Itemoids

San Francisco

What Happened to Empathy?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 10 › american-empathy-digital-isolation-humanity › 675615

San Francisco, I realized during a visit to the city this spring, has a people problem. Not a homeless-people problem, or a tech-people problem, but a lack-of-people problem. As I walked from my hotel in SoMa to the Embarcadero on a sunny afternoon, the emptiness of the streets felt nearly apocalyptic. Passing other humans—a fundamental circumstance of urban life elsewhere—here was so rare, it felt oddly menacing. I did pass some people who looked unwell, or dirty from living on the streets, but that’s not why I felt the way I did. The volume and density of humanity are what make cities feel safe. The pleasure and pain of a city is that we are never alone, even when we desperately want to be. That wasn’t the case in San Francisco.

So I was bewildered when I read recently of the city’s experiment with driverless taxicabs. During that visit, I stepped over two people who appeared to be high on fentanyl, stepped past too many boarded-up storefronts to count, and literally stepped into human excrement. Engaging with my living, breathing (and sometimes chatty) taxi and Uber drivers was absolutely the least of my troubles in San Francisco.

[Read: It’s a weird time for driverless cars]

Why did a city of such terrible solitude need driverless taxis? For whom were taxi drivers such a horrific nuisance that it was worth eradicating an entire profession of working-class people that has existed since the earliest days of the automobile? When did we decide that engagement with our fellow man was a bug and not a feature of our short and limited lives?

I was about to turn 24 and just settling into my adult life in New York City when the planes went into the Twin Towers on that perfectly crisp September day. I huddled in tears with my co-workers before I walked home and huddled in tears with my roommate. Not out of fear as much as pure shock and deep empathy. Nearly 3,000 people killed, while they were just trying to do their jobs. My friends and I didn’t know any of them, but they all felt very knowable: the busser at Windows on the World, the secretary from Staten Island, the trader who’d gone to your college, the fireman from Sunset Park. We were afraid to get on the subway, but we’d walk or drive or ride on buses to sit around one another’s houses and apartments. Anything to not be alone while mourning people who were strangers but not strangers at all.

When it was time to “go back to normal,” no one was really sure how; it all felt too soon. No memorial, no light display was enough to allay the pain. And yet, we tried. We needed to at least try.

Twenty years later, another disaster. It didn’t come on as suddenly as the crash of a commandeered plane, but it was fast for a plague. And it took with it not thousands of American lives, but more than 1 million—and 7 million lives worldwide. Unlike with 9/11, most everyone knows personally someone who has suffered a COVID loss.

And yet, this time there has been no real attempt at a moment of national mourning. We not only didn’t grieve; we seemed to resent missing even a beat of our attempt to get back to normal.

We can blame government or capitalism or any number of things, but it’s hard not to see this as reflective of a social shift—a collective reduction in empathy.

This shouldn’t be surprising. Empathy is cultivated through interactions with people we don’t know well, those glimpses into other interior worlds. We have, over the past two decades—slowly and then quickly—“optimized” other people out of our lives. One app at a time, we’ve greatly reduced our need to casually engage with anyone we don’t know—or even to meaningfully engage with those we do.

I sometimes consider all of the people I might have engaged with on a typical day just five years ago. I would head to work on the subway, grab a coffee and chat with the barista or bodeguero, get to the office and gossip with my co-workers about their lives. At lunch, I might make small talk while waiting for my salad, then pop into my favorite clothing or shoe store and trade some banter or get some inspiration from the shop clerks. After work, I might stop at the bookstore and pick up a novel, then have a drink at my local bar while I waited for my takeout to be ready. At home, I’d call a friend before bed. On the weekends, I’d drop my laundry at my wash-and-fold and ask how the owners’ kids were doing. I’d see the same people at my weekly yoga class, meet a friend at the movies, or browse the flea market. At night, we’d go to a bar and flirt with the bartender; one of us might go home with him.

Everywhere I went there was small talk, and often random weird interactions, and sometimes long and meaningful ones.

I won’t run through every app that has changed this, but suffice it to say, no one needs to go to an office to chitchat anymore when you can just Zoom all day long. Someone can pick up and drop off our laundry or our takeout or our books or our new clothing purchases without us ever even seeing the person doing it, let alone speaking to them. We can stream our workouts and movies. One- and two-night stands seem quaint or even tedious compared with being able to sext someone after nothing more than a swipe to the right. I have friendships that solely exist now on social media, voices I hear only when I call and the voicemail kicks in. (Someone recently described the act of making a phone call to me as “aggressive.”) Dozens upon dozens of human touch points have been erased from each and every day of our lives.

And we have accepted this erasure without ever asking whether it was a good thing. Without ever examining, not just how the jobs lost by humans to algorithms might affect the economy, but how those lost interactions might affect our humanity.

We are a people made miserable. This is an opinion that isn’t. Americans have fewer friends than we used to. Women are drinking more, and men are lonelier. Our kids are sad too. We are pessimistic about our country and about the state of the world. Maybe only our pets are happy. We are well informed about the ways in which our spirits are struggling, and somewhat informed as to the reasons why. Americans who frequently use social media have been found to display reduced empathy and increased narcissism; depression has been linked to the use of dating apps and binging TV alone.

What if our suffering is not just internal, but social? What if the human race has deteriorated? And what if we’ve deteriorated because we’ve begun to resent not only human interactions, but humans period?

More and more, we’re inured to suffering and death. Many think pieces have been written about why Americans won’t act to stop endless mass shootings and overdoses and the killings of Black people by cops. What if the inertia is the result of us simply no longer valuing human life the way we once did?

This is a dark premise, yet one that—scrolling through social media since this weekend’s terrorist attack on Israeli civilians—I’ve had to seriously entertain. How else to explain the process by which someone can watch videos of slaughtered human beings and then post messages of casual cruelty? Instead of praying for the victims and empathizing with their loved ones—in Israel, and in Gaza for that matter—people are raising a virtual middle finger at their pain. Because of politics! Because of “revolution”!

This is hardly the first time I’ve questioned American empathy. I feel this way each time someone says “All lives matter” after an innocent Black American is shot by a cop. I feel this way whenever I see people cheering legislation that makes trans youth fear using a bathroom or just trying to be comfortable in who they are. I question our empathy every time someone starts talking about the Second Amendment within hours of a shooting at a school or mall or grocery store. I feel this way whenever I see elected officials wishing ill health or death on their political enemies. How emotionally healthy are we, as a people, when, in moments of profound and painful tragedy, we feel compelled to insert our political opinions or policy positions? Can we not, just for a moment, feel for the victims?

Despite how divided we are politically, and how abhorrent I find some of the views espoused in this nation, I don’t believe that America has a people problem. We, like San Francisco, have a lack-of-people problem. We have manicured out of our lives and our feeds and our day-to-day existence the need for any and all interactions with anyone who has not been hand-picked by us, who is not of the same class or race or political position. We have found more and more ways to avoid engaging with others of our species. And in doing so, we have eroded our empathy.

[Hillary Rodham Clinton: The weaponization of loneliness]

This is not a call to abandon technology or close our social-media accounts: It’s too late for that. But we can attempt to turn away from indifference and re-embrace humanity, to pull ourselves out of our cocoons of digital isolation. We can pick up the phone and call a friend instead of liking a post on Instagram. We can ask a co-worker to get coffee and express curiosity about their life. We can, believe it or not, make small talk while waiting for our takeout. The people we meet and what we learn from them might not only surprise us; it might also save us.

Kamala Harris Is Trying to Change the Narrative

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 10 › kamala-harris-narrative › 675616

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Since taking office, Vice President Kamala Harris has struggled to communicate her vision and the nature of her role to both the press and the public. As President Joe Biden, the country’s oldest-ever president, eyes reelection, questions about Harris’s readiness to step in as president if needed are urgent, if also seemingly taboo among Democrats. My colleague Elaina Plott Calabro profiled Harris for the November issue of The Atlantic, following her to Africa and around the U.S.—and even, in a first for a reporter during this administration, to the vice president’s residence. I called Elaina to discuss Harris’s public persona, why she’s had trouble communicating her success, and what she’s like outside Washington, D.C.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

Understanding Hamas’s genocidal ideology Nikki Haley is the new Ron DeSantis. The new AI panic The journalist and the fallen billionaire

Trouble Breaking Through

Lora Kelley: You write in your profile that, at earlier points in Harris’s career, “communication wasn’t a matter of rhetoric. It was just laying out the facts.” Now she’s in an arena where compelling rhetoric counts. Why has that transition been difficult for her?

Elaina Plott Calabro: Earlier in her career, Kamala Harris was a prosecutor in Alameda County and a district attorney in San Francisco. You are not looking to your DA for sweeping, inspiring speeches in the way you might, say, your U.S. senator. Communication as DA is so much more technical and fact-based. As Harris has gotten further away from that level of politics and moved onto a national stage, she’s found it more difficult to frame her communication in a way that captures the tangible nature of her success.

It’s not just Harris who is having trouble breaking through to voters right now. This is something that President Biden is struggling with as well. One prominent Democratic pollster recently told me that they’re mystified about what it takes to reach Americans at a communications level. In this post-2016 era, a lot of politicians, not just Harris, are struggling with how to achieve visibility in a time when Donald Trump can say one thing and it seems to dominate the airwaves for days.

Lora: In what contexts does Harris thrive?

Elaina: When Harris can talk one-on-one with people, hear their concerns and stress the ways in which her administration is working for them, and then bring what she’s learned back to Washington, that’s where she feels most effective and comes into her own as a politician. We’ve seen her do a lot more of that lately.

In one of the most telling conversations I had with her, she told me about a commencement speech that she once gave at the law school at UC Berkeley. She urged the students there to “embrace the mundane.” One reason that she doesn’t have a public presentation that immediately captivates people is that she sees her job as something that takes more than theatrics to do right. She takes seriously—and prefers to spend her time on—the slower-burn, day-to-day work she feels is needed to actually effect change.

Lora: You observed that Harris tends to play especially well outside of Washington. Why is that?

Elaina: In Washington, we tend to have a pretty static idea of what it means for a vice president to be successful. It’s obviously a very nebulous role, but if you look back at old headlines from past administrations, news outlets would often frame vice presidents as sort of the liaison to Capitol Hill for the White House.

Kamala Harris was never going to be Joe Biden’s anchor to Washington. President Biden started his first Senate term before she was even 10 years old. So her first several months on the job, she was also trying to figure out what role she could play. Once she was able to start getting out into the rest of the country, she came into her own. On the trail, she connects very visibly with regular people. She’s very warm and personable. When she’s actually on the ground with voters, she comes across as an entirely different politician from the existing caricature of her as someone unsure of herself who speaks in word-salad locutions.

Lora: You wrote that “perceptions of Harris appear to be frozen in 2021.” Do you think there’s anything she can or will do to change the way that people perceive her ahead of 2024?

Elaina: Kamala Harris had not been on the national stage for that long when she entered the White House. The Lester Holt interview she did in 2021 was very defining for her simply because it was one of the first major yardsticks by which people could measure her. The narrative that came out of that interview, in which she was viewed as unprepared and flippant, became really hard for her to get out from under. As one of her former aides told me, narrative is a very difficult thing to change.

Her willingness to talk with me, and to invite me to the residence, was emblematic of a desire on the part of her team to get her out there and engage more with the press as the campaign gets under way. They’re putting her in a position where more Americans are seeing her, and trying to create moments that can define the shape of her vice presidency, two and a half years after the one moment that has otherwise largely defined it.

Related:

The Kamala Harris problem The woman who led Kamala Harris to this moment

Today’s News

In a landmark move, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and National Unity leader Benny Gantz have agreed to establish an emergency wartime government. Republicans have narrowly nominated Representative Steve Scalise as speaker of the House; a full vote on the House floor has been delayed. Hurricane Lidia made landfall in Mexico as a Category 4 storm yesterday evening.

Dispatches

The Weekly Planet: The Mississippi is losing its fight with the ocean, Nancy Walecki writes. A combination of drought and sea-level rise has sent a wedge of salt water moving up the river.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read


Getty / The Atlantic

Cancel Amazon Prime

(From 2021)

By Ellen Cushing

Today is Prime Day. Imagine trying to explain that to an alien or to a time traveler from the 20th century. “Amazon turned 20 and on the eve of its birthday, the company introduced Prime Day, a global shopping event,” reads Amazon’s formal telling of the ritual’s 2015 origins. “Our only goal? Offer a volume of deals greater than Black Friday, exclusively for Prime members.” The holiday was invented by a corporation in honor of itself, to enrich itself. It has existed for six years and is observed by tens of millions of people worldwide. I hope you are spending it with your loved ones.

Prime Day is a singular and strange artifact, but then again, so is Prime, Amazon’s $119-a-year membership service, which buys subscribers free one-day shipping, plus access to streaming media, discounts at the Amazon subsidiary Whole Foods, and a host of other perks. Prime is Amazon’s greatest and most terrifying invention: a product whose value proposition is to help you buy more products.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Photos: Winners of the 2023 Epson International Pano Awards

Culture Break

Michael Ochs Archives / Getty

Read. A new biography of the Velvet Underground founder Lou Reed considers the stark duality of the man and his music.

Listen. “Be absolutely quiet. Not a word.” In the latest episode of Radio Atlantic, host Hanna Rosin talks with the Israeli journalist Amir Tibon about his family’s encounter with Hamas.

Play our daily crossword.

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.