“Skepticism about government control over speech is a deeply rooted American tradition. A bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that government cannot censor the expression of an idea because society finds the idea itself offensive or distasteful. We distrust government to pick winners and losers in the realm of ideas because it might silence those threatening its power.”

— Danielle Citron

I found this quote in a study on American’s attitudes towards social media companies’ treatment of free expression. I find it essential to remember during this time of political and ideological polarization. Social media platforms, bountiful in breadth and deprived of depth, encourage people to push their beliefs onto others and ostracize those who disagree. It can all happen quite rapidly, without much regard of consequences. There is no time for the reader of the “offensive” idea to pause and weigh cost vs. benefit: is “cancelling,” besmirching, calling the mob on an unpopular opinion worth compounding the intolerance of an internet community whose very lifeblood is intolerance and outrage?

Seeking to erase politically controversial views rarely starts from a place of malevolence. In years of late, it’s been popular for psychologists, other social scientists, and miscellaneous op-ed penners to declare an “empathy crisis” is spreading across the globe, and that it must explain many of our social ills, one of them being political polarization. I would argue that an abuse of empathy cripples us more than simply having enough of it.

Plastered over news and social feeds at this point are PSAs from everyone and his/her mother imploring whites and non-black POCs to educate themselves on institutional racism, acknowledge when the system has benefited them (at the expense of blacks), not be complicit in it, and talk to a black person. Stepping outside one’s own subjective experience and into another’s is key to how humans learn. Doing so is each individual’s journey, and I find it counterproductive to question this basic neurotypical capacity, especially if it means throwing the education system under the bus for not drilling in all the major misfortunes that have befallen minorities in the history of our country; there is not some great systemic force stunting our natural empathy. Even so, curricula vary, along with the lessons gleaned, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Empathy suffers from an abuse of context; it has become bedmates with altruism, the “privileged” trying on the lens of the “underprivileged,” with power immediately tinging the conversation. Great power necessitates great responsibility, surely: a big reason the hero must remain masked–to temper the ego’s urges. As one’s influence increases so does the compulsion to spread the virtues of empathy despite one’s declining abilities to embody them. The more “privileged” one becomes, the further removed they are from the plights of the underprivileged, and the more we demand their empathy, rightly so, and per the modus operandi of the online masses now in the wake of George Floyd.

But empathy doesn’t work unidirectionally. It isn’t altruism. Empathy towards one’s in-group, sometimes resulting in racist behavior, is largely what got us here in the first place. Humans possess a specific class of “mirror” neurons associated with imitation and empathy that were first seen activated in macaque monkeys during intergroup interactions. We involuntarily respond favorably to those who resemble us, so the pressures for more empathy may backfire when put to practice, strengthening in-group camaraderie further, at the expense of out-group relating. After all, discrimination occurs more due to in-group closeness than prejudice towards The Other. Only a robot can be free of bias, which is why I think claiming you can’t be racist towards your own people is useless. It’s like saying the only way to truly not be racist is to belong to that race.

With the sophistication of human society, discrimination exists between so many more subgroups beyond just race, age, and sex. If we try to temper our instinctual alignment with those closest to us culturally/ethnically, we cannot ignore the also base instinct to deepen ideological lines. An individual is an individual for their choices and beliefs, not just their skin color; if becoming less judgmental is good, then we must acknowledge that discrimination based on ideas threatens individuality as much if not more than discriminating based on skin color. Because what is the ultimate consequence of racism if not the suppression of human potential?

I believe we must be wary about letting politics enter our psychological biases, because social mores are fleeting, but the brain is a centuries-old puzzle, and evolution doesn’t recognize politics. Racism is just one of its possible modes. Just like you cannot target weight loss by body part, you cannot target-remove racism without addressing the nature of biases; it is by welcoming that other person into your tribe that you dissolve bias–by highlighting commonalities. But when the out-group joins the in-group, does that not dissolve the whole meaning of groups–of favoritism?

Why is it now commonplace for the same people who denounce racism to promote discrimination based on profession–law enforcement, that is? Just because you can control your profession doesn’t mean that discriminatory effects change. Persecuting people who don’t harm other people is wrong, regardless of the -ism behind it. Abuse is abuse.

Speaking again on the question of intra-group dynamics: growing up, I certainly grappled with self-directed sexism and racism–things which wouldn’t bother me if I lived my whole life within the confines of the female-only passenger cars of the Tokyo train system. But disliking oneself on the bases of uncontrollable traits pales in comparison to disliking one’s own choices in life. Removing the chance of self-directed racism doesn’t guarantee more “privilege.” Along the same lines, someone attacking my character would leave a deeper scar than someone attacking my race or gender. Both spark change, and we all know where that starts…