Whole Class Discussion: Are you convinced?

Agree to a medium extent

Agree to a medium extent

by Sara Lamk Saavedra -
Number of replies: 2

As an avid reader, I have to agree with the hypothesis reading novels builds the ability to create empathy for others. Consuming literature gives a medium to live millions of experiences we could otherwise never experience. In many of those cases, the stories we consume are centred on injustice and shine a light on the privilege we hold. It can also educate us and incentivize us to more consciousness and perform a change in our lives for a better good. But here is where my questioning of the hypothesis lies. There needs to be more than empathy. This is certainly a stepping stone but it does not always result in action from the readers. I mean, how easy is it to close the book and keep going with our lives. It makes me question how many people out there committing human rights violations do consume literature (and just books in general) yet never correct their actions. 

A quote that resonated from Lynn Hunt's lecture was "reading novels created a sense of equality". It plants the idea the reader accesses a reality where there are just the book and a human, giving the reader the ability to be another person. For a couple of hours of reading the work they empathize with and live like the remaining character, yet they always have to hold their individuality in the back burner to compare themselves to them. Yet, this sense of equality is just momentary. The reader does feel like they gained experience and knowledge, so then I question if morality comes to play to push the individual to action. 

Another point discussed that caught my attention was how individuality created more empathy and outrage towards violations. And it makes me wonder if this is rather focused in western societies and the progress of both the publishing industry and human rights in western countries. This also makes me question the focus on literature and books. Before print and currently many cultures have had the tradition of storytelling. And thus planting the question of why human rights advances didn't happen earlier? I don't know if I am overreaching with this point, but is just something that popped in my head. 

In reply to Sara Lamk Saavedra

Re: Agree to a medium extent

by Sarah Hetherington -
I like how you point out that it takes more than empathy for action, people can feel empathy from novels, but I agree that this is a stepping stone to action, but doesn't necessarily mean people are going to act on it.
In reply to Sara Lamk Saavedra

Re: Agree to a medium extent

by Amanda DiPaolo O'Brien -
You raise some interesting points, Sara. I wonder about the tradition of storytelling too. Maybe the truth is that Hunt is wrong and that really human rights before the end of WWII was nothing more than just the ruling elite looking out for number one. Just read the Magna Carta for example. That is an early document looked upon as a major moment in human rights because we got the rule of law from it BUT it was really about land owners protecting their own land interests from abuse from the King and had no bearing on the lower economic classes of society.