Anthropologically speaking … empathy is our superpower!

Margaret Mead (1901-1978) is one of the most famous, influential, yet controversial, American anthropologists. She was my inspiration for studying cultural anthropology and, in a very significant way, also laid the foundation for Inclusive Leadership and why it is such an important leadership paradigm - at least in the way I understand it.

A story is told about her that should give all of us reason to think more deeply about what it means to be human, particularly at the current moment in history:

Supposedly, Margaret Mead was asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilisation in a culture. The student expected her to mention tools, clay pots, grinding-stones, or other artifacts. But that was not how she answered.

Mead is reported to have said that the first evidence of civilisation was a 15,000 years old fractured femur (the longest bone in the human body, linking hip and knee) that was found in an archaeological site. Without modern medical treatment, a fractured femur takes an average of six weeks to heal. This particular bone had been broken and had healed.

She explained that in the wild, a broken leg is usually a death sentence—you wouldn’t be able to escape danger, find water, or hunt for food. No creature survives long enough for such an injury to heal; predators would get to you first. That’s why a healed femur is so significant—it proves that someone stayed behind, cared for the wounded, provided protection, and helped them recover instead of leaving them to fend for themselves. It is evidence of compassion, sacrifice, and the instinct to help rather than abandon a fellow human.

This story highlights Mead’s core belief that civilisation is not built on power or domination, but on care and cooperation. She considered empathy as the foundation of human progress, allowing societies to care for their most vulnerable members and work toward collective well-being. She believed that kindness, empathy, and compassion are crucial for understanding cultural differences, fostering cooperation, and ensuring social progress:?

• In Samoa, New Guinea, and Bali, she observed how culture shaped human behaviour. She saw that what was considered "normal" or "moral" in one society could be very different in another. She argued that one had to engage people from a different culture with empathy rather than judgment if one wants to truly understand them.
• As a student of Franz Boas, Mead championed the ideas of psychic unity of humankind and cultural relativism. The former being the insight that all humans, regardless of their differences, share the same fundamental cognitive and psychological capacities. This suggests that cultures shape how people think, behave, and interpret the world, the underlying mental structures and that potential for learning, reasoning, and emotion are universal. This is the foundation for cultural relativism, namely the insight that cultures develop uniquely due to historical, environmental, and social factors, not because of inherent or biological hardwired differences.
• This foundation leads Mead and other anthropologists to the understanding that beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on their own culture rather than judged by the standards of another culture. This opposes ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to view one's own culture as superior or as the "normal" way of life against which other cultures are evaluated and judged. Mead in particular championed empathy as the bridge to appreciate cultural diversity without imposing one’s own biases.
• She deeply believed that societies could improve by fostering empathy, particularly in areas like gender roles, childhood development, and education. She was an early advocate for recognising that gender roles were socially constructed, not biologically fixed. By encouraging people to empathise with different perspectives, she hoped to create more equitable and compassionate societies.
• Mead studied how children were raised in different societies and how early socialization shaped their emotional development. She argued that societies that nurtured empathy in children were more likely to produce cooperative adults. Her work suggested that kindness and understanding were not just individual traits but cultural values that needed to be reinforced through parenting and education.
• During and after World War II, Mead became deeply involved in applying anthropology to global issues, including conflict resolution, democracy, and human rights. She saw how a lack of empathy contributed to war, racism, and oppression. She believed that fostering intercultural understanding was essential for a peaceful world, making kindness, empathy, and compassion not just personal virtues but global societal necessities.

Even though her fieldwork is debated in academic anthropology, Mead made anthropology accessible to the public and relevant to contemporary concerns. Her conclusions foreshadowed what multiple studies have validated since, namely that what has given our species' competitive advantage is our capacity to cooperate and enlarge the circle of relational reciprocity, altruism, and moral concern beyond that or our close kin.

The secret of competitive advantage:? expanding moral circles

Mead’s conception of our moral behaviour as the source code of human civilisation counters the notion of Social Darwinism that was particularly influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and - tragically - is celebrating a come-back currently.

Social Darwinism is a sociopolitical ideology that applies the biological principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest (as proposed by Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution) to human societies. It suggests that individuals, groups, or nations that are the most "fit" (often interpreted as the most capable, wealthy, or powerful) will naturally succeed and dominate, while those who are weaker will struggle or fail. Social Darwinism was used to justify a range of social, economic, and political policies, including laissez-faire capitalism, imperialism, eugenics, racial hierarchies, and genocide, including the Holocaust.

However, there is ample evidence that it is our ability to cooperate in increasingly wider circles of care and concern that has been the real source code of human success and social thriving. See for example A Cooperative Species by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (2011) for a great compilation of relevant socio-biological research. In their conclusion they state that “Humans became a cooperative species because our distinct livelihoods made cooperation within a group highly beneficial to its members and, exceptionally among animals, we developed the cognitive, linguistic, and other capacities to structure our social interactions in ways that allow altruistic cooperators to proliferate.” [p. 196]

The latter part of the statement - “cognitive, linguistic, and other capacities to structure our social interactions in ways that allow altruistic cooperators to proliferate” - means, in essence, the ability to expand the circle of our care and concern; i.e., the boundaries of who is “us” and therefore belongs to the circle of beneficiaries of our care and concern - our kindness, empathy, and compassion. This is the quintessential genius of our species, namely to socially construct (see Anthropologically Speaking #4) expanding circles of care and concern beyond those of our immediate family. This could be our tribe or clan, our neighborhood, our village, our city, our region, our nation, or continent, or organization.?

The cultural plasticity with which we construct and shift the boundaries of our moral concern define and/or redefine in-groups (insiders) and out-groups (outsiders), in other words who belongs and who does not. These definitions influence the boundaries of our kindness, empathy, and compassion. And, some argue, human history is characterized by an expanding moral circle - mostly through our institutions and scientific/philosophical endeavors that are increasingly placing non-human species and intelligences into the purview of moral consideration. (You may find this podcast interesting.)

Expanding the boundaries of our moral concern is similar to expanding inclusiveness and building an inclusive culture. The social and economic benefits of this have been elaborated for example by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012) and also by Frans Johansson in The Medici Effect (2006).?

This leads me to the conclusion that it is both beneficial and imperative to work for the expansion of our collective moral circle (i.e.; inclusiveness), as it contributes significantly to our collective benefit and thriving. This is also why we need to pay close attention to the social construction of belonging in our spheres of influence and be critically vigilant of any attempts to shrink and deconstruct them.

Examining morality?

Human morality is deeply intertwined with emotions and social instincts. Among them empathy, compassion and kindness—each playing a unique role in shaping our ethical decisions and actions. While often used interchangeably, these concepts differ in their nature and impact, particularly when viewed through the lens of moral reasoning.?

• Empathy is the ability to understand and share another person's emotions. It comes in two forms: (a) cognitive empathy involves perspective-taking—understanding what another person is experiencing without necessarily feeling their emotions; and (b) emotional empathy involves directly feeling another’s emotions, almost as if they were one’s own. While this fosters deep connection, it can also lead to emotional exhaustion if unchecked.
• Compassion builds upon empathy but adds a crucial element: the motivation to relieve suffering rather than simply share in it. Unlike empathy, which can sometimes paralyze a person with overwhelming emotions, compassion fosters a stable and proactive mindset. It enables people to help effectively without being consumed by the suffering they witness.
• Kindness is a general disposition toward goodwill and benevolent actions. It is not necessarily emotional but is rooted in actions of generosity and care toward others. Kindness can be expressed through small, habitual acts, such as offering help or speaking with warmth, without necessarily feeling deep emotional involvement.

These definitions combine to a perspective that recognizes kind action as an expression of compassion; whereby empathy is a foundational, but insufficient precondition. Making empathy, compassion and kindness the foundation of human morality fosters a sense of responsibility and encourages ethical choices that prioritize the dignity and well-being of a widening circle of others - an ethos in the spirit of Margaret Mead’s anthropology.?

On the basis of the differentiation between empathy, compassion, and kindness, we may modify Margaret Mead’s focus on empathy and direct our attention to compassion and kindness. This may be an important shift, in response to psychological findings and discussions about the limits of empathy.

The paradox of empathy

The phenomenon of empathic distress - where a person becomes so overwhelmed by the suffering of others that it leads to self-destructive tendencies, including suicidal thoughts or actions - has been identified. Psychologists like Martin Hoffman [Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice (2000) Cambridge University Press] and C. Daniel Batson [Altruism in Humans (2011) Oxford University Press] have explored how deep empathy can lead individuals to feel so much of another person's suffering that it negatively affects their well-being. Professional therapists and caregivers have also described vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue to describe depression and/or suicidal thoughts in response to absorbing so much of others’ suffering.?

Mostly recognized and described as an affliction of individuals, the phenomenon has also been applied as a critique of contemporary societal developments. Notably, Dr. Gad Saad, a Canadian professor and evolutionary psychologist, uses the term suicidal empathy to describe a societal phenomenon that undermines societal cohesion, values, and security. Dr. Saad suggests that when empathy is misapplied or unbounded, it can lead to detrimental, self-destructive outcomes for the very societies that practice it.?

Saad frames this idea in the context of immigration policies, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and political correctness, suggesting that Western societies, driven by unchecked empathy, make decisions that ultimately undermine their own values and security. He argues that those suffering from suicidal empathy may ignore empirical evidence, historical patterns, or rational self-interest in favor of ideological purity.?

Given the contemporary societal debates about immigration, security, and cultural integration across so many Western, democratic societies, his perspective underwrites and emboldens the right-wing, reactionary and nationalist movements that are sweeping through the current political landscapes. His evolutionary psychology perspective supports their framing and justifies abandoning institutions, policies and practices of care and concerns without quantifying and or otherwise substantiating the degree of societal risk they actually pose.Saad does not seem to offer his commentary as analysis connected to a call to activate and galvanize our agency to counteract reactionary tendencies.?

The term suicidal empathy risks oversimplifying and stigmatizing a much more complex question. Empathy does not necessarily lead to self-destruction; rather, it can be part of a broader strategy that strengthens social cohesion and cooperation. Saad may not fully acknowledge cases where empathy-driven policies have been beneficial (e.g., post-WWII refugee programs, economic migration boosting economies; etc.

In that sense, the notion of suicidal empathy can become a building block in a social construction project that seeks to prevent the expansion of circles of care (see Anthropologically Speaking #4). The framing of empathy as "suicidal" may appeal to emotions more than reason, potentially encouraging reactionary responses rather than a balanced discussion about the role of empathy in governance and society. In that sense, it may be Saad who is feeding into an ideological agenda.

Be that as it may, the paradox of empathy is real and invites a discussion about how it affects society,? institutions, and collective action. This discussion is particularly important at a time where human suffering and trauma are ubiquitously placed into our awareness and beckon for attention through our news and social media feeds and interpersonal interactions. It is easy, in this time of polycrisis, to feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness in response to the increasing demands and appeal for empathy. While empathy can help us connect emotionally, compassion and kindness allows us to translate that connection into meaningful and sustainable moral action.

The good news is that empathy does not have to be overwhelming or paralyzing. Deliberate and balanced compassion and kindness might offer a solution - for both individuals as well as societies. This is what Jabra Ghneim suggests in ”Suicidal Empathy: The Danger of Compassion Without Limits" (2024):

“The path forward is not to diminish empathy, but to elevate it - transforming it from an emotional impulse to a deliberate, reasoned ethic. Societies must strive to preserve their collective integrity while extending care to those in need, crafting policies that are both compassionate and sustainable. Empathy with accountability ensures that compassion becomes a tool for progress rather than a catalyst for discord. As we navigate the complexities of an interconnected world, this balance is not just desirable but essential. By grounding empathy in justice and foresight, societies can harness its transformative power while safeguarding their foundations, ensuring that compassion continues to serve as a pillar of human progress and unity.” [p21]

This also means that we as individuals, communities and societies are well advised to convert our empathy into a deliberate practice and institutionalising compassion and kindness. This must include self-compassion and self-directed kindness, because they are essential to mitigating empathy fatigue and preserving empathy as a valuable communal resource that enables increasing levels of collaboration.?

A moral framework

Articulating, building and maintaining a well-rounded moral framework that infuses individuals as well as societal institutions may be the most critical way to preserve what makes us most uniquely human amidst the multitude of complex challenges we face, including the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI). By cultivating compassion alongside reason, we create moral frameworks that are not only intellectually sound but also deeply human.

Empathy distinguishes our species. And, empathy can paralyze or exhaust individuals and perhaps even entire societies. Compassion and kindness - particularly when paired with moral reasoning are stabilizing forces. When they become guiding principles of our individual actions and institutions alike. Compassionate moral reasoning enables us to enlarge our moral circles so that they are fair, just, and considerate of human vulnerability.?

In today’s world, where exposure to suffering is constant—whether through news, social media, or personal interactions—and where the challenges facing us requires collaboration at levels and scales that we have rarely mustered, we need to focus our agency towards building and cultivating such a moral framework and institutionalize compassion and kindness.

This may seem like a tall order in a world that seems to lose focus on our common threats and where the new societal blueprint appears to be culturally defined national entities in competitive and/or submissive relationships to one another. The new and implicit model of leadership is extractive, transactional, and authoritarian.?

However, the world is and will continue to be a nuanced, diverse, and complex place. Human life remains contingent and interconnected. Our existential threats - mostly the cumulative and unintended impact of our unreflected collective choices and actions - require our collaborative attention. And, the competitive advantage of our species will necessitate us to construct inclusive moral circles of global proportions. This is also what makes advancing and promoting Inclusive Leadership such an important endeavour.

This ambition harkens back to Margaret Mead and her tireless activism to leverage anthropological insights to inspire change through empathy, compassion, and kindness not as personal virtues alone, but as institutional necessities for a more peaceful world. This aspiration is as timely and urgent today as it was during her lifetime.?

a closing thought ...

I cannot resist closing this reflection with a reference to thinkers like Bell Hooks and Erich Fromm. Both urge us to expand our understanding of love and liberate us from the private, repressed and romanticised concept that is pervasive in our contemporary world. This explains why, in my 30+ years of professional experience, I have only once met business leaders who used the world “love” to describe the behavioral ethos they sought to realize in the culture of their organization. These were remarkable leaders in a remarkable company who managed to articulate the essence of their cultural stewardship by cutting through unhelpful jargon and articulate the company’s purpose as showing people love, care, and kindness.

Hooks (All About Love, 2001) and Fromm (The Art of Loving, 1956) both urge us to understand love as active, social, structural and institutional. They argue that a society must cultivate love as a social phenomenon rather than an individual exception. The organization I encountered proved that it can be done and that great growth can be realized with this unconventional clarity of focus. They demonstrated that what Fromm articulates below can be done indeed:

“Society must be organized in such a way that [hu]man’s social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but become one with. If it is true as I have tried to show that love is the only sane and satisfactory response to the problem of human existence, then any society which excludes, relatively, the development of love, must in the long run perish of its own contradiction with the basic necessities of human nature. … to have faith in the possibility of love as a social and not only exceptional-individual phenomenon, is a rational faith based on the insight into the very nature of [hu]man[s].”??

Expanding the boundaries of our moral concern and championing the construction of widening circles of inclusiveness is ultimately the work of institutionalising love!

About the Author

Joerg Schmitz is a business anthropologist passionate about exploring human behavior through the lens of anthropology and organizational culture. He is the founder and Managing Director of The Inclusive Leadership Institute. After 35 years living in the US and working with organizations and institutions globally, he currently resides in Bremen, Germany.

Connect with him at [email protected] to continue the conversation.