Abstract
Humanity is at the cusp of a global climate disaster driven by overpopulation, social inequity, and late-capitalist rationalization. The proliferation of digital fora has created new opportunities for collaborative thinking about these exigencies, yet in many ways we are further apart both ideologically and emotionally than we have ever been. This paradox begs two questions: why are online sympathy strategies so commonplace, and yet so often unsuccessful? I explore these questions to bolster both academic and activist efforts at anti-sexist and anti-racist advocacy, particularly because the treatment of subaltern members of the human species often predicts and even guides the treatment of non-human animals and the global environment in general. While the exigencies we face as a species are overwhelmingly complex, communication studies can offer a way forward by first reminding us of the origin of our modern conception of sympathy in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, which I do before applying Smith’s sociocognitive concept of sympathy to two online sympathy strategies with important offline components, #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. Noting the role of objectivism in the politics of likeness by which Smith says we adjudicate sympathy, and the ways that politics shapes online debate in specific instances, I conclude that sympathy is not and has never been a workable basis for equitable polity and suggest instead that we shift towards a recognition of our own radical interdependence with other humans and with non-human animals and members of the plant kingdom.
Presenters
Dt Spitzer Hankscontracted worker, Baylor Interdisciplinary Core, Baylor University, Texas, United States
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Online Communication, Anti-Racism, Anti-Sexism, Environmental Studies, History of Ideas
