Approaching the Oscar Grant Verdict with Empathy

by Miki Kashtan

In a few days, possibly as early as tomorrow, a controversial trial will come to an end, and the verdict of Johannes Mehserle, the police officer who killed Oscar Grant in Oakland last January, will be released. This is a tense moment in Oakland. What will happen if he is acquitted? What will happen if is found guilty? Whatever the verdict is, some people will be unhappy. Some people will interpret whichever result as unjust. What can be done at that time?

One thing that some of us are imagining is having a nonviolent presence with the goal of increasing the chance that people will be heard and treated with care and respect no matter what their position is, or how they express it.

The Bay Area Nonviolent Communication Empathy Team is working in partnership with others to participate in efforts to organize such a nonviolent response in the streets of Oakland. They are planning, in particular, to come to downtown Oakland and support whatever happens, and whoever is there, with the simple and radical gift of empathic presence, which, as French mystic-philosopher Simone Weil said, “is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.”

The Empathy Team, just celebrating its first anniversary, already has experience offering empathic presence in the midst of intensity and polarized opinions, and is planning on increasing its capacity to be a source of love and empathic presence in our communities in times of difficulty such as the impending release of the verdict. I am so amazed and touched that this group of individuals has taken to heart the idea of seeing everyone’s humanity, no matter their positions or actions, and are now putting it into action.

In May the Empathy Team deployed at the “Israel in the Gardens” event in downtown San Francisco, which takes place around the time of Israeli Independence Day, and tends to draw many attendees and protestors on all sides of the charged issues surrounding Israel and Palestine. This year was particularly tense, as it came right on the heels of the Gaza flotilla incident. Protestors were carrying signs such as “Settlements steal Palestinian land,” and, “No more US tax dollars to support occupation.” Counter-protesters were waving Israeli flags, some shouting insults and slogans. The event was heavily guarded by private security. Judith Katz, one of the co-founders of the Team, wrote that:

By the time we finished, we had talked to over 90 people from all sides of the debate over the course of 3 hours. We heard from members of the Communist Party, Women in Black, and Stand With Us (a pro-Israeli group), as well as Israeli citizens and police officers. Listening to impassioned stories and reflecting back observations, feelings and needs helped contribute to a sense of calm in some cases. People thanked us for listening, some with the resentful caveat that, ‘those on the other side never will.’

The Empathy Team is planning to offer similar support after the Mehserle verdict is announced. In preparation for this activity, I am offering a training this evening, 7-8:30pm, in Berkeley, to support individuals in choosing a nonviolent stance and in getting more grounding in how to offer empathic presence in the face of intensity, conflict, and their own reactions to what they hear. If you are local to the Bay Area and are moved to participate in this activity, I am hoping to see you there.

In a couple of weeks the BayNVC Empathy Team is holding a Gulf of Mexico Empathy Circle, as well as an open house about the group and its activities. Link to event on Facebook. I am excited to imagine this approach growing in its visibility and capacity and offering an alternative model of responding to challenging news, conflicts in the community, and events in the world.

Dialogue across the Divide?

Since I started writing about empathy between liberals and conservatives, (April 2; April 3; April 9) I have been thinking about facilitating dialogues between the two groups. As a first step I wanted to meet people who identify as conservative. This past Monday I had the good fortune of meeting Peeter, who identifies as a “dye in the wool” conservative, and who is a sympathizer of the Tea Party movement. Whether or not this meeting will lead to the dialogue I am wishing to establish, I learned a lot, I was surprised, and my heart was touched. Out of care and respect, I showed Peeter this entry before posting it. I am heartened by what he wrote back: “The whole point of us living in this country and society of ours all together is that we accept the inherent differences in our humanity, and deal with them in a civilized manner.”

A particularly poignant moment was when I looked in Peeter’s eyes and saw just how deeply sacred human life is for him. So deep, in fact, that for him it supersedes freedom, another cherished core value of his, when no strategy exists for upholding both at once. This is the basis of his opposition to abortions. What can I say? I felt deeply connected to him in those moments even though I support women’s choice to have an abortion. I had an abortion myself, and what I was left with was just a depth of anguish about how complex, painful, and impossible the dilemma is. I want women to have the choice, and at the same time I completely see that an abortion is the end of a life that could be. I want to live in a world where abortions aren’t necessary. What would it take to create good options for women?

Peeter expressed a concern about having people depend on the government for their basic needs. I wanted to understand fully what values informed this view. It’s one thing to know in theory that all opinions, views, and strategies stem for shared human needs and values. It’s a whole other thing to experience this in a moment of conversation with someone whose views are very different from my own. One value that informs Peeter’s desire to eliminate dependence on government was his wish for people to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. Of course I want that, too. I could easily resonate with this wish even though I mix this value with the desire for compassion, so everyone is supported no matter what.

Peeter also expressed a deep faith in the capacity of human beings to take care of themselves and of each other, including those in need, in the absence of government legislation, monitoring, and bureaucracy. This part was completely surprising to me, and goes contrary to my previous semi-unconscious bias, which was that conservatives had a much more negative view of human beings than liberals. Not so for Peeter. Do I have this much faith? I am not so sure. I know I am nervous about leaving the needy without societal guarantees because I am not trusting that all people could overcome their habits of scarcity and greed.

As we were winding down our conversation I asked Peeter if he would join me in trying to organize the dialogue I so want to have. Peeter was doubtful about it. He didn’t see what would the point. Conflict and differences, he thought, were unavoidable. No dialogue would bring people together, he thought. Did he feel heard by me? Yes, he did. He liked me, and would be happy to meet with me again. Still, he didn’t see that mutual understanding between conservatives and liberals could lead to anything. This got me thinking. I have more faith than he does in dialogue. He has more faith than I do in people’s ability to care for each other. Am I limited in not trusting that, or is he naïve? Is he limited in not trusting dialogue, or am I naïve? Who is to say?


by Miki Kashtan

Empathy, Obama, and Connecting across Differences

“Empathy [is] the act of understanding and being sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others. … Empathy is essential for any president… To be authentically empathetic, however, presidents must consider how policies affect all Americans.” Gary Bauer, Obama and the Politics of Empathy

Understanding Bauer’s Experience

After reading Bauer’s article, I want to extend another invitation for dialogue across the divide. I was struck by the depth of alienation from the current administration and President I see in his article. I want an opportunity to understand and to reach mutual trust about our care for each other’s well being. Is his main concern, in essence, a plea to have all voices matter, including those with whom the President disagrees? What else is important to him?

Understanding, Care, and Agreement

Empathy calls on us to open our hearts and imagination to others’ humanity. It’s easy to understand and show care for those similar to us. The challenge of empathy is precisely in the face of differences. How can we show care for others needs even when we say “no” to what they want? How can we understand and remain open and respectful even when we believe others’ positions are potentially harmful? How can we appreciate others’ suffering when we believe it’s caused by their own actions or misunderstanding? It seems that both Conservatives and Liberals have failed to step out of being themselves and to enter and understand another perspective.

Beyond understanding, conveying empathy to others in the face of disagreement makes the challenge of connecting across differences even more intense. For example, short of agreement with Bauer’s policy prescriptions, is there any way that Obama could convey to Bauer and others that their voices matter, and could affect the decisions he makes?

Coming Back to Essential Human Needs

In a country saddled with persistent core disagreements about most fundamental policy issues, connecting across differences seems essential for our continued functioning as a nation. What can we then do as common citizens, public figures, or the President, to cultivate and convey empathy?

My own hope rests on my experience that even in the most intense disagreements we share core needs, values, qualities, and aspirations that inform our opposing views. Here are two examples.

Bauer says: “Conservatives can be just as empathetic. But they believe that, in most cases, it’s not government’s role to be the primary dispenser of empathy.” What I read in this statement is care for people’s well-being mixed with a deep respect for individual freedom of choice. Although I disagree with Bauer’s view, I have no difficulty relating to these values, because I share them.

Bauer also says: “our children and grandchildren … will be saddled with paying for today’s unprecedented borrowing.” I am touched by our shared desire for the coming generations to be cared about, even though my worry about the next generations comes up in different contexts, not this one.

Can We Work Together?

Shifting attention to what matters most to each party to a debate can bridge seemingly insurmountable gaps. I dream of town hall meetings facilitated by skilled people. I want all participants express the core of what matters to them, and to hear each other across the divide. This is not a pipedream. Skilled individuals are available. Models of productive citizen deliberation exist and have been successful at finding policies that diverse groups with opposing views can embrace (see the Tao of Democracy, especially chapters 12 and 13). What would it take for the people of the United States of America to transform their town hall meetings from battleground to an opportunity to shape a shared future?

by Miki Kashtan