So, this morning I sit down in one of my "go to" spots to crank out a 10 item to-do list that I emailed myself late last night. (I know, sad when you are emailing yourself). Due to the loud talkers that frequent this "go-to" (a coffee house that will remain nameless), I tend to throw on some headphones in order to focus. Well, of course, I remove them for a moment only to find

They are discussing the overall feel of the space in relation to a handful of homeless folks that show up from time-to-time. A few lines from the conversation:

"It is becoming like a homeless shelter..."

"I was getting pissed off at myself because I was getting frustrated. Why am I frustrated?"

A paraphrased version of what followed: "I have to treat her like a customer, because she... is a customer. I mean - it's hard because you want it to be comfortable - but you don't want it to be too comfortable. Maybe we're too comfortable?"

Throughout the conversation it was implied that "she" (a particular homeless person) had not been around lately - that maybe it had something to do with a conversation or two with some of the employees. One of the employees concluded the exchange with...

"Where did she go?"

Little did they know, I had been asking the same question.

As "she" is a woman who I had gotten to know over the past few weeks. Someone who attends the same church that I do. Someone that would pay for her own coffee. Someone that I saw a manager having a conversation with encouraging her to setup shop elsewhere.

If any of you happened to catch NPR's "Talk of the Nation" this afternoon (listen here), you found yourself in the middle of a fascinating discussion. The topic was "Numbed by the Numbers" - a conversation on how the media's use of numbers typically enhance our detachment from a particular situation or reality. Over 200,000 deaths in Darfur in the last 4 years. 300 anticipated homicides in Baltimore (every year). 101 U.S. deaths in Iraq during the month of June alone. Up to 2 million people sleep "homeless" on any given night.

Ellen Peters , a research scientist at Decision Research, provided some interesting insight on the topic. She stated that throughout their research that most people are more willing to donate and/or support 1 person as opposed to "many" or "multiple" people. For example, most people would be more inclined to support a particular individual (with a name and a story) as opposed to the thousands dying in Darfur.

This lack of interest or concern of the masses she deemed "compassion fatigue" - something that she says "sets in" even when 1 ADDITIONAL PERSON enters the picture. (1 over 2)

Whether your own experience is in agreement or not, "WHY?" becomes an interesting question.

Back to this morning. What I didn't tell you is that the dialogue between the two employees began as a small conversation about the homeless "in general" as well as a group of homeless that shows up to the coffee house on Sundays.

Somewhat interesting... but I took little to no interest in the conversation until a particular individual (she) was discussed.

Why is this?

My ears perked. I stopped what I was doing. I intently listened as now the conversation involved someone that I know. Sure, someone I know very little about; but, someone that I do know. Someone that I looked for when I pulled into the parking spot this morning next to her favorite seat. Someone who has a story. Someone who has a name.

Comments (3)

Matt Browning said:

... Adding to the discussion, I'm reminded by these comments about CS Lewis's claim that the most suffering in the world is the amount of suffering one person is able to undertake (I believe he says this in 'The Problem of Pleasure'). At first it might seem like he is lessening the enormity of suffering in our world. But if we let this idea play itself out a bit I think what Lewis is getting at is that the single story of suffering IS the story of suffering, that we must not be overwhelmed by suffering because the maximum unit of suffering that exists in the world isn't the cumulative amount of suffering, but rather the fullest amount of suffering that one person can experience. To encounter and enter into the maximum amount of suffering in the world is to enter into the suffering of one person. It is this idea that I have to return to when I hear these stats and figures about the suffering in the world.

October 02, 2007

steve sherwood said:

... I just read a book on the communication of ideas. How to 'make them stick' with people. One key idea was to communicate in tangible specifics as opposed to statistical generalities. In other words, don't talk about AIDS in Africa using statistics and a global perspective. Tell the the story of an AIDS orphan instead. It was a very interesting book and I think you are correct Tim that the 'diffusion of responsibility' is the underside of the same idea. If I feel I can personally affect change for one individual, I am likely to help. If I feel I am a nameless part of the masses facing a vast nameless problem, I'm more likely to stay disengaged.

October 01, 2007

Tim Ferraris said:

diffusion of responsibility Although the situations are not identical, this phenomenon you describe reminds me so much of the phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...onsibility. In the case that Bob describes, it's as if we believe that the pain suffered by large numbers of people is somehow dispersed across the entire group, lessening each individual's suffering. We only seem to care when it appears to us that only one individual bears the entirety of pain available in a particular plight.

October 01, 2007

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment