Empathie: older than manind

Frans de Waal’s new book, by a primate specialist (particularly bonobos), once again overturns preconceived notions: it reveals that empathy, this capacity to put oneself in another’s shoes that we thought was specifically human, already exists in animals. A fascinating lesson in nature, which gives us much to reflect on regarding our image of animals, but also on the image we have of ourselves and our instincts. If a certain capacity for empathy exists in animals, we can consider it an instinct that has been maintained even in our own genetic programming. This suggests that human instincts are far more complex than some simplistic scientific interpretations would have us believe. Comments after the article.

According to an article in Le Monde (February 26, 2010):

Animals Gifted with Empathy
It’s a scene from everyday life. A blind woman, disoriented, is looking for her way. A fortune teller comes to her aid, guiding her with her voice.
The disabled elephant thanks her with boisterous expressions of gratitude. An ordinary scene, except that it takes place in Thailand, in a national park, and the two protagonists are elephants. This example is one of many that abound in the new book by ethologist Frans de Waal, a primate specialist and professor of psychology in Atlanta, Georgia. Entitled “The Age of Empathy,” this fascinating lesson in nature, blurring the lines between humans and animals, is also a plea for “living together” in our societies.
“Greed is dead, empathy is the order of the day,” proclaims the author. We need to completely revise our assumptions about human nature. To those—economists or politicians—who believe it is governed solely by the struggle for survival—and, according to the distorted interpretation that social Darwinism has given to the theory of evolution, by the selection of the most successful individuals—he opposes another principle, just as active as competition: empathy. That is to say, sensitivity to the emotions of others. A compassionate faculty which, far from being the exclusive domain of humans, is shared by many mammals, starting with primates, elephants, and dolphins. And which, moreover, is as old as the world.
In its most rudimentary, or most archaic, forms, it manifests itself through imitation, or the synchronization of behaviors: just as we applaud in time with our neighbors at the end of a concert, or as two walkers synchronize their strides, or as elderly married couples eventually… To resemble one another, a team of sled dogs moves as a single entity; a chimpanzee yawns at the sight of a fellow chimpanzee dislocating its jaw, and laughs when the other roars with laughter. Even more remarkably, this contagious behavior crosses the species barrier: a baby rhesus monkey mimics the mouth movements of a human experimenter.
But empathy has more elaborate expressions. In the Thai National Park in Ivory Coast, chimpanzees have been observed licking the blood of companions attacked by leopards, and slowing down to allow the injured to stay with the group. In the same community, several cases of orphans being adopted by adult females, as well as by males, have been described. Such solicitude may seem natural for social animals, who find a collective benefit in cooperating.
How can this be explained, however, when the individual has nothing to gain from empathetic behavior, which then becomes Truly altruistic? An experiment showed that rhesus monkeys refused, for several days, to pull a chain releasing food if doing so sent an electric shock to a companion whose convulsions they witnessed. They preferred to endure hunger rather than witness the suffering of another.
Self-protection against a disturbing spectacle? But why, then, does a laboratory capuchin monkey, given a choice between two tokens of different colors—one earning it a piece of apple while the other guaranteeing the same reward to a partner—opt for the token ensuring a shared reward? Even more telling, why does a chimpanzee open a door knowing it will give access to food for another member of its species, but not for itself?
For Frans de Waal, the answer lies in one word: empathy, precisely, or concern for the well-being of others. Even when that other does not belong to the same species as We saw, in a zoo, a Bengal tigress feeding piglets. A bonobo hoisting an inanimate bird to the top of a tree to try to make it fly. Or a chimpanzee returning a duckling, mistreated by young monkeys, to the water.
In its simplest forms, animal “sympathy”—a term used by Darwin himself—does not involve the complex cognitive abilities considered unique to humans. It relies, the ethologist explains, on purely emotional mechanisms. Mice, for example, are more sensitive to pain when they have witnessed the suffering of other mice they know. However, cognitive processes come into play for more complex forms of compassion, requiring empathy. This is the case, for instance, when a chimpanzee abandons its activities to comfort a fellow chimpanzee who has been bullied during a fight.
Compassion is thought to have its roots in a distant evolutionary process, dating back to a time long before the human species, with the emergence of parental care. “During 200 million years of mammalian evolution, females sensitive to their offspring reproduced more than cold and distant females. There must have been incredible selective pressure on this sensitivity,” the researcher suggests. This is why mammals, whose young, being nursed, require more attention than those of other animals, are thought to be the most empathetic. And females even more so than males. A trait perhaps shared by the last large reptiles. This would explain why some birds—likely descendants of dinosaurs—also seem to show compassion. A female goose’s heart rate accelerates, pounding wildly, when her mate is attacked by another waterfowl.
The ethologist is not, however, being naive. As with other animals, “humans have a natural inclination towards competition and aggression.” But his propensity for compassion is “just as natural.” The fact remains that empathy is not always virtuous. Cruelty and torture are also based on the capacity to feel the emotions of others.
Pierre Le Hir

Why is the rehabilitation of empathy fundamental to the validation of the metapsychoanalytic explanatory model? Because the very foundation of shared love lies in the capacity to put oneself in another’s place. One should even say: in the impulse to put oneself in another’s place. There is indeed a certain joy in putting oneself in another’s shoes, especially that of someone one loves, in awakening the same feelings within oneself, in understanding the subtleties of their inner world, in sharing their desires and anxieties. Even in sharing their suffering to bear its burden with them. Every impulse is characterized by a tendency, a spontaneous impulse, coupled with satisfaction at the moment of its fulfillment, and this is certainly the case for empathy.

The “empathic impulse” is particularly necessary during difficult times in a relationship, when one partner experiences romantic feelings for a third party. This impulse can be positively supported by the “injured third party” (to use Freud’s term), provided they are able to put themselves in the other person’s shoes, to feel within themselves the energy circulating in the new relationship, and to receive it if they can overcome the jealousy and hatred of the other person.

Empathy is also essential for those swept away in a new relationship to remain constantly open to the “injured third party,” so that the latter does not feel abandoned or confronted with an unbearable situation. It is empathy that will temper, or even stop, the romantic impulses that could cause them suffering, allowing them time to experience the love others feel as an added source of happiness, rewarding them for having overcome jealousy and possessiveness.

It is she who knows how to awaken the tremendous explosion of love that floods the heart when one manages to “love the love” of others: a mysterious explosion of love or energy capable of nourishing metapsychic faculties and restoring access to the “magical,” authentically spiritual dimension, which is sorely lacking in our materialistic culture…