Empathy in Marriage: Gender Differences in Communication Part 2

Carrying on with the ideas from last week, Micah breaks down some of the spiritual differences between men and women as described by Swedenborg. What is innate and what can we change? Looking at the changeable nature of mirror neurons, Micah suggests we can develop quite a bit. -Editor

As discussed last week, neuroscientist Schulte-Rüther’s study lent support to the issue of whether or not there are gender differences in the human mirror neuron system while also reframing behavioral research as it relates to empathy. This research concluded that men and women have statistically equal ability to provide empathic support, but that particular types of empathy come more naturally to each gender on a biological level. This has some interesting interactions with New Church thought.

What are the Gender Differences at a Spiritual Level?

In general, men and women appear to be spiritually similar. They both have freedom (the ability to choose between good and evil, and live accordingly) and rationality (the ability to think about truth), which are the qualities that make a human truly human (Divine Providence 98). Further, Emanuel Swedenborg, author of the Writings for the New Church, claims that both men and women have an intellect (the ability to have higher cognitive thoughts so as to think about truth objectively) and will (the loves that inspire people to act), though he qualifies by explaining that for men the intellect leads and for women the will leads; “and people are characterized by what is in control” (Heaven and Hell 369). Men therefore, are spiritually distinguished by their intellect—their ability to think, rationalize, and explain abstract ideas objectively. Women are spiritually distinguished by their will—their ability to act according to their intuitions, loves, and inspire people to act through shared loves.

If this is the case then it follows that there are many differences in the way men and women think, act, and feel (functions that the mirror neuron system plays a role in) because the masculine and feminine qualities pervade throughout the soul and consequently throughout the body. This statement begins to create connecting support and adds depth to the physiological perspective by giving an initial explanation for the underlying mechanics of why men approach empathy from a cognitive perspective and women approach empathy from an affective perspective.

Swedenborg qualifies and anchors his argument that men and women have different dominant qualities which account for all gender differences by further stating that “nothing in the two sexes is the same, although there is nevertheless a capacity for conjunction in every detail” (Conjugial Love 33). This is a very strong claim!

This claim is discussed by a New Church minister and theologian, Peter Buss, who reflects in his article Gender Issues, the Laity, and the Uses of the Church, that while men and women are interiorly distinct and their qualities are “not blurred at all,” men and women are able to learn from the opposite sex (or be in the sphere of the opposite sex), particularly in marriage, to use the qualities particular to the opposite gender (1997, p.393-394, 399). This parallels with the idea of the mirror neuron system being plastic.

Mirror neurons seem to have a strong relationship with the ideas in Swedenborg’s theological works. He has three definitions describing what ‘love’ is: the union of the mind and spirit in marriage (Heaven and Hell 367); that loving another’s joy as one’s own is truly loving (Divine Love and Wisdom 47); and that to love is to conjoin (Conjugial Love 157). Upon closer examination these definitions come together when a person empathizes and uses his or her mirror neuron system.

When a married couple strongly empathizes with each other, for example, they will understand both cognitively and affectively what the other is experiencing. Is that not a union and conjunction of mind and spirit in a very literal and practical way? When empathizing affectively, the spouse enjoys his or her partners joy, and so ‘truly loves.’ This is a union of spirits. Without cognitively empathizing with his or her spouse, the partner cannot understand what is enjoyable to his or her spouse, or why it is enjoyable. Therefore, without cognitive empathy, there is not a union of minds. Together, cognitive and affective empathy create a love that conjoins the married couple. With this reasoning, when Swedenborg uses the words ‘love’, ‘unite’, or ‘conjoin’, it can be understood that what he is talking about has, on the natural level, to do with empathy.

Swedenborg also talks about how “a wife’s will unites itself with her husband’s understanding, and the husband’s understanding in consequence unites itself with his wife’s will” (Conjugial Love 159). Thus, both men and women use mirror neurons to connect and share experiences, but they do so from different starting points. The husband uses his mirror neurons to mentally perceive and understand what his wife feels and what position she is in, and thus connects to her understanding. The wife uses her mirror neurons to perceive and connect to what her husband feels and is experiencing and thus empathize with her husband’s will. For example, the husband might think: ‘if I were in her place, I would feel this way, therefore I will do or say such and such to help.’ But he may not be able to express that he is experiencing the same emotions she is feeling and thus create an emotional rapport that shows he shares the same feelings. Whereas the wife would be able to feel and express what her husband is experiencing emotionally, but may not know how to express that she mentally understands what it is like to be in his shoes through an objective questioning and exploration of his state. This touches on a key difference that Swedenborg discusses. Men perceive from their intellect and women from love:

This perception is a wisdom that the wife has. A man is not capable of it, neither is a wife capable of her husband’s intellectual wisdom. This follows from the difference that exists between masculinity and femininity. It is masculine to perceive from the intellect, and feminine to perceive from love. Moreover, the intellect also perceives those sorts of matters which transcend the body and the world—it being the nature of intellectual and spiritual sight to move in that direction—while love does not perceive beyond what it feels. When it does, its perception draws on its union with the intellect of a man, a union established from creation. (Conjugial Love 168)

This passage may seem to degrade women and their intellectual abilities, but the fact that women perceive within their feelings is an exceptional gift that allows them to have an innate affective empathy: excelling at supporting others emotionally, with a human warmth, as well as being able to use feminine wisdom—a wisdom that is superior to intellectual wisdom! Women may have a difficult time identifying feminine wisdom in comparison to masculine wisdom because masculine wisdom is a more external wisdom while feminine wisdom is more interior. Further, as stated above, women can use masculine wisdom through ‘a union established from creation’ which may make it hard to identify the feminine wisdom within them. Buss points out that the very nature of feminine wisdom makes it hard to describe and also that it can be hard to see in life because it “is an effect of love” (1997, p.391 & 400).

Men’s perception deals with ideas that transcend the body and world. ‘Transcend the body’ can be understood to suggest that masculine wisdom is a wisdom that removes itself from personal attachment (feelings), and the body, thus giving the potential to more objectively think about said ideas. Thoughts ‘transcending the world’ may also suggest a potentially higher ability to think about spiritual matters. Women on the other hand perceive things in the present because feelings are a present state. Obviously, experience and New Church doctrine dictates that men and women can both think objectively and feel in the present. Swedenborg, however, is claiming that men do the former better and women the latter better.

If this is true, a man will tend to objectively assume the perspective of another, understanding what it is like for a person to be in a certain situation, and then determine a logical path to a solution. As a metaphor, think of a game in which obstacles are laid out. These obstacles might metaphorically be people or emotions in a person’s life. A husband will think of how to help get his wife through the obstacles and out the other side safely, with her minimally encountering the obstacles. Women on the other hand are constantly aware and present with their emotions and therefore are better able to perceive intuitively what another is feeling in the present and empathize with them. This can be illustrated by reflecting on how well women can recognize the human connection needs of others, how compassionate they can be, and how quick they are to comfort and connect with others as a solution to problems. In terms of the metaphor, a wife will look at the game with her husband’s obstacles and show how they connect and interrelate, thus bringing a solution to her husband by unifying the obstacles (ex. people or emotions) in his life as a tool to help him move through the game. While culturally society tends to favor masculine wisdom as more important, note that Swedenborg claims that both are essential, both are important, and if one was to be more important, it would be feminine wisdom.

These forms of wisdom relate to the physical differences in the brain. Cognitive empathy relies on parts of the brain to distinguish other people’s thoughts and feelings from one’s own, thereby allowing one to empathize objectively; understanding what the other is experiencing without feeling what the other is. This is strikingly similar to what masculine wisdom is: a wisdom that allows for a person to use his or her understanding apart from the will. Affective empathy on the other hand, appears to rely on areas of the brain that enable people to recognize and react to expressions as well as simulate the same emotions expressed by another in oneself. Affective empathy can therefore be seen to be a physical manifestation for feminine wisdom.

However, this is not a hard line. As briefly mentioned earlier in this article, Buss explains that there are masculine and feminine spheres of wisdom that the opposite genders can assimilate to themselves. This way, men can learn to use feminine wisdom, though to a lesser degree than women can learn to use masculine wisdom, which they can learn to use to a relatively high degree (1997, p. 400). Similarly, men can learn to use affective empathy and women can learn to use cognitive empathy.

Acknowledging the broaden-and-build theory (the theory that a broadened thought-action repertoire of positive emotions build long-term enduring personal mirror neuron networks), there is a strong suggestion that trying to learn to use both gender’s qualities of empathy and wisdom will beneficially reinforce those same qualities as they are learned. In so doing, a person will broaden his or her experiences in that area of life (empathy, both cognitive and affective), and build the personal resources needed to further excel in future situations of life that need empathy.

Knowing that through the work of mirror neurons and the broaden-and-build theory, men and women can physically change their ability to empathize with each other opens many possibilities. It can lead to one spouse understanding and appreciating the other, and taking action in a way that their spouse needs or wants. For example, if the wife is upset about something, likelihood is that she is not thinking about cognitively explaining things to her husband, whereas if a husband is voicing a frustration, he may very well be cognitively explaining the issue. Equipped with this knowledge, hopefully the husband can try to affectively empathize with his wife; thereby, accurately recognize that his wife is looking for the comforting support of sharing and understanding her feelings. Wives could also try harder to listen cognitively and show that they understand the dynamics of the frustration.

By understanding how the spiritual interacts within the physical, married couples have the choice to enhance their life and marriage spiritually. Married couples can purposefully choose to live a life that will bring about the union of their minds and spirits, conjoining themselves to each other with their love.

Conclusion

Men and women are clearly similar in a number of ways; however, the differences between them are significant and pervasive throughout their entire being, body and spirit.

The spiritual perspective is important to examine because the spirit acts through the physical. As such, with a spiritual understanding, a person can more fully understand who he or she is, and equipped with such knowledge, can work to effectively change if desired. At the same time, to help change, an understanding of how the physical houses the spiritual is fundamental.

Understanding that men and women have natural tendencies to communicate with cognitive and affective empathy respectively, that human brains are plastic (changeable), and that the positive experience of empathy will naturally broaden-and-build our minds for the future, men and women can actively choose to improve their life and marriage spiritually by changing on the physical level.

Micah Alden

Micah graduated from Bryn Athyn College in 2012 with a Interdisciplinary degree in Religion and Psychology. He now works for the college heading up the landscaping program and student crews. He also helps run the Bryn Athyn Bounty Farm Market and is passionate about sustainability. This article is a condensed version of his senior paper. If you would like to read the full copy, feel free to contact him at micah.alden@brynathyn.edu.