Introducing "Expathy:" The Integration of Empathy and Apathy
A New Word for a Distinct Way of Caring
Nassim Taleb coined the term, “anti-fragile” because he found that there wasn’t an opposite equivalent for the term, “fragile.” Antifragile refers to the quality of systems or entities that gain from stress, volatility, and disorder. It is the opposite of fragility and goes beyond resilience by actively using challenges to become stronger and more capable.
“Empathy” has for me the same problem that “fragility” had for Taleb, and therefore, I feel a similar justification to propose a new word (though the concept itself is old).
expathy
ex·pa·thy | \ ˈek-spa-thē \noun
A distinct response or ability that integrates the benevolence of empathy with the emotional distance of apathy. Useful during intense emotional situations when performing tasks and making objective decisions in service of another (e.g. an emergency response worker); or maintaining a healthy boundary by remaining present and neutral while simply allowing the other to have their experience (i.e. holding space).
Comparable terms: fierce grace, nurturing objectivity, loving firmness, benevolent indifference, compassionate detachment
Facilitating Expathy
I first encountered the practical need for this new word when coaching meeting facilitators on how empathy gets them in trouble. For example, if they are facilitating a defined step in a meeting in which each person is going to get their own protected space to share, without crosstalk or interruptions, then it would be a violation of that person’s space if, as the protected person was talking, the facilitator occasionally interjected with comments like, “Oh, yes, that does sound hard for you…” or, “I can see that…please continue sharing….”
One could try to justify these intrusions because they are “empathetic,” but they are completely inappropriate nonetheless. And so when I would try to explain to the facilitator how they needed to keep their “empathy” in check, they would understandably assume I meant they should be apathetic instead. But this wasn’t true either.
I wanted the facilitators to understand that they weren’t there to make participants feel better. They were simply there to hold space. And that by holding that space for them, they were in fact doing the most caring thing they could. They were stepping back, not stepping out.
The Integration of Empathy and Apathy
But if the concept is still a little fuzzy, here are some other scenarios that might be more relatable. After reading them, ask yourself, “Was the person in the story demonstrating empathy or apathy?”
Captain Lewis is leading a rescue mission in a conflict zone where civilians are trapped. The situation is dangerous, and quick, decisive actions are required. Captain Lewis feels deeply for the civilians’ plight and understands the fear and desperation they are experiencing. That’s why he got involved. He speaks to them calmly, offering words of comfort and reassurance about the rescue plan. However, to execute the rescue operation effectively, Captain Lewis remains emotionally detached, focusing on strategy and commands without letting the civilians’ fear affect his own judgment and decisions, ensuring the mission's success and safety for all involved.
Jane, a mother, has set a clear boundary that her toddler, Mia, cannot have candy before dinner. When Mia asks for candy and is told no, she begins to have a tantrum, crying and screaming. Jane understands that Mia is upset and frustrated because she wants candy and doesn’t fully understand the reasons for the boundary. Jane’s heart breaks when Mia is upset, but Jane kneels down to Mia’s level and says calmly, “I know you really want the candy. It’s okay to feel upset.” While empathizing with Mia’s feelings, Jane maintains the boundary without giving in to the tantrum. She stays calm and neutral, without any harshness or anger, simply reinforcing the rule: “We can have candy after dinner, but not before.”
So, are Captain Lewis or Jane apathetic? No. Not really. They were kinda emotionally distant, but their actions are still in service of their concern for the other person. Are they empathetic? Well, yes. At least how we generally use that term, but simply calling it, “empathy” mislabels the emotional distance that is critical to their response.
Expathy as Benevolent Indifference
For this reason, I think “expathy,” elegantly conveys the notion of “benevolent indifference;” a term I’m stealing from spiritual teacher Francis Lucille. It’s benevolent, but indifferent. It’s indifferent, but benevolent.
It takes self-discipline. I can be very hard to do. It’s a stance one must consciously and intentionally choose. And they do it in service of the other person. In this way, a person can’t demonstrate expathy without the capacity for empathy, so in that sense, they aren’t antagonists (though in some occasions, like my facilitator coaching, it’s useful to contrast them).
So, in some ways, expathy is more like a particular or evolved version of empathy, but both are needed. I think empathy and expathy co-exist. In reality, they always have.
Everyday Expathy
Examples of someone dealing with an emergency situation are probably the easiest way to conceptualize someone showing expathy (e.g. surgeon, social worker, firefighter, etc.), but many everyday occasions demonstrate it too.
Amy’s toddler, Ben, is struggling to put on his clothes. Before jumping in, Amy first asks ben if he would like some help, and when Ben says, “no,” Amy does her best to remain patient, but available in case he does.
Rick is struggling to the gym and Sonya wants to help. Rick and Sonya make an agreement to go together on Monday, but when Monday comes around, Sonya notices that Rick doesn’t seem like he wants to go. “Hey, you ready for the gym!?” she asks and Rick closes his eyes and takes a deep breath. He says hesitatingly, “Yeah…I guess so…I do…” In her head, Sonya imagines Rick may be feeling conflicted, but she trusts him enough to take him at his word and so she says, “Great, let’s do it!”
Notice that in either case the person exhibiting expathy (Amy and Sonya) isn’t acting demonstrably emotionally distant. But nor are they jumping in, without consent, to rescue the other person from themselves. I think these are good representations of what Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he said: “The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do for themselves.”
Conclusion
This article is short (at least for me) and it’s leaving a lot unsaid about its core concept, but in many ways, the idea itself is not new; as Lincoln’s quote proves.
In fact, I’ve already collected a lot of content on details and practical applications, so if you want to get those updates consider subscribing to my Substack if you haven’t already. I consider this article merely a jumping off point.
I suspect for many, the concept of “expathy” will be immediately resonant. It’s definitely not apathy, but it’s not quite empathy either. For others, it may seem obtuse or a bit weird.
Either way you come at it, my hope is that by giving it a label, we will be better equipped to identify, reflect, and reinforce this distinct way of caring, which until now, we didn’t have a word for.