Affectional Empathy And The Living Wage

Wednesday, 31 May 2023, 7:59 pm
Opinion: Ian Powell

One of the things I get a buzz out of is trying to place a practical issue within a theoretical construct. I was prompted to give this a go after reading an article in the New York Review of Books published on 8 December 2022.

The practical issue is the living wage initiative in Aotearoa New Zealand. This initiative came from the union movement but has expanded considerable to also have a strong community base under the umbrella of the Living Wage Movement.

The living wage

The living wage hourly rate is worker and whānau/family focused. It considers basic expenses, and gives breathing room for rest, activities, or saving for a rainy day. It is considered to be good for both collective wellbeing, and the economy.

In contrast to the official minimum wage, paying the living wage is voluntary although the Labour government is supportive. Further, many local authorities and a growing number of private employers are also living wage payers.

The living wage focusses on basic needs

The current level of the living is $23.65 per hour but this increases to $26  (a nearly 10% increase) on 1 September. Contrast this with the minimum wage which increased by around 7% to $22.70 on 1 April.

While the minimum wage is set by government, there is an independent process to calculate the rate for the Living Wage Movement. The calculation is done by the Social Policy Unit of the New Zealand Family Centre which is a community-based non-government organisation.

Empathy and the economy

The article (paywalled) that gave me the buzz was by Carey Robin, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the United States: Empathy and the Economy.

Robin reviewed a book by philosopher Samuel Fleisechacker titled Being Me Being You: Adam Smith and Empathy. This article was the first of a two-part series.  

Adam Smith was an 18th century Scottish economist and theologist (a dangerous combination!) who is seen by many as the founder of free market ideology. There is even a right-wing free market institute named after him in England, However, this is an overly-simplistic assertion.

In his most well-known book, The Wealth of Nations, he made an observation that subsequently has become widely quoted and interpreted in o economic and philosophical debates:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

This has been interpreted by many to be a description of the egoism or selfishness that can be found in markets.

However, Fleisechacker interprets it more as a means of orientating market participants to talk to each other about their advantages rather than necessities.

Source of sociability

Robin argues that commerce was seen as a “source of sociability”. He refers to Immanuel Kant. This 18th century philosopher maintained that it was through trade in salt and iron that people first achieved mutual understanding with each other and “the most distant of their fellows.”

Also cited by Robin was David Hume, a Scottish Enlightenment historian. Hume argued that the more developed an economy the more sociable people become.

Fleisechacker introduces empathy as distinct from sympathy into the discussion. Sympathy is showing concern; empathy requires identification – walking in the shoes of others.

But the relationship between empathy and economics is affected by what Smith calls wealth’s “power of purchasing”. This includes the power to purchase labour which then gives employers a right to govern those whose labour they have purchased.

Cognitive and affectional empathy

This led me to find what for me was a fascinating revelation; Fleisechacker’s distinction between ‘cognitive’ and ‘affectional’ empathy.

The former is a way of knowing what it is like for those at the wrong end of this power relationship; “a talented empath lacking empathy). The latter is feeling what it is like to be at the wrong end.

Robin describes cognitive empathy (empaths without empathy) as a “…pretty good description of successful participants under capitalism”. He’s right. But it is affectionate empathy that struck an even stronger chord with me.

My interest in a theoretical construct for the living wage is modest. Both Carey Robin’s article and Samuel  Fleisechacker’s book go much wider than what I have discussed here, including the more exploitative and darker side of capitalism, such as slavery.

Instead. I’ve simply taken snippets and tried to develop a framework to analyse the living wage movement. It is an unashamed cherry-picked construct.

Employers who are empaths without empathy (cognitive empathy) can still be prepared to pay the living wage to their staff because they know it is good for business to do so (ie, be “successful participants” in the market).

Cognitive empathy is an important message for the Living Wage Movement to continue to spread. But there is an even more important message.

Paying the living wage is the right thing to do for employers who feel what it is like to be paid less (affectional empathy).

© Scoop Media

Ian Powell

Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand.

Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.

Contact Ian Powell

• Website - Otaihanga Second Opinion