Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Reg No- 06
বাংলা
   
Saturday | 5 October 2024 | Epaper
BREAKING: ● 3 die in Sherpur flood; 60,000 stranded      ● Ex-president Badruddoza Chowdhury passes away      ● Killing during students' movement: 9 bodies to be exhumed in Sylhet      ● Malaysian prime minister leaves Dhaka for home      ● CA seeks Malaysian support for Bangladesh to be ASEAN dialogue partner      ● Malaysian PM assures of attention to 18,000 Bangladesh workers       ● Bid to kill Khaleda Zia: Sheikh Hasina among 113 sued      

The double standards of compassion

Published : Monday, 19 August, 2024 at 12:00 AM  Count : 256
Md Shawkat Alam Faisal
The phenomena of selective empathy, in which our emotional responses and actions differ depending on the circumstances or the persons involved, is a complex and frequently uncomfortable reality. This selectivity can be demonstrated in how society responds differently to comparable catastrophes depending on the victim's identity, socioeconomic rank, or the political narrative surrounding the tragedy.

The differences in public outrage between Moumita and Asifa or others rape and murder case from India can be linked to a variety of prejudices and social variables. Moumita's case got significant exposure and calls for justice, yet Asifa's awful ordeal, while equally if not more horrific, did not elicit the same amount of public indignation.

One factor could be the pervasive influence of Islamophobia and the shame associated with the Muslim community worldwide. Asifa's Muslim identification may have elicited a subdued response from certain elements of the public and media, who may be affected by misconceptions linking Islam to radicalism. This is not to imply that people intentionally choose to disregard her case, but rather that cultural preconceptions can have a subtle influence on which stories connect and which do not.

Furthermore, media and social influencers have an important role in molding public debate. Celebrities, activists, and public personalities frequently highlight some incidents above others, presumably because they coincide with their personal brand or political ideology. For example, some celebrities or activists may focus on cases that correspond with their larger narratives, whether feminist, leftist, or otherwise, resulting in selective advocacy, in which some victims receive more attention than others based on variables unrelated to the severity of their case.

This selective mourning is also influenced by what some consider "face value" or social capital. Public celebrities may support specific causes in order to maintain their social image or to match with the views of their followers, resulting in an uneven distribution of empathy and support.

This trend of selective outrage is not new. We have seen similar biases in earlier administrations, where the deaths of those linked with the ruling party or its friends received great publicity, while the deaths of ordinary citizens and students were generally overlooked. For example, during political movements, the deaths of members of the armed forces, police, or organizations such as the Awami League and Chhatra League were extensively reported and mourned. In contrast, the killings of thousands of ordinary citizens and students, many of whom died in horrific conditions, received significantly less attention. Even among the student body, the media concentrated disproportionately on select victims, leaving the anguish of countless more families unspoken. This selective coverage not only demonstrates a fundamental bias, but it also contradicts the principle of equal justice and recognition for all victims of violence. It reveals a troubling trend in which the value of a life appears to be determined by political affiliations and the narrative that people in power seek to portray.

Selective empathy also applies to how society regards accused people, particularly those who are linked to the community or hold positions of power. When the accused is a family member, relative, or a well-known public personality, people tend to be more sympathetic to them. For example, in recent situations where elderly accused offenders were forced to stand by their ears in public as a kind of punishment before being turned over to the police, social media erupted with outrage. Despite their significant criminal history, these individuals were defended mostly on the basis of their age and status as "orderly people," such as dads.

The irony is that when addressing situations of sexual assault or rape, these same people have strongly advocated for harsh punishments such as mob justice or public executions, even if the accused are elderly. It was eventually discovered that these ostensibly "orderly" people had a history of horrible crimes, including murder, rape, drug peddling, and even embarrassing local religious authorities. This disparity in public opinion demonstrates how prejudices can impact our responses to crime, where the accused's personal connections or presumed social position lead to unwarranted leniency, while other voices advocate for the heaviest sanctions without hesitation.

If this trend of selective empathy and contradictory moral standards persists, society may face catastrophic consequences. The most immediate danger is a loss of societal trust and cohesion. When people believe that justice and compassion are only applied selectively-based on personal ties, socioeconomic standing, or the victim's identity-it generates bitterness and division. This can result in a society in which people feel alienated and ostracized, believing that their pain is less relevant than that of others. Furthermore, selective outrage weakens the credibility of social justice movements by revealing that some voices are heard louder than others due to underlying biases and personal agendas, rather than the quality of the cause itself.

Over time, this may lead to a less empathic and more polarized society, in which people are less willing to stand out for what is right unless it personally affects them. Furthermore, a lack of consistent reactions to injustice may empower wrongdoers, who understand that punishment is not guaranteed, particularly if they belong to a protected or influential group. This could lead to an increase in corruption, crime, and social unrest, eventually disrupting society as a whole.

To summarize, while we would want to assume that all victims of injustice receive equal attention, the fact is that society biases, media influence, and personal agendas frequently result in a selective response. Asifa's story, overshadowed by other stories, is a terrible reminder of how biases can influence public empathy and action. To overcome this, there must be a concerted effort to identify and fight these biases, ensuring that all victims of injustice, regardless of background, receive the attention and care they require.

The writer is an Apprentice Lawyer at the Bangladesh Bar Council


LATEST NEWS
MOST READ
Also read
Is a full-scale war in Middle East imminent?  
How UN stays relevant by prolonging ME crisis
Unchanging value of literature in the age of algorithms
Teachers should focus on social justice in classrooms
Our fiscal transparency in the report of USA
Joviality in self exploration
The observance of the world teacher's day in the new light
Natural gas crisis in Bangladesh: Is LNG the only solution?
Editor : Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury
Published by the Editor on behalf of the Observer Ltd. from Globe Printers, 24/A, New Eskaton Road, Ramna, Dhaka.
Editorial, News and Commercial Offices : Aziz Bhaban (2nd floor), 93, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka-1000.
Phone: PABX- 41053001-06; Online: 41053014; Advertisement: 41053012.
E-mail: info©dailyobserverbd.com, news©dailyobserverbd.com, advertisement©dailyobserverbd.com, For Online Edition: mailobserverbd©gmail.com
🔝