Naomi Guerrier – Assignment #2 Draft

Naomi Guerrier

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Draft 

To fit in shoes that aren’t yours – this is the fundamental principle of empathy, the ability to understand and share the emotions of another. Despite empathy being a concept widely taught, many have started to question how society has construed and thus acted in the name of “empathy.” Among these, New York Times columnist and author of “The Trouble With Empathy”, Molly Worthen and well-known psychologist and author of “Against Empathy”, Paul Bloom are found revealing changes needed for empathy to encompass all that society defines it as. Each author’s use of style, arrangement, and reputable sources allows them to dissect empathy and suggest new perspectives that society must consider in order to progress in understanding.

Worthen and Bloom use different styles of writing, one being more personal and the other more straightforward and informational. As Worthen’s article focuses on the use of empathy in the education system, her anecdotes as a mother make her writing seem relatable and easier to grasp. She uses more sensitive language, even describing education as a “gift.” Being a psychologist, Bloom mainly includes scientific knowledge as evidence and relates such things matter of factly. Despite this, he balances kindness and being firm when presenting his claim against empathy, stating that he is not against love, morality, and compassion. However, his longer sentence structure and high vocabulary can be hard to follow. Yet, both authors take time to have readers reflect, repeatedly asking questions to transition between topics. Interestingly, Worthen and Bloom often use words like “you,” “our,” and “we,” in order to humanize themselves to readers and invite us to question society too. Though both are persuasive, readers might find Bloom’s article to be stronger in evidence but may be more drawn to Worthen’s almost common way of writing. 

As both authors are analyzing a very nuanced topic, they prioritize organization. It is important to note that Worthen wrote her article in 2020, thus using the killing of George Floyd as the starting point to expand her argument beyond empathy in her daughter’s education shows careful consideration for the topic. She then goes back to her original example of motherhood, asking questions like, “Are some divides too great for common humanity to bridge?” to connect it all. Additionally, after using a quote, often Worthen expands on the specific person as a source, making it easy to follow her train of thought. She goes full circle, concluding her article with mentions of Zoom School and Covid-19.  Bloom’s article, being based in science, naturally makes it organized. But as many are not exposed to these topics, he includes specific quotes in between paragraphs that capture the key lesson of all the information given. He physically separates sections, having lines to signal another part of his argument. As Bloom’s transitions are explicit, one could argue that his article overall is more organized. Surprisingly, both articles highlight the good of empathy as a segway to highlight where the concept has been misused. Including this perspective gives readers a foundation to assess Bloom and Worthen’s claims, indirectly organizing their thoughts. 

To strengthen their stances, Worthen and Bloom are found using the accounts of multiple credible sources. Worthen mainly uses the accounts of professors from universities such as Florida State University and Stanford University, directly supporting her position and reaching those involved in the American education system. For example, Ms. Sarah Levine shares her studies but also includes her background besides working at Stanford, showing her varied expertise. Worthen also cites responses from President Joe Biden and Ja-Ron Smith, a deputy assistant to former President Trump. Many would not expect to see quotes from these varying political parties in an article about empathy, but Worthen clearly does this to demonstrate how expansive this concept is. However, some might find her accounts from college students to not be as credible. Despite this, these accounts compliment Worthen’s relatable writing style. On the other hand, throughout Bloom’s entire article, he uses specific data found in fMRIs and founding scientific texts such as The Empathic Civilization, The Science of Evil, and Consequence of Compassion. Bloom directly uses a different perspective from his own, such as that of Simon Baron-Chen, an avid supporter of empathy, and then dissects the flaws within Baron-Chen’s thinking. Bloom strengthens his credibility, separating himself from being a psychologist by including a personal account about “an older relative… who has cancer.” Unexpectedly, Bloom uses Buddhism to connect anger and empathy, but this attempt at including another source falls flat as it is hard to understand the purpose of the connection made. Yet, this use of known professionals and facts based in science does give Bloom more technical credibility over Worthen. 

In sum, Molly Worthen and Paul Bloom use style, arrangement, and status to fully develop their position on empathy. Despite Worthen’s article being more personal and using professors as her source and Bloom focusing on the concrete science behind emotions, both succeed in convincing readers that society needs to reconstruct their concept of empathy.

Articles:

“The Trouble With Empathy” by Molly Worthen — NYT

“Against Empathy” by Paul Bloom — Boston Review