There was a time when empathy seemed less like a political statement and more like an ordinary expectation of civilised life. It was not a grand ideology or a fashionable slogan. It was simply the ability to imagine what life looked like from another person’s point of view. Whether dealing with a neighbour who had fallen on hard times, a stranger facing discrimination, or a colleague struggling with illness, empathy was often regarded as a basic social virtue.
Today, however, empathy is in retreat. Public debate appears harsher, social media rewards outrage, and political discourse increasingly divides people into competing tribes. Across the political spectrum there is a growing sense that understanding others has become less important than defeating them.
Social media caricatures and divides us
Part of the problem lies in the way modern communication works. Social media platforms encourage speed rather than reflection. Complex human beings are reduced to usernames and profile pictures. A person who might seem thoughtful and nuanced in a face-to-face conversation can easily become a caricature online. The algorithms that drive engagement often favour anger because anger keeps people clicking, sharing and arguing. Compassion, by contrast, is rarely viral.
The result is a culture in which people often encounter one another not as fellow citizens but as opponents. Instead of asking why someone holds a particular view, there is a temptation to assume the worst. Disagreement becomes evidence of moral failure. In such an atmosphere, empathy can appear almost old-fashioned.
Economic insecurity: no time to stop and think
Economic pressures have also played a role. For many people, life has become more insecure. Rising housing costs, stagnant wages, stretched public services and growing inequality have left millions feeling anxious about their future. Anxiety narrows horizons. When people are worried about paying bills, finding work or securing healthcare, it becomes harder to focus on the struggles of others. Empathy does not disappear, but it can be crowded out by the pressures of daily survival.
At the same time, society has become more individualistic. For decades, people have been encouraged to think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens. Success is often measured by personal achievement, wealth or status. While ambition is not inherently harmful, a culture that celebrates individual success above collective wellbeing risks weakening the bonds that hold communities together. If every problem is seen as an individual responsibility, there is less room for recognising the social and economic forces that shape people’s lives.
The resilience of empathy
Yet there maybe another side to the story. Some would argue that empathy has not disappeared at all. In many respects, contemporary society is more empathetic than previous generations. There is greater awareness of mental health, disability, racism, sexism and other forms of disadvantage. Many experiences that were once hidden or ignored are now openly discussed. Campaigns for social justice often begin with a simple appeal to empathy: asking people to understand lives different from their own.
The paradox is that empathy has expanded in some directions while shrinking in others. People may feel deep compassion for certain groups yet struggle to extend that same understanding to those they perceive as political or social opponents. Empathy becomes selective. It is offered generously to some and withheld entirely from others.
History suggests this is not a new problem. Human beings have always found it easier to sympathise with those who seem familiar and harder to understand those who appear different. The challenge of every generation is to widen the circle of concern. The great social reforms of the past, from improvements in working conditions to the expansion of education and healthcare, were often driven by people who looked beyond their immediate interests and recognised the humanity of others.
Perhaps the real question is not what happened to empathy, but how we nurture it again. Empathy does not require agreement. It is perfectly possible to oppose someone’s views while still recognising their dignity. Nor does empathy demand sentimentality. Understanding another person’s circumstances is not the same as excusing every action they take.
The importance of being curious and slow to judge
What empathy does require is curiosity. It asks us to listen before judging, to understand before condemning, and to remember that every statistic, headline and political argument involves real human beings. In an age dominated by instant reactions, that can feel surprisingly radical.
The future of democratic society may depend upon rediscovering this simple truth. A healthy society needs debate, disagreement and competing ideas. But it also needs the ability to see one another as people rather than abstractions. Without empathy, politics becomes a shouting match, communities’ fragment and social trust erodes. With it, there remains the possibility of common ground, even amid profound differences.
Empathy alone will not solve every problem. But without it, solving any problem becomes considerably harder. In a noisy and divided world, the ability to imagine another person’s experience may be one of the most important qualities we possess and one of the easiest to lose if we stop practising it.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
