Not Every Silence Is a Crime

Public reactions to the deaths of children in different conflicts often vary markedly. Some individuals, for example, feel a strong emotional response to the suffering of children in Ukraine, while others react more intensely to the suffering of children in Gaza. But what accounts for these differences in empathy? What factors influence why some people respond more strongly to certain tragedies than others, and what does this reveal about the nature of human empathy?

Empathy is commonly defined as the capacity to understand and share the feelings of others (Decety & Jackson, 2004). However, especially in the context of social events, individuals’ tendencies to empathize are largely shaped by the emotional responses they develop toward specific events or situations. While people may exhibit deep sensitivity to certain forms of suffering, they may remain indifferent to others. This differentiated emotional response is referred to as selective empathy (Cikara et al., 2011; Zaki, 2019).

In this article, I look into the factors that shape selective empathy and how this dynamic can, at times, make individuals vulnerable to social bullying.

Group-Based Empathy: Social Identity and Self-Categorization

People construct their identities by affiliating with social groups and gradually beginning to identify with them. This process can be explained by Social Identity Theory, which posits that individuals integrate group memberships—such as nationality, religion, gender, or ideology—into their sense of self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Through this identification, individuals begin to experience the group as part of the self, developing a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to fellow group members.

Individuals tend to develop more favorable attitudes toward members of their own group and to show stronger empathic responses to their suffering, a phenomenon known as in-group bias (Brewer, 1999). For example, sports fans often feel deeper empathy for injured players on their own team, while showing little concern when the same injury happens to a rival team’s athlete. Conversely, similar suffering experienced by members of out-groups may fail to elicit the same empathic response. Thus, empathy is being shaped by social affiliation rather than functioning as a universal human reaction (Cikara et al., 2011).

If individuals belonged to only one social group, responses in a given situation might be easier to anticipate. In reality, individuals belong to multiple social groups. However, they do not identify equally with all of these group memberships and assign different levels of importance to each identity. A person may simultaneously be a citizen, a woman, a student, and an environmental activist; yet each identity holds a different weight within their self-concept.

Here, Self-Categorization Theory becomes relevant. It proposes that people focus on different identities depending on the social context (Turner et al., 1987). This shapes which identity becomes most salient at any given moment and, consequently, which group’s suffering is more likely to become the focus of empathic attention. While this does not imply that other identities or universal human emotions disappear, it suggests that the active identity organizes sensitivity in ways that make individuals more attuned to the suffering of those within a particular category.

This understanding expands empathy beyond intergroup relations and links it to the internal balance and hierarchy of identities within the individual. Empathy, therefore, is a dynamic and selective process that fluctuates according to both social identity and self-categorization.

Collective Memory and Cultural Trauma

Individuals do not exhibit the same level of sensitivity to every event that affects a group they feel connected to. A sense of belonging does not automatically generate equal empathy for all forms of suffering within that group. One major reason for this variation is the differing emotional and cultural weight that certain events hold within a society’s collective memory (Halbwachs, 1992).

Some events have historically produced deeper cultural trauma and left lasting impressions on a community’s shared memory (Alexander, 2004). When similar situations arise in the future, these emotionally charged events are more likely to trigger strong empathetic responses (Eyerman, 2001). In contrast, events that have faded from collective memory, or were never culturally emphasized, may provoke little or no emotional reaction (Assmann, 2011; Hirsch, 2008).

According to Cultural Trauma Theory, an event leaves a traumatic mark on social memory when it is perceived as a threat to the group’s identity or as something that requires its redefinition (Alexander, 2004, 2012). These traumas are passed down through generations and become embedded in collective identity. As a result, whether a person empathizes with a particular event depends not only on their immediate emotional state but also on the event’s place within collective memory (Alexander, 2004, 2012; Hirsch, 2008).

For example, in societies where experiences of war occupy a central place in collective memory, empathic responses toward children who die during armed conflict may be more pronounced. In such contexts, socially shared memories in which war has been internalized as a historically traumatic experience can link contemporary child deaths in conflict zones such as Gaza or Ukraine to past collective suffering, thereby intensifying emotional reactions. By contrast, in societies where war does not hold a similarly salient position within collective memory, comparable events may fail to evoke the same level of empathic resonance. Thus, empathy varies according to the strength of one’s group affiliations and the historical resonance of that group’s traumas within social memory, making collective memory a powerful determinant of selective empathy.

Personal Experiences and Emotional History

In addition to social and cultural influences, personal experiences play a crucial role in shaping empathy. Each individual has a unique background, set of values, emotional bonds, and personal traumas. These differences determine which situations evoke stronger empathic responses and which remain emotionally distant as people resonate more deeply with situations that align with their own emotional history and personal experiences (Decety & Jackson, 2004).

For example, having grown up with a close friend who was forced to migrate to Turkey as a result of the war in Syria has shaped my own sensitivity toward children who die in armed conflicts. Through this personal relationship, the consequences of war were not abstract or distant but embedded in everyday life, stories, and emotional bonds. As a result, news about children affected by war tend to evoke a particularly strong empathic response, whereas other forms of suffering may not generate the same emotional intensity. While such differences may appear irrational from an external perspective, they reflect the individual’s personal emotional history and the meanings attached to past relational experiences. Indeed, the dilemma that inspired this article emerged from recognizing how these personal histories quietly shape what we respond to with urgency and what we meet with silence.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, empathy is a human capacity with inherent limitations. It does not appear equally in all situations or across all individuals, and its absence should not be interpreted as a moral failure. Empathy is not a simple moral reflex but a complex psychological process inter alia shaped by personal history, cultural trauma, and social identity.

Differences in emotional responses to suffering are unavoidable and psychologically grounded. In this sense, not every silence is a crime. Yet acknowledging this diversity neither absolves individuals or societies from moral judgment nor renders all forms of silence ethically neutral. Rather, it highlights the persistent tension between the limits of human emotional capacity and the normative expectations placed upon moral agents.

References

Alexander, J. C. (2004). Toward a theory of cultural trauma. In J. C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N. J. Smelser, & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Cultural trauma and collective identity (pp. 1–30). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520235946.003.0001

Alexander, J. C. (2012). Trauma: A social theory. Polity Press.
https://rencanaresearch.wordpress.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/9780520235953_chapone.pdf

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996306

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., & Saxe, R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411408713

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

Eyerman, R. (2001). Cultural trauma: Slavery and the formation of African American identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488788

Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. University of Chicago Press.

Hirsch, M. (2008). The generation of postmemory. Poetics Today, 29(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2007-019

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

Zaki, J. (2019). The war for kindness: Building empathy in a fractured world. Crown.

About the Author

Buse Yaren is a second-year psychology student and poet from Turkey, with a strong interest in social psychology. Her poems have been published in various literary magazines and newspapers.