Conclusion

Abstract

In the introduction, I discussed the many different and often diametrically opposed understandings of empathy. Rather than selecting one definition over another, I suggested, following Gail S. Reed, that we need to understand empathy as a process entailing a wide range of impulses, desires, and reactions. This extends beyond recognizing the deeply imbricated nature of affect and cognition; it requires us to see the project of attempting to understand others as a careful balancing of opposing tensions. This is akin to how Dwight Conquergood defines dialogic performance: “More than a definite position, the dialogical stance is situated in the space between competing ideologies. It brings self and other together even while it holds them apart. It is more like a hyphen than a period.” Like dialogic performance, empathy holds people in relationship—connected but not conflated. Empathy exists between: between people; between the urge to share experience and the need to retain that experience as our own; between similarity and difference; between singularity and generalizability.