I think that Hunt's argument is a very convincing one and that empathy can be built through novels. When reading stories, barriers are broken down between the reader and the main character(s), making them more accessible. In this way, readers enter into the lives of these characters and explore the world from a different perspective. When comparing empathy and sympathy, Brené Brown, another scholar, explains the former as "feeling with people". In other words, people provide comfort and empathy through shared experiences and feelings. Hunt points to this idea in the lecture, asserting that readers enter the world through the eyes of the main character, seeing things as they do. In this way, barriers are broken down by our ability to connect to the characters on the pages of a book. In suggesting that these lessons transcend the pages of the novel and playout, to a degree, in everyday life, I agree with Hunt. In my own experiences, reading has taught me how to connect and relate to other people by finding commonality in our experiences. I am also able to empathize with people in different parts of the world who have different experiences than me (whether fictional or non-fictional). As a result, on a personal level, I agree with Hunt's argument. That said, Hunt also argues that the shared equality we can find through reading novels should be reflected in the ruling elite. It is here that I am less convinced by Hunt's argument, as empathy from reading may be present in the ruling elite, but their actions do not always reflect these sentiments. In this way, I would suggest that things like tradition, perceived responsibility, and/or peer pressure often win over empathy when decisions are made. My hesitancy to accept her argument here stems from the fact that we often do not see governing officials acting in ways that appear to be driven by empathy, consider, for example, Indigenous communities in Canada. As a result, maybe empathy, or empathy from novels, is not enough to drive the actions of the ruling elite. Or perhaps, the ruling elite is too far removed from the real situations of the people, which leads them to overlook the connections they can have with citizens.
I think that you are absolutely right, and wrote something that I was trying to say but couldn't find the words for in my own response. I think peer pressure is a huge decider in the decisions that are made today, and systems like the UN honestly could be described as being created to function through peer-pressure (much more so than the function through ideas like "creating empathy"). If the ruling elite are removed from everyday people, though, wouldn't Hunt say that introducing them to everyday people through novels will build empathy in them and lead to change? This is where I trip against Hunt's argument, because I think that today's ruling elite do have the opportunity to read novels and consume other media, and clearly, is simply isn't a method that works. Is there anything that could increase empathy in today's ruling elite to the point of them changing policies and increasing human rights, or is that simply wishful thinking?