Finding Common Ground: Why Empathy Isn't Surrender

When I was in my thirties, I began taking martial arts. While learning to kick, hit, flip, and fall, I also learned to dodge, ground myself, and use my opponent's energy to deflect attack after attack. When I was successful, my opponent would either tire or eventually overbalance themselves and end up flat on the mat. Our sensei also talked about how, within his tradition, if you ever got to the place where you had to throw a punch, you had already failed. Success was spotting early opportunities to address the tension before it escalated into violence.

I’ve carried that with me ever since.

Honestly, I wish I could avoid conflict, but what my sensei was talking about wasn't avoidance, it was dealing with the conflict when it was spark, not a bonfire. It's great advice. I've used it often although I've also missed the moment and found myself facing the flames.

Right now, a lot of us feel like we are working in firestorm conditions.

But Shouldn’t We Just Take a Stand?

In my Touchy Subjects webinars and workshops, I'm often asked:
“Why should I empathize with people views feel harmful.”
or:
“Shouldn't I advocate as hard as possible for what I think is right?”
“Isn’t it valid to plant my flag and tell people why their viewpoint is harmful?”

Yes. And.

I see that approach all around me anymore. And if it worked on its own, if just planting our flag and standing our ground and staying on message was a successful tactic, don't you think we'd be living in a different world?  There is power in clarity and courage.  But there’s also power in strategy, especially when the goal is to create real, sustainable change.

Sometimes, the effective move isn’t more passionate arguments, but rather to pause, listen, and use your own beliefs as your guiding light while you also move to meet people where they are.  Not to concede, but to connect.   

Empathy Is Not Agreement

In most of my work, I encourage leaders, heritage professionals, advocates and changemakers to explore multiple and varied viewpoints and to reflect them the way someone who holds that perspective would describe their own intentions, hopes, or worries.

This means

• Having curious conversations.

• Looking for shared values below surface-level belief structures.

• Being willing to explore the why behind beliefs

• Describing ideas without distortion.

• And separating someone’s values from their application of those values

Here are four practices that can help.

Four Practices for Navigating Difficult Conversations

1.   Be human together. If someone becomes agitated while sharing their view, don’t double down.  This is a person in some kind of distress. Switch to a person-first approach and try asking:

• What are you feeling right now?

• Is something about this personal for you?

• Would you like a moment before we continue?

Treat the moment as a human-to-human moment of connection, not a chance to press your rhetorical point.

2.   Separate intent from impact. Most of us are quick to imagine the consequences of others’ views while believing our own views wouldn’t be harmful. Which means it’s true on both sides of a disagreement. Try to hear how the other person sees their intent, even as you remain aware of possible outcomes. This might be the hardest part of the whole process.

3.   Reflect back without loading the language. If someone says, "I think we should clean up our own backyard before we focus on asking others to clean up theirs," and your response is "So you think we should just ignore the suffering that their backyard is causing," you've reframed their words making them "the bad guy" for ignoring suffering. Instead try: “Sounds like you want to make sure we alleviate suffering close to home before taking on more?”

4.   Practice using values-based language. Sticking with our backyard example, you could ask, "So is this more of a fairness issue for you, or maybe integrity?" or “What values does this connect with for you?”

Where to Draw the Line

I hope this goes without saying, but empathy doesn’t mean supporting harm. If someone explicitly advocates violence, either physically or psychologically, you are not obligated to engage or continue. And if someone feels they are being targeted or dehumanized, our first concern should be for the person rather than continuing a philosophical exploration. 

Because even people who are all-in on these types of curious conversations can feel a little vulnerable putting themselves out there, these explorations are best done in small group or one-on-one contexts, not public forums where honesty risks public shaming.    

For a compassionate and person-first conversation about how to let go of a conflict long enough to really care about a hurting human in front of us, I highly recommend listening to this conversation with my longtime friend Rev. Colin Pritchard on the Connections program.

The Nuance Is the Point

The more talks like this you have, you will find plenty of nuance – guaranteed.

You may hear an unfamiliar perspective and realize you agree with part of it. You might empathize with someone's values but not the way they’re applying those values. You may find that you share values and that you are each looking at different aspects of the same problem. 

All of those things are good practice, and they don’t require you to relinquish your own beliefs or perspectives. Empathy doesn’t make you weak, or a sell-out, it empowers you to be discerning. 

The work here is this: learn to distinguish the person from the idea, lived experience from belief, values from outcomes.  You can honor the person, empathize with what they've lived, while productively disagreeing.

Not because empathy is agreement or surrender, but because empathy is a roadmap to meeting people where they are at, and a compass as you explore things together.

And it might just be the bravest choice we can make.