Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date
Number of replies: 2

While Hunt makes a strong argument towards the idea that novel reading builds empathy, it is important to examine and acknowledge the reasoning behind the hypothesis before forming an opinion.

Hunt’s lecture focuses on the rise of the epistolary novel in the eighteenth century, and its effects on the subsequent advancements in human rights. Hunt notes that novels such as those by Richardson and Rousseau drew their readers into “identifying with ordinary characters” and thus, empathizing with them. To that end, I agree that novel reading allows an individual to empathize with the experiences of the characters, and to form connections between the narrative and their own lives. Nonetheless, by gaining insight into the experiences of the characters, and empathizing with them, this may translate into the reader developing a greater understanding of lived human experiences that they may not have previously considered. While I do agree that novel reading may serve as an outlet for which one can build empathy, I am not convinced that it is particularly impactful in motivating social change.

Hunt explains that epistolary novels “laid the foundation for a new political and social order” where characters such as Julie and Pamela were seen as “equal” to the ruling class. While the readers may have empathized with the characters and discovered similarities between the novel and their own lives, I struggle to support the idea that this led to “equality” between the ruling elite, and the lower class. In one regard, the increase in the realization of bodily autonomy may have perpetuated the demand for equal human rights, however, that is not to say that the epistolary novel inspired a shift in how the ruling elite perceive the lower class. To read a novel, is to empathize and understand the emotions of the characters. To create social change is to act upon injustice. The ruling elite may have empathized with the characters and the lower class, however that is not enough to claim that a new social order was established. Instances of injustice between the ruling elite and the lower class continue to occur on a global scale, and while novel reading may build empathy, I am not convinced that it is enough to drive large-scale social change.


In reply to Brianna Bourgeois

Re: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date
Hi Brianna,

I think you make a great argument that novel reading may not be enough to drive large-scale social change. Actions indeed speak louder than words, and although to read a novel is to empathize with its characters, to create social change is to "act upon social justice" (as you point out).
In reply to Emily Green

Re: Response to Hunt's Hypothesis

ó $a->name - $a->date
I think what Lynn is saying is that when we identify with characters with different lives experiences, we see the world through different eyes and maybe that is what encourages us to act upon social justices issues in the real world. I don't think she is saying we put a book down and say to ourselves that's it, I'm going to protest our government, but that rather when we see stuff on the news that maybe we would not have thought about or cared about that maybe our perceptions change without us even knowing it and that at that point we might be more inclined to act. Does that make sense?