20/S1 HMRT 2023 A: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis | St. Thomas University

I am not fully convinced with the argument that Lynn Hunt puts forth. She very firmly argues that the emergence of epistolary novels gave rise to the feeling of empathy within the upper/elite classes for the lower class. Her use of the word "equality" is what makes her argument somewhat unconvincing to me. Though I agree that from reading novels of different perspectives we can potentially understand the mental and physical state of individuals going through something we have never been through, I genuinely think it is a bit of a stretch to state that this is what causes a rise in emphatic feelings. Sympathy for what the fictional/non-fictional character is feeling is understandable and plausible but there is a narrow yet definitive difference between sympathy and empathy. Empathy is all about a mutual and shared emotional experience, it’s very much about feeling with someone. The ruling elite that is talked about in Hunt's lecture probably felt sympathy for Pamela and Julie, etc. And even if those who credibly felt empathy probably did so for a short period of time, especially the rich upper class.

Hunt also states that these novels were published right after the realization of bodily autonomy and the idea that another person however different is a human being and deserves the rights and resources that the ruling class has. She, when talking about the latter half of the 18^th century states that more people learned to empathize with other than ever before. If that really were the case, if the ruling class really did see a rise in empathic actions towards those of less fortune then why did some of the worst atrocities against the lower class or should I say those that were different than the self, occur after the emergence of empathy-building epistolary novels? It shouldn’t be forgotten that empathy has a degree of judgment and evaluation involved. Empathy leads to concrete actions and I guess, that is what makes her argument less than convincing for me. Where are the tangible examples of actions that were a result of this rise in empathy within the upper class?

Furthermore, it’s a very Eurocentric argument, and all the “empathy-building” works mentioned are white European and historically these individuals are the ones who have committed the worst human rights atrocities.

Re: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date

I really enjoy your point about empathy in regards to "white Europes" history. I very much agree that there is a missing link between the upper-class/elite implementing human rights out of empathy. The white ruling class during the 1800s usually had an agenda!

Although you bring up an interesting point around "true" empathy and the disconnect with novels, I would argue that people can in fact feel empathy towards characters in a novel. No, that reader would be unable to interact with them in person. But if readers cannot feel empathy with characters, are we able to feel empathy for tragedies and people in the news who are from the other side of the world? Are we able to empathize with others through media if we've never met them, even if we share a similar ordinary life? I think so. If a family member of mine was diagnosed with cancer and I experienced that process with them, I would most likely empathize with another family in the media who went through the same situation. However, I also believe the majority of interactions over the media is sympathy. Sharing "thoughts and prayers" for others going through turmoil is not enough to bring about change. In the context of Hunt's lecture, I agree with you that any empathy felt among the ruling class in the 1800s was most probably short-lived.

I agree with your point about shared life experiences and empathy and I think it is perfectly reasonable to state that having gone through something similar you would empathize with other people in the same situation. But I still feel as if the upper/elite class probably wouldn't have the same strong feelings. I agree with Hunt when she talks about the literacy rates increasing and the general public gaining emphatic feelings more than ever before. Though, I sharply disagree with her statements about the ruling class.
Basically I fully agree with what you're saying.

Re: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date

Interesting point: "Furthermore, it’s a very Eurocentric argument, and all the “empathy-building” works mentioned are white European and historically these individuals are the ones who have committed the worst human rights atrocities."

I think the rationale here is that human rights are defined legally as individual in nature and protected by law. The Euro nature of it stems from the individual rather than group rights as well as protected by law (having the force of the government behind it vs. being a demand on the citizen which is more non-western where the onus/responsibility is on the individual to protect the group rather than the gov. to protect the individual).

Does that change your argument any?

Re: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date

I think it makes me understand Hunt's argument/thinking better. I think it never occurred to me that our ideas of responsibility could be different or that my belief that it is the individual's duty first and the government's second to protect someones rights was a by-product of where I have grown up.