Empathy vs. Corruption

Tauhid Nur Azhar

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

There is a profound yet wise statement made by Pak Sarwoto, the Chairman of the Indonesian Telematics Society and a commissioner at Telkomsel, who previously served as the CEO of the same company. He is a legendary figure in Indonesia’s telecommunications industry. His journey began at Telkom Indonesia, managing satellites and complex telecommunications infrastructure, and later became the head of the BAKTI Task Force, which played a strategic role in building the nation’s connectivity network.

Pak Sarwoto Atmosutarno, who also owns a unique resort that upholds the cultural values of Javanese culture in Sleman, Yogyakarta, holds a Master’s degree in Business Engineering in Telecommunications from École Nationale Supérieure Des Télécommunications de Bretagne (Télécom Bretagne), France.

Pak Sarwoto’s professional experience is diverse, and he has held several strategic positions in Indonesia’s telecommunications industry, including Head of Infrastructure Division at Telkom Indonesia (2004–2009), CEO of Telkomsel (2009–2012), Chairman of the Association of Telecommunications Traffic (ASKITEL) (2004–2009), and Chairman of the Indonesian Cellular Telecommunications Association (ATSI) (2009–2012).

His comment during a discussion on the concept of higher education and research in Indonesia, sparked by the four questions posed by the Deputy Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, Stella, can be summarized as: economic-based corruption. This can be interpreted in various ways, or multi-interpreted. It can mean that education oriented towards economics can trigger the birth of a culture of corruption, or that corruption related to economic aspects will ultimately deny the role of education.

His pragmatism in responding to the current situation with what is available seems to reflect and remind me that concrete efforts are needed to find straightforward solutions to address the disease of the nation known as corruption and manipulation, which has spread like cancer, metastasizing to various vital organs of the nation.

Because any approach, which might be euphemistic, full of smoothing and politeness, has proven unable to address the root causes of the problems plaguing many systems in our country. From simple administrative permits to recruitment, promotion, and contestation of legislation or other public offices, there are fundamental norms and principles that have become marginalized structurally. This is, of course, from the cultural structure of anthropological aspects.

Certainly, not everything is like this; I also do not want to fall into the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. This fallacy is a logical error in thinking that assumes the truth of something is determined by the authority or prestige of the person stating it, rather than the truth itself. An example of argumentum ad verecundiam is when someone fully believes the answer of an expert because of their reputation as a specialist.

Regarding corruptive, manipulative, and egocentric behavior that feels rampant around us, both systemically and sporadically spontaneous, there is an interesting aspect. It turns out that corruptive behavior has a special relationship with empathy. Really? Yes, it can happen. If you don’t believe it, feel free to ask ChatGPT or Gemini.

To ensure that our thought construction is solid and our perspective is relatively complete, it would be good if we discuss the meaning of empathy first.

In the field of psychology, empathy is defined as the ability to understand, feel, and respond to the emotions of others. Empathy encompasses affective and cognitive aspects that allow someone to form deep emotional connections and build social bonds. Psychologists view empathy as a crucial foundation in interpersonal relationships because it helps individuals understand the perspectives and needs of others.

In the field of psychology, empathy is often divided into two main dimensions: Affective Empathy, which refers to the ability to feel the same emotions as others, such as sharing someone’s sadness or happiness. For example, when we see someone crying, we might also feel sad or touched. Affective empathy is more intuitive and often occurs automatically without much conscious thought.

Then there is Cognitive Empathy, which is the ability to understand the perspectives, thoughts, and emotions of others without necessarily feeling those emotions oneself. For instance, when we can understand why someone is angry without feeling angry ourselves.

Cognitive empathy involves mental processes such as perspective-taking and mentalizing situations that rely on a person’s cognitive aspects. Some psychologists, such as Daniel Goleman in his theory of Emotional Intelligence, also mention a third dimension, social empathy, which involves the ability to read social dynamics and respond appropriately.

Hoffman states that empathy develops through four stages: Global Empathy (Infancy), where children feel the emotions of others but cannot differentiate between themselves and others. Then there is Egocentric Empathy (Toddlerhood), where children begin to understand that others’ emotions are different from their own, but their responses are still egocentric.

Next, there is Empathy for Another’s Feelings (School Age), where children begin to respond to others’ emotions in a more mature way, such as showing sympathy. Finally, there is Empathy for Another’s Life Condition (Adulthood), where individuals can understand others’ emotional situations in a broader context, including accommodating social and cultural factors.

Meanwhile, Cognitive Empathy is often associated with the Theory of Mind, which is the ability to understand that others have thoughts, feelings, and perspectives different from our own. The Theory of Mind develops in childhood, usually around the ages of 4–5. There is also the Mirror Role Theory, which explains that empathy arises because individuals unconsciously mirror the emotional expressions or experiences of others. This is supported by findings about mirror neurons in neuroscience, which are also applied in psychology to explain intuitive emotional responses.

Regarding social interaction, C. Daniel Batson argues that empathy often serves as the basis for altruistic behavior. In this model, when someone feels empathy for others, they tend to provide help because they are motivated by the desire to reduce the suffering of others.

Therefore, empathy will be stronger towards those considered emotionally close, such as family or friends. People tend to be more empathetic towards individuals who share similar backgrounds, values, or experiences, known as emotional proximity.

It cannot be denied that in collective cultures, empathy is often expressed through collegial actions such as mutual cooperation, while in individualistic cultures, empathy tends to be expressed verbally or through personal relationships.

Given the significant neurobiological role in the empathy formation process, including the role of mirror neurons, it would not be appropriate if we did not discuss empathy from a neurobiological or neuroscience perspective.

In the context of neurobiology, empathy encompasses two main components: affective empathy (the ability to feel others’ emotions) and cognitive empathy (the ability to understand others’ perspectives), consistent with the psychological approach, right? In neurobiological observation and research, both involve various processes and brain regions.

One of the main aspects is the role of mirror neurons, where mirror neurons are a group of nerve cells first discovered in the premotor area of a monkey’s brain by Giacomo Rizzolatti and colleagues. These neurons are active both when someone performs an action and when they observe others performing the same action. In the context of empathy, mirror neurons help individuals “simulate” others’ experiences, allowing them to feel similar emotions and sensations.

Mirror neurons are abundant in the Premotor Cortex, which plays a role in planning and understanding others’ actions. They are also found in the Inferior Parietal Lobule, which helps process sensory information related to others’ actions or emotions.

Regarding the different empathy models (affective and cognitive), it is known that they have different functional areas in the brain. Affective empathy involves emotional responses that occur when someone feels others’ emotions. The main brain regions involved include the Anterior Insula (AI), which processes visceral emotions such as pain or disgust, whether experienced personally or observed in others. This area is also responsible for building emotional connections (baper).

Then there is the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC), which plays a role in processing emotional and physical pain. This area integrates information from the insula to facilitate emotional responses to others’ suffering.

Not to be forgotten is the Amygdala, which regulates intense emotional responses such as fear or empathy towards suffering.

On the other hand, cognitive empathy, which involves the ability to understand and take others’ perspectives, involves brain regions such as the Temporoparietal Junction (TPJ), which plays a crucial role in perspective-taking and mentalizing, the ability to understand others’ thoughts and emotions. Then there is the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC), which plays a role in decision-making processes involving emotions, including understanding others’ emotional situations.

Next, there is the Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex (dmPFC), which plays a role in mental attribution and social reasoning. Finally, there is the Medial Temporal Lobe (MTL), which contributes to perspective-taking based on memory or past experiences.

Neurobiologically, empathy develops through the interaction of three main mechanisms: Sensory Experience and Simulation, where when someone sees others experiencing an emotion or pain, sensory information is processed by the somatosensory cortex and insula. This creates an internal simulation of the experience, allowing the observer to feel the same emotion.

After simulation, emotional signals are relayed to the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and anterior insula (AI), which then produce emotional responses such as sympathy or compassion.

Cognitive empathy involves mentalizing and perspective-taking processes that occur in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). These processes allow individuals to understand others’ thoughts, intentions, or situations without directly experiencing their emotions.

After discussing empathy from its neurobiological and psychological foundations, it would not be complete if we did not discuss it from a more fundamental and principled aspect: genomics. Genomic studies show that certain genes, especially those related to the neurochemical system and brain function, can influence how empathetic someone is. Here are some genes and genetic mechanisms involved in the empathy formation process:

Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) Gene

The OXTR gene is one of the most studied genes related to empathy. This gene encodes the receptor for oxytocin, a hormone and neurotransmitter known as the “love hormone” due to its role in social bonding, trust, and prosocial behavior. Variations in the OXTR gene, such as the polymorphism rs53576, are linked to differences in empathy levels:

• The G allele at rs53576 is associated with higher empathy, better social skills, and prosocial behavior.
• The A allele is associated with lower empathy and difficulties in building social relationships.

Oxytocin influences activity in brain regions related to empathy, such as the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and anterior insula. This activity is involved in emotional processing and perspective-taking.

Serotonin Transporter (SLC6A4) Gene

The SLC6A4 gene encodes the serotonin transporter protein, which regulates serotonin levels in the brain synapses. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter involved in regulating emotions and empathy. The promoter polymorphism 5-HTTLPR:

• The S (short) allele is associated with higher emotional sensitivity but also greater vulnerability to stress. Individuals with this allele tend to have stronger affective empathy but may struggle to manage their emotions.
• The L (long) allele is associated with more stable emotional regulation but lower affective empathy.

Serotonin influences how someone processes others’ emotions. Variations in this gene can affect emotional responses and the ability to feel others’ suffering.

COMT (Catechol-O-Methyltransferase) Gene

The COMT gene regulates the metabolism of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the prefrontal cortex, a brain region involved in decision-making, emotional control, and cognitive empathy. The polymorphism Val158Met:

• The Met allele is associated with higher dopamine levels, which increase cognitive flexibility and perspective-taking, key elements of cognitive empathy.
• The Val allele is associated with faster dopamine metabolism, which can reduce sensitivity to others’ emotions.

Variations in the COMT gene can influence an individual’s ability to understand and respond to others’ perspectives, especially in complex social situations.

Dopamine Receptor (DRD4) Gene

The DRD4 gene encodes the dopamine receptor, a neurotransmitter involved in motivation, reward, and social bonding. The polymorphism 7-Repeat Allele causes individuals with this allele to be more exploratory and open to new social experiences, which can enhance cognitive empathy. Dopamine also supports social learning, which plays a crucial role in understanding others’ emotions and perspectives.

MAOA (Monoamine Oxidase A) Gene

The MAOA gene regulates the metabolism of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. The low-activity polymorphism is known as the “warrior gene”; this variation can increase aggressive responses to stress. Individuals with low MAOA activity tend to have lower empathy, especially in stressful or conflict situations. MAOA activity influences emotional regulation, which in turn affects empathetic responses.

Besides genetic variations, environmental factors such as nurturing, trauma, or social experiences can influence the expression of empathy-related genes through epigenetic mechanisms. Negative experiences, such as abuse or neglect in childhood, can alter the methylation patterns of genes like OXTR, which then affect an individual’s empathetic abilities. Conversely, supportive environments, such as positive social interactions or empathy training, can enhance the expression of genes that support empathetic behavior.

Not only psychological and neurobiological approaches, as well as psychogenomics, can help us understand the structure and function of empathy; we can enrich our knowledge of empathy through anthropological and cultural approaches, especially in conditions of community harmony that are in line with the values of empathy, which are full of affection within a collective culture that has built cultural serenity.

In collective cultures, social bonds, cooperation, and shared responsibility are emphasized. In traditional communities, such as the Baduy tribe in Banten or the Toraja tribe in Sulawesi, empathy is not only manifested through interpersonal interactions but also through cultural practices rooted in communal values. For example, the concept of gotong royong in Javanese society is a concrete form of collective empathy that allows community members to support each other in heavy work or crisis situations.

From a neuroscience perspective, this collective behavior pattern reinforces the activation of brain regions related to empathy, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and anterior insula (AI). Intense interactions within a collective community create stronger emotional bonds, facilitating the ability to feel others’ suffering or joy. This aligns with Michael Tomasello’s theory of “shared intentionality,” which states that collective cultures encourage individuals to be more aligned with the emotions and needs of their group.

In traditional communities, empathy is often manifested through communal rituals involving all community members. For example, in the Rambu Solo’ ceremony of the Toraja, the entire community is involved in the burial process to honor ancestors. This ritual is not just an act of honor but also a mechanism of collective empathy to share the loss of family members.

In the context of neuroscience, these communal activities activate the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for long-term emotional perspectives and decision-making based on empathy. The collective awareness arising from such rituals strengthens social bonds and solidarity.

Many traditional communities have customary laws based on restorative rather than retributive justice. For example, in the Dayak community, conflicts are resolved through mediation and forgiveness, aiming to restore communal harmony. This approach reflects empathy in a higher form, the ability to understand the perspectives and emotions of all parties involved.

This approach aligns with the activity in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), a brain region involved in mentalizing, or the ability to understand others’ thoughts and emotions. Customary laws teach that empathy is not just an emotional response but also a cognitive process involving perspective-taking and collective-based solutions.

In communities like the Baduy, the value of kabuyutan (harmony with nature) involves empathy not only towards fellow humans but also towards the environment. This view emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance between individual needs, community needs, and the ecosystem, aligning with the neuroscience concept of “interconnected empathy,” or empathy that extends to all living beings.

From an anthropological perspective, empathy in traditional communities is a result of socialization processes that build collective awareness. Clifford Geertz, in his theory of “webs of significance,” shows that collective empathy is a cultural construct, where values and practices passed down from generation to generation shape individuals’ thought patterns and behaviors.

In the context of neuroscience, a collective culture rich in positive social interactions reinforces neural connectivity related to empathy. A study by Eisenberger et al. (2003) shows that social support not only enhances emotional well-being but also reduces responses to physical or psychological pain. In traditional communities, the concept of social support is manifested through cooperation, sharing, and solidarity practices.

Learning from traditional communities, empathy can become a crucial pillar in building social harmony in the modern world, which tends to be individualistic. Adopting collective values and reinforcing positive social interactions can be a strategy to address social polarization, conflict, and isolation, which are increasingly widespread.

Education based on culture, integrating collective empathy values from traditional communities, can help the younger generation develop the ability to understand and appreciate diversity. Moreover, this approach is also relevant in building a more inclusive and sustainable society amidst global challenges.

Meanwhile, in the approach of digital anthropology, there is similarity as well as uniqueness along with the characteristics of the ecosystem and habitat that apply.

With the development of internet technology and social media, the pattern of human interaction has undergone a significant transformation. In the digital realm, connections are no longer constrained by space and time but still rely on fundamental elements such as empathy to create emotional connections. However, empathy in the digital world has unique characteristics different from the real world, with challenges and opportunities that need to be understood deeply.

Empathy in the digital world is the ability to understand and respond to others’ emotions expressed virtually through text, images, videos, or emojis. Although there is no physical contact, digital empathy allows users to feel others’ emotions virtually. For example, social media platforms like Instagram or Twitter often become spaces for sharing joy, sadness, or struggles. When someone shares their experiences, positive comments or immediate support indicate a form of digital empathy.

Digital empathy can be built or communicated by utilizing digital symbols and language such as emojis, GIFs, and memes. They are tools that can help express empathy quickly. A “❤️” or “🙏” in the comment column, although simple, is often considered sufficient to express sympathy and support.

Platforms like YouTube or TikTok also allow content creators to share their emotional experiences directly, creating a more personal connection with the audience.

Empathy in the digital realm has advantages and limitations compared to real-world interactions, due to factors such as Anonymity and Digital Proximity. On one hand, anonymity allows people to share deep emotions without fear of being judged, often eliciting empathy from the online community. On the other hand, anonymity can also provoke negative behaviors such as trolling or cyberbullying, which undermine empathy.

The presence of Hyperconnection and Overexposure, where the internet allows someone to connect with thousands of emotional experiences daily, from global tragedies to personal issues, can lead to “empathy fatigue,” where someone becomes less responsive to suffering due to overexposure.

Then there is Emotional Dissonance, where the lack of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions or vocal tones in digital communication often makes emotional interpretation more difficult. As a result, empathy in the digital world becomes unique and complex.

Now, after the long explanation about the fundamentals of empathy above, how is its relationship with corruption and manipulative-egocentric behavior?

Empathy, as the ability to understand and feel others’ emotions and perspectives, plays a crucial role in preventing behaviors that harm others, including corruption. Conversely, a lack of empathy is often linked to corrupt behavior, where individuals or groups exploit the negative impacts of their actions on others for personal or group gain. In the context of psychology, sociology, and neuroscience, the relationship between empathy and corrupt behavior can be explained through several mechanisms.

Corrupt behavior often occurs because the perpetrators fail to understand or feel the impact of their actions on others, including the broader society. This condition is often referred to as Empathy Deficit.

When there is a breakdown in emotional connection, it results in a lack of empathy, making individuals view others merely as tools or obstacles in achieving personal goals. This is often exacerbated by the phenomenon of dehumanization, where corrupt individuals no longer view their victims (e.g., the exploited society) as equals.

Various studies show that brain regions involved in empathy, such as the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), are often less active in individuals with antisocial tendencies, including corruption. This reduces their ability to feel others’ suffering or injustice caused by their actions.

Cognitive empathy, the ability to understand others’ perspectives without feeling their emotions, is sometimes used by corrupt individuals to rationalize their actions. Corrupt individuals often use cognitive empathy to understand others’ viewpoints, but without affective empathy, they only use it to find moral justifications.

For example, they might argue that “everyone does it,” “the system is toxic,” or “this corruption is for the group’s benefit, not mine.”

Cognitive empathy, when separated from affective empathy, can make someone focus only on how their actions benefit themselves or their group without considering the harm experienced by others. In a corrupt environment, empathy is often limited to a specific social circle. This creates exclusive empathy, which only applies to individuals within the same group (in-group) but not to outsiders (out-group).

In the context of collective corruption, perpetrators often show empathy towards their group members, such as sharing the spoils of corruption or shielding group members from punishment. However, this empathy does not extend to the exploited society, so the solidarity based on it is flawed.

Empathy limited to a specific group, in turn, reinforces social polarization between the perpetrators and the victims of corruption, further exacerbating social injustice.

Research shows that individuals with low empathy scores are more likely to engage in unethical behaviors, including corruption. Conversely, individuals with high empathy are more likely to resist the temptation to engage in corruption, even when there are significant opportunities.

Empathy, when fully integrated, both affective and cognitive, can serve as a protective factor against corrupt behavior. Individuals with high empathy tend to empathize with the suffering caused by corruption, such as the loss of access to public services or the worsening poverty.

Empathy helps individuals understand the importance of justice and collective well-being, encouraging them to act in accordance with ethical values. Even in a corrupt environment, empathetic individuals are less likely to be influenced by group pressure because they are more sensitive to the broader social impact. Empathetic individuals will have stronger immunity to the virus of corruption.

In summary, if we are serious about developing a science-based strategy as outlined above, then corruption can be combated with empathy and human virtues in a scientific and methodical manner, from psychology, anthropology, culture, economics, education, neurobiology, to genetics, holistically. 🙏🏾🇲🇨🩵

References

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.

Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coude, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46(4), 604–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. William Morrow.

Pascual, A., & Rispal, M. (2010). Corruption and culture: The role of organizational structure and the human factor. Springer.

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0

Rodriguez, S., & Valenzuela, A. (2015). The cultural roots of corruption: Anthropological perspectives on global ethics. Ethics & Global Politics, 8(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v8.26259

Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x

Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press.

Viding, E., Seara-Cardoso, A., & McCrory, E. J. (2014). Antisocial behavior and psychopathy: A review of the genetic, neurobiological, and environmental bases of empathy deficits. Development and Psychopathology, 26(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000492

Wong, P. K., & Jomo, K. S. (2017). Corruption and inequality: A study in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Public Affairs, 10(2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1468109917000268