionate world that we all vitally need.

So what about you? How do you demonstrate compassion? Is it enough? How much is enough anyway? What do you think?

 

Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D., ABPP is the Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J. University Professor and professor of psychology at Santa Clara University and adjunct clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine.

This article originally appeared in Psychology Today.