A Pass on Compassion

Recently, I was talking to some high school students about the difference between compassion and victimization. The discussion centered around the idea of helping others unless the very help we provide does more damage than good. It was argued that compassion must view the person being helped in a way that doesn't patronize or attach that person to an identity of being nothing more than a victim. Compassion, the students advocated, must produce an environment conducive to improvement.

 

Webster’s dictionary defines compassion as: Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it; pity. I believe this is a very good explanation of the kind of compassion many of us were raised with. As you can see, compassion is an emotion, or a feeling in motion. It must be active and used as a tool. If this happens, it can be used to produce solutions. Compassion is nothing less than a catalyst for improvement and just a passive observation.

 

I found it interesting that Webster’s uses the term pity when defining compassion. But what is pity? Webster’s defines it as: a feeling of sorrow that inclines one to help or to show mercy. Mercy is often used as motive for rescuing another from pain. And we have been taught that mercy is good. Yet, often pity and mercy are seen as terms that define someone as a victim instead of ideas that champion liberation. They castigate and label but rarely advance or expedite. We need to move beyond the passive embracement of these ideas.

 

Pity is an active form of judgment with the suffering of another being judged as bad. No wonder we dislike being pitied. We usually don’t wish to relieve others of feeling something wonderful. We hope to relieve others of things that are harmful or damaging. Sorrow and suffering are painful and therefore when we take pity on another’s experience we are saying that what they are experiencing is not good.

 

So with this in mind, would it make sense that compassion as defined by Webster is a tool of judgment? I don't think we consciously look at people in need of compassion in a way that relegates them to secondhand citizenship. At least I hope not. We actively express compassion by taking steps to alleviate conditions that cause suffering. It is a process and not just a head nod.

 

To be compassionate we must suspend all judgment of the actions of those we help. Compassion is not demonstrated with conditions. We shouldn't help others with expectations attached. We do the right thing because it IS the right thing. Period. We need to depart from compassion as a judgement and move towards compassion as a responsibility. But this is a terrifying idea because it places the onus on those who are being compassionate to do more than judge or assess the situation- it requires active solutions. It demands a radical approach to looking out for one another. It asks us to be uncomfortable until others can be comfortable, too.

 

Who knew compassion could be so revolutionary?