Whole Class Discussion: Are you convinced?

I'm not completely convinced

I'm not completely convinced

by Katherine Johnson -
Number of replies: 2

I think that I am partially convinced by Hunt. I do believe that the the novel builds empathy, but I am not yet fully convinced that this empathy is always long-lasting or effectively transfers into the actual growth of human rights. 

I do believe that novels as a whole are a great tool for building empathy. As someone who wants to write fiction for children/teenagers, I always consider how to build diversity into stories (and notice when it is missing), because I think that stories are one of the most prevalent ways of teaching other people to naturally consider the experiences of others in our world. I can also say that reading novels has often built empathy in me, or at least an understanding of other lived experiences and hardships. 

I found the section of Hunt’s lecture that we viewed incomplete in part because it only focused on the 1800s, and the world now is a completely different place. Hunt is discussing a time in which novels were completely new, so they had that “wow” factor to them. Some novels still do, of course, but as a society we’re used to not only novels, but also tv shows, movies, and more that constantly barrage us with new stories. I wonder if this suggests that as a society, we have a greater capacity for empathy than ever before, or if this has a numbing effect on us. I think it may be both: we are more empathetic than ever, but at the same time, these works no longer have a lasting effect on us, and it is easier to ignore them or lose them in the rush of life. Therefore, any real empathy we have is superficial in nature, partially because it is simply overwhelming. Where do we look, what injustice do we try to fight first, when we read about so many all the time? In the 1800s, it may have been easy to say “wow, I just realized that the lower class are people too— we should do something about their conditions!” Now, we already know that the lower class are people, and without that major realization, we might be reminded that we can empathize with others, but at the end of the day we aren’t going to try to change anything because we didn't have a major revelation and we're used to the status quo.

In conclusion, this is where I stand: 

I don’t disagree with Hunt’s historical analysis, or the fact that novels increase empathy. However, I am critical of the idea that in modern day, consuming new media, while increasing our empathy, will lead to radical change. I do think that it can change individual perspective and, over time, it can lead to the growth of human rights, but I’m not sure how much of a tangible difference they will make in anything other than the very long-term. 


In reply to Katherine Johnson

Re: I'm not completely convinced

by Nicole Leary -
I too wondered if the modern ways through which we receive stories have altered their impact on the empathy that they help us cultivate. In other words, are we becoming desensitized? Perhaps this is one of those reasons behind why the impact we see today is not quite that to which Hunt refers in the 1800s. This then makes me wonder if the ways in which the volume that we receive stories alters their impact on us.
In reply to Katherine Johnson

Re: I'm not completely convinced

by Amanda DiPaolo O'Brien -
Do you think the problem is over-saturation? You highlight consuming new media, is there just too much thrown at us daily for us to care any longer than a few hours? Let's look at the BLM movement. There were protests all over the USA during covid shutdowns because of the murder of George Floyd. Some protests lasted weeks. In Portland, people are still protesting every night. When other people of colour have been killed by cops, protests didn't last that long and didn't result in 20 million people protesting like this one did. What changed? What circumstances allowed for these protests to be so impactful and result in real changes in some cities?