Cyclone Alfred (Alfie) blew through southern Queensland and northern New South Wales like an old man that had a lot to say but not sure where he was supposed to go. Thankfully, as of the latest reports, loss of life or serious injuries were much less than anticipated. However, there was significant property damage and the largest power outage Queensland’s history. And rain . . . lots and lots of rain.
In events such as this, things get hectic. People panic-buy. Tempers can become quick when people get cabin-fever after days of rain with no power. But other strange and sometimes wonderful things happen too. People come out to help their neighbours. People become more courteous in their driving when they come to a stoplight that is not working. People reach out to offer meals, places to stay, or offers to check in on other’s family and friends. People become more AWARE of others, and their own role in the collective good that is often hidden but nevertheless present in communities, until they are called upon in more visible ways such as responding to natural disasters.
As we have been taking stock of the impact of Cyclone Alfie here in Queensland, we have been reminded of the central role that empathy plays in restorative justice practices. Unlike a cyclone, crime and other forms of wrongdoing are usually not a community or society-wide event. Yet they are often as impactful and profound in terms of harms suffered, the disruption of daily life and wellbeing, and in the worst cases events that change people’s lives forever in difficult and irrevocable ways.
Empathy in Justice?
Early forms of restorative justice in the late 1970s and early 1980s were grassroots or local initiatives that sought to bring people together to collectively address and resolve such harms. There was precedence for this in the “deinstitutionalisation” movements of the 1960s and 1970s that had brought about community resolution centres, alternative dispute resolution, and even diversionary practices in the criminal justice system.
At the core of these different movements was a belief that most people, most of the time, could more readily address and solve their “conflicts” themselves than through bureaucratic state justice mechanisms. In the case of restorative justice, this meant reducing or eliminating the role of justice professionals such as lawyers and judges in lieu of facilitated dialogue where people were able to 1) agree on harms caused; 2) explain their wrongdoing or, alternatively, explain the impacts of such harms on them; and 3) come to agreement as to how such harms could best be addressed.
Restorative justice and practices have come a long way since this time in terms of growth and knowledge about best practices. However, these core elements of participant-driven justice remain central whether they involve criminal offences, schoolyard bullying, workplace harassment, or myriad other contexts where people are harmed and are able to seek redress through forms of facilitated dialogue with those that have harmed them.
Research on restorative practices has also come a long way. By the 1980s it was clear to researchers that restorative practices worked well in meeting victim needs and affording wrongdoers opportunity to directly make amends for harms caused. But research began to find other tangible benefits as well. One benefit that became increasingly clear was the ability of restorative meetings to break down stereotypes and impressions that participants often had of each other – a problem often exacerbated by the criminal justice system’s strict designation and corresponding legal roles of people only as “offenders” or “victims.”
Today we take for granted that restorative meetings offer opportunities to push past these designed roles and stereotypes and, in some cases, subvert them. Central to this is empathy, and in the case of restorative meetings the development of empathy that may result in the sharing of stories and taking of accountability for harms caused to others.
Through facilitated dialogue, participants are given opportunity to see and experience the “other” in their humanness. Wrongdoers are able to directly hear the impacts of their actions on the lives of others – the pain, the disruption, the fear and anxiety, the material losses, and so on. Conversely, those that have been harmed are able to see and experience the person(s) who have harmed them as more than an “offender” – their past, their struggles, their reasons for engaging in wrongful behaviours, and even their potential for overcoming these and making good.
Developing and Practicing Empathy
Today, we also know much more about how restorative meetings can help to foster and develop empathy. Not all meetings are “nirvana stories.” But compared to conventional criminal justice or traditional disciplinary practices in schools, for example, restorative meetings encourage and promote the possibility of empathy that often does emerge when people are faced with the humanness of their actions, or facing those that have caused them.
Contrary to the notion that some people are just more empathetic, or that some people just lack empathy, research on restorative justice practices shows this is not the case. This is in line with newer thinking in psychology that shows for most people, empathy is a learned trait, and one that is improved with opportunities to learn and engage in it. Even in cases of people with “callous and unemotional traits,” which psychology has conventionally explained as genetic and/or rooted in early childhood experiences as a “fixed trait,” newer research is showing quite the opposite. Empathy is a far more malleable trait, and one that tends to increase over the life course as people gain experience and insight into the lives and experiences of others.
Facilitating Empathy?
For this reason, restorative practices are rooted in dialogue. Not all dialogue is face-to-face. In some cases this may be in the form of shuttle mediation or written communication. While there is research showing that face-to-face may be most impactful, this is sometimes not possible, for example if parties do not live close to one another or if a victim wants to participate but is fearful or anxious of meeting face-to-face.
In all cases of dialogue-driven restorative processes, however, research and practice has demonstrated that empathy is often promoted through such practices. But this takes work. We know that skilled facilitation is often required to move people into difficult and often emotional conversations necessary to get past the formalities and into discussion of what REALLY matters. We know that good preparation of participants is vital in getting them to better understand the “restorative” process and to think about what they want to say and what their goals are. And we know restorative meetings with good outcomes generally reflect those where people are encouraged and able to find common ground beyond that of procedural fairness or instrumental forms of conflict resolution.
These are difficult things, and restorative meetings often fall short of all of these goals. But this is a glass-half-empty view when we remember that such goals are rarely, if ever, met in systems that restrict such roles to “victim” and “offender” in ways where no dialogue is possible, and where proscribed roles and stereotypes replace the complicated reality of humanness.
People aren’t Perfect, but “Better” is Often Good Enough
But why should we be surprised that empathy isn’t always an outcome of restorative processes? We aren’t surprised that some people in cyclone Alferd didn’t stop at broken traffic lights, check in on their neighbours, and so on. But many did.
Indeed, given the opportunity, many people – enough people – generally do rise to the occasion. Here, there is an unfortunate message, often promoted by media and in some cases “catastrophe” experts, that there is only a “thin veneer” to civil society. Experiments such as the Stanford Prison Project or Milgram’s shock experiment are often taken as proof of the ease with which people can be turned to the dark side. Most of us are also aware of cases where people have been victimised and bystanders do little or nothing to help them.
The problem with such experiments is that they are specifically designed to socialise people into being un-empathic and callous. And the problem with well-known media cases, where bystanders failed to act, is a large abundance of research showing people more often DO act, but in ways that are far less newsworthy.
Here, we do not romanticise long histories of oppression, colonisation, or gendered violence. Many types of harms cannot be solved through a restorative meeting. Yet even in such cases, social change fundamentally depends on the development of empathy and the ability to see others we harm, or that have harmed us, in their humanness. Natural disasters such as Cyclone Alfred present such opportunities. In most cases, however, we must push our institutions and even our own behaviours towards more deliberate opportunities for the use and development of empathy.
Creating Empathy Opportunities
Yet empathy is also a fickle thing. It is dependent upon socialisation and social interaction – thousands of such interactions in our own lives, and billions of these collectively. In our view, the real merit of restorative approaches is the opportunity for using and developing empathy. Even in cases that do not go well, restorative meetings represent a small but often significant space in people’s lives where they are faced with the humanness of others, and must grapple with these and think about these in ways they are not often faced with.
In this way, building a more civil and just society depends on increasing opportunities for empathy, and decreasing practices and policies of institutions that remove the potential humanness from conflicts and harms. Here at RPI, we all have seen and experienced the ability of people to become more empathetic when given the opportunity. We also believe in restorative approaches as a small but vital part of longer social and historical movements, towards a more just and peaceful society.
We are reminded that of this, and empowered in our beliefs, when we look at events such as Cyclone Alfred, where many people become the better of who they are, even in crises. We believe this is because most people want and value the same basic things – safety and security, belonging, a voice in their own lives, and the ability to be a part of their community. We are supporters of restorative justice and practices because such approaches assume such “humanness” is the core feature of who we are, individually and collectively.
Yet in all of our diversities, and even in our own fallibilities, conflicts and harms are inevitable. We will never have a society with no crime, no harms, no conflict, no inequality. At the same time, history shows us more just, more equitable, and more civil societies are achievable. Such societies happen when more people have more opportunity to directly contribute to their own wellbeing, and when they are also more empowered to participate in collective responses to harms, including those they experience personally. Natural disasters often offer clear opportunities for the “better of people” to come forward. Within the ebb and flow of daily life, however, we must continue to push forward in creating such opportunities instead of waiting for them to emerge.
