3
Can Michael Ever Learn? Empathy and the Self-Other Gap
Michael Scott may just be the most clueless person on the planet. You would think he would realize that having an online dating alias of “littlekidlover” is not the best way to let potential dates know (in his words) “where my priorities are at” (“Take Your Daughter to Work Day”). And you would definitely expect a boss to have a better handle on his employees’ feelings. He should at least recognize when his choices of motivational activities, like the Dundies or a Booze Cruise, are not actually motivating his employees—but are, in fact making them uncomfortable (as when handing out Dundies like the Spicy Curry Award to Kelly and Hottest in the Office Award to Ryan). One might wonder if Michael will ever learn to act more appropriately and with a greater regard for the feelings of others. (In a deleted scene from “The Dundies” episode, Toby even confronts Michael about how uncomfortable Ryan is with the award he received—but Michael dismisses Toby.)
To ask the question “Will Michael ever learn?” is to miss the point. After all, from a comedic point of view, Michael’s cluelessness adds many opportunities for humor. It would be more productive from a philosophical point of view to ask the question, “Can Michael ever learn?” In philosophy, our aim is to understand the meanings of various concepts, not to predict the future of our favorite sit-com. With this in mind, let’s examine the nature of Michael’s lack of regard for the feelings of others and whether it is something that he has the potential to overcome (putting aside the question as to whether he will ever exercise that ability). Exploring this philosophical question will help us to clarify our understanding of the extent to which people in general can understand each other. Michael may be an extreme example of cluelessness, but we have all had our inconsiderate moments. If Michael has the potential to be more considerate, then so do we. And since we have the potential, we have a certain moral responsibility to exercise it whenever possible.
How Clueless is Michael? Ping, Yankee Swap, and the “Faces of Scranton”
Much of Michael’s clueless behavior involves inappropriate and insensitive comments. A classic example of this is the “Ping” impression Michael does at every Dundies ceremony. In a deleted scene from “The Dundies” episode, Oscar and Kelly talk to Michael about Ping and try to convince him not to perform the routine. Michael’s response to this is twofold. First, he states that Ping is based on his delivery person (he seems to think it’s ok either because he’s making fun of a particular person or because it’s based in truth). And secondly, Michael says to Kelly and Oscar, “neither of you are Chinese, so why do you care?” Michael clearly believes that a joke is only offensive if it is actually heard by and offends a person it is about.1
Of course, part of the reason that Michael may not make a distinction between offensive and inoffensive humor is that he doesn’t see one. As he says at one point, there is “no such thing as an appropriate joke—that’s why it’s a joke” (“Sexual Harassment”). Because he doesn’t make the distinction between an inappropriate and an appropriate joke, Michael thinks it best to make everything funny—with disastrous results. Consider what he says about AIDS jokes: “AIDS is not funny, believe me I tried … I hope to live in a world where someone can tell a hilarious AIDS joke, it’s my dream” (“Casino Night”). Such a desire would strike most of us as misguided, but notice that what motivates Michael is a desire to make everyone laugh. What he fails to recognize is that not everyone will find it funny.
Michael’s insensitivity is not limited to tasteless jokes. In numerous situations, especially when dealing with the women in his life, Michael says and does things that upset people (without ever really understanding why). He sees nothing wrong with sending out a Christmas card that Photoshops himself into a scene with his girlfriend Carol and her two kids, taking the place of Carol’s ex-husband. As Jim remarks, “It’s a bold move to Photoshop yourself into a picture with your girlfriend and her kids on a ski trip with their real father, but then again Michael is a bold guy. Is bold the right word?” (“A Benihana Christmas, Part I”) Boldness would indicate courage in the face of fear, but Michael has no comprehension of how Carol might be disturbed by this action (or his planning of a Christmas getaway for the two of them without consulting her). In fact, he is stunned when these actions lead Carol to dump him. Similarly, Michael doesn’t seem to realize that when he institutes “Yankee Swap” at the office Christmas party because he is unhappy with the homemade gift he got from Phyllis, that Phyllis will be deeply offended (“Christmas Party”). He doesn’t even seem to realize that the reason he instituted “Yankee Swap” is obvious to everyone in the room.
A classic example of Michael’s cluelessness also illustrates why we might find him endearing. He doesn’t seem to really hate women or people of different ethnic groups, nor does he seem not to care about his employees. Instead, his problem seems to be an inability to appropriately match situations and emotional responses. A classic example of this (and one which is not actually offensive) is the video that Michael makes for his presentation to corporate entitled “The Faces of Scranton” (“Valentine’s Day”). Michael makes this video— showcasing various employees while U2’s “With or Without You” plays in the background—the centerpiece of a presentation designed to prevent downsizing. In a commentary to this episode, Mike Schur remarks that “‘With or Without You’ is perfectly wrong—the song isn’t about anything related to what he’s talking about—it’s a great Michael Scott choice—it’s emotional, but it’s emotional in totally the wrong way” (“Valentine’s Day”). And that perfectly sums up the problem with Michael. While Michael’s offensive jokes and insensitive remarks might be what attracts attention, they are really reflections of a deeper problem.
HERO: The Key to Curing Michael’s Cluelessness
According to Mr. Brown (from Diversity Today), the key to a comfortable workplace is to follow the acronym HERO: Honesty, Empathy, Respect, and Openmindedness (“Diversity Day” and “Gay Witch Hunt”). People who routinely do wrong, such as psychopaths, are said to lack empathy. In the case of a moral wrong like racist or sexist speech, it seems obvious that one cause could be a lack of empathy. However, while there appears to be some truth to this claim, it is complicated by the fact that “empathy” does not have a universal meaning. In general, it’s difficult to pin down the meanings of words that refer to things that are not publicly observable— such as beauty, justice, pain, and love. We can’t just direct someone’s attention to what we’re talking about—instead, we have to gesture towards it and hope they get the idea. When it comes to the word “empathy” things are especially complicated because “empathy” was a word invented in the twentieth century to serve as a translation of the German word Einfühlung (literally “feeling in”). Over time, “empathy” has been used in place of “sympathy,” but that has only further served to confuse the issue.
There are two main things that people could be referring to when using the word “empathy.” One is the understanding we have that someone is in pain, love, or any sort of emotional state. This is a popular usage among psychotherapists. Such understanding is nothing more than the belief that one has concerning someone’s mental states. Because it focuses on the beliefs we have about others, this form of empathy is referred to as cognitive empathy. The other thing that people could be referring to with the term “empathy” is the actual experience of pain or love that we feel when we see someone in pain or love. Because this kind of empathy involves actually feeling something, it is referred to as affective empathy.
In everyday language, people tend not to discriminate between the kinds of empathy. But philosophy is about being careful with words so that we do not confuse our concepts and get misled about our conclusions. For example, one would normally say that a psychopath does not have empathy. This is somewhat misleading, since a psychopath who lacked cognitive empathy would be very frustrated. After all, if his goal were to harm or torture people, then he wouldn’t know whether or not he was doing it right! It would seem then, that if he lacked anything it was affective empathy—he doesn’t truly feel the pain he is causing. So, we need to ask ourselves, what kind of empathy does it take to be a HERO? The answer is both, which then raises the question: What kind of empathy does Michael have?
Not Totally Clueless: Oscar, Phyllis, and the Client
To suggest that Michael is totally clueless is to miss what it is about him that keeps him from getting fired. For example, Michael didn’t offer the “Faces of Scranton” video as the only part of his presentation—he had prepared reports on the profitability of his branch. Michael’s problem was that he thought the video should be what swayed the board as opposed to the economic data. In general, Michael couldn’t have been a good salesman if he didn’t have some understanding of what people were thinking and what would motivate them to buy from Dunder-Mifflin. Consider “The Client,” in which Michael lands a large account with the county by wining and dining a Lackawanna County official at Chili’s. Although Michael’s actions seem inappropriate, he seals the deal. Similarly, when Michael goes on a sales call with Andy, he uses his understanding of how other business people think—and he only fails because of Andy’s cluelessness (“Traveling Salesmen”). Ironically, Michael’s comments about Andy suggest that even he recognizes when someone else has crossed the line. As Michael says, “I don’t understand how anyone could have so little self-awareness” (“The Return”). Although one might wish Michael had a little more self-awareness, he does have some other-awareness: he recognizes how much Andy ignores negative feedback about his behavior.
Michael was successful as a salesman, so it’s no surprise that he’s able to make use of empathy when making a sale. But even as a manager, it’s clear that Michael understands the importance of empathy— even if he rarely seems to make good use of it. After learning that Ryan had predicted the failure of Dunder-Mifflin in class, Michael scolds Ryan, but doesn’t fire him. According to Michael, “A good manager doesn’t fire people. He hires people and inspires people. People, Ryan. And people will never go out of business” (“Business School”). Sometimes Michael really lives up to that standard—as when, later in the episode, he goes to Pam’s art show (and is the only one other than Oscar, who dismisses her work as “motel art”) and tells Pam how proud he is of her and even buys a picture of the office building that he proudly displays in his office. Michael recognizes the need to understand people as a manager and usually tries to do so, though he often fails. One thing that might explain his frequent failure is his inability to draw clear boundaries—as when he dismisses Ryan’s apology that the prediction was nothing personal and tells Ryan, “Business is always personal. It’s the most personal thing in the world” (“Business School”). Clearly, Michael doesn’t see the world the way most of us do, and so it’s not surprising that he often misreads people’s moods and expectations when it comes to things other than sales.
In situations where Michael has been made aware of how people might be offended—notably, Oscar’s feeling about being outted in “Gay Witch Hunt” and the effect of Todd Packer’s jokes—Michael reacts and even tries to comfort the offended parties. For example, when Packer tells a joke in front of Michael that is offensive to Phyllis, Michael jumps to her defense and even tries to say things that might make her feel better—such as “You know what? I love Phyllis. You know what else? I think she’s gorgeous. I think she is an incredibly, incredibly attractive person. Come here, give me a kiss” (“Sexual Harassment”). However, even in his attempts to comfort and defend her, Michael fails to act appropriately. After all, he disciplines Kevin for laughing at the joke, not Packer for telling it. And he definitely crosses the line while hugging Phyllis when he says, “The only thing I am worried about is getting a boner.”
To understand why things go awry with Michael, it helps to understand how cognitive empathy probably works. According to Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), we understand what goes on in other people’s minds by way of an analogy between their behavior and our behavior. For example, when you see Michael hopping around screaming and holding his foot, it seems analogous to the time that happened to you (although there was no George Foreman Grill involved in your case, I hope). When it happened to you, you had just dropped something on your foot and felt excruciating pain. Making the connection between Michael’s behavior and yours, you realize that Michael must be in pain. This act of cognitive empathy relies on your ability to make such analogies. In Michael’s case, the limited cognitive empathy might be the result of the limitations in his ability to make analogies between himself and others. Thus, when Oscar returns to work, Michael tries to make him feel that he needn’t worry about homophobia—but Michael focuses on the homophobia issue and neglects all similar forms of discrimination, as is evident when Michael tells Oscar, “Your gayness does not define you, your Mexicanness defines you” (“The Return”).
So, why does Michael get it so wrong in some cases, but not others? Well, when he gets it right, Michael seems to be dealing with people much like himself—especially in the world of sales. But when he gets it wrong, Michael is trying to deal with someone whose life experiences are radically different from his (or someone who just doesn’t see the world the way he does—remember how he thinks about business). In effect, while he can do simple analogical reasoning, he has difficulty with complex acts of imagination since they require him to feel something he doesn’t normally feel. Usually, this is where affective empathy might come in and bridge the gap between self and other. However, in Michael’s case there seems to be a lack of affective empathy—but why is that? And can he overcome it?
That’s What She Said: A Catalogue of Kelly’s Lack of Consideration
In order to appreciate the root of Michael’s problem with affective empathy (and consequently the root of his cluelessness) let’s look at another member of the office who exhibits similar traits—Kelly Kapoor. Admittedly, Kelly doesn’t usually say things that are deeply offensive, but she does exhibit a complete lack of empathy (both cognitive and affective) in some situations. For example, when Kelly is talking she doesn’t really seem to care what her conversation partner says or thinks. In fact, when Jim is jinxed (and hence not allowed to talk), and Kelly must do all of the talking, she says, “We’re having the best conversation ever” (“Drug Testing”).
Not only does Kelly talk incessantly without any consideration for what others might want to say, she is not always aware of who it is she is talking to. As a result, when she complains to Toby about Ryan, she doesn’t recognize that he is the Human Resources person and is treating this as a complaint—because she thought she was talking to a friend (even though Toby would never identify himself as Kelly’s friend) (“Conflict Resolution”). And in her interactions with Ryan, Kelly seems to be totally focused on what she wants out of the relationship and not at all concerned with what Ryan wants. She even seems oblivious to his obvious discomfort with how she treats him in the relationship.
A classic example of Kelly’s obliviousness (and how it can be offensive and hurtful) is what she says to Pam at Phyllis’ wedding. After Pam says that she is ok with the fact that Phyllis’ wedding is a complete copy of Pam’s wedding plans (down to the hiring of Scrantonicity to perform), Kelly says to her, “There’s no way it’s fine. I’m sorry. If I was you, I’d just freak out, get drunk, and tell someone I was pregnant” (“Phyllis’ Wedding”). Kelly is rubbing salt in a wound, refusing to allow Pam to come to terms with what has happened to her.
So how do Kelly’s and Michael’s cluelessness parallel each other? They are both rooted in extreme egocentrism. There is no denying that both Michael and Kelly are very self-centered people. That leads them to view every situation in terms of how they see it and no one else, which leads them to say and do things that don’t take others’ feelings into account. In Kelly’s case, there are some mitigating factors—her status as an Indian woman in American society might make her more aware of discrimination. (Hence, she confronts Michael about Ping.) But in the end, she is acting out of her feeling that she would be offended if the joke were about her. When she does act on behalf of others it’s because something is connected to her.
The Root of Michael’s Problem: Firing Devon, Kevin’s Skin Cancer, and Dwight’s Concussion
Michael’s cluelessness is rooted in his egocentrism. For example, even when Michael has some sense that what he’s doing will hurt someone’s feelings—such as when corporate ordered him to fire someone —his sense of the harm seems completely out of whack. When pretending to be the employee getting fired, he says, “Arggh … I’m going to kill myself and it’s your fault. I’m going to kill you for firing me” (“Halloween”). He can’t help but see things through his own eyes, even when pretending to be someone else. (His attempts at Improv—where everything immediately jumps to dramatic gunplay (“Email Surveillance”)—and at screenplay writing (“The Client”) illustrate this very well.) For someone like Michael—for whom his job is everything—being fired is the end of the world. But when he finally fires Devon, Devon is upset to the point of smashing a pumpkin on Michael’s car, but not nearly to the extent Michael expected. Arguably, Devon is more offended by the offer of a Chili’s gift certificate to ease the pain of being fired—which was Michael’s feeble attempt to remain friends with the employee he fired (another indication that Michael makes everything about himself).
Michael’s egocentricity is very clearly displayed in his response to the revelation that Kevin may have skin cancer. Upon hearing of Kevin’s plight, which is revealed on Michael’s birthday, Michael responds, “… sorry that’s terrible news … terrible news for both of us” (“Michael’s Birthday”). Michael isn’t able to separate Kevin’s plight from how it affects him personally. Thus, when Michael says, “it’s not brain cancer, we can still have fun,” his concern is not with comforting Kevin (since that isn’t very comforting); rather, his concern is with getting everybody in the mood to participate in his surprise party (that he planned for himself). To see how this egocentricity is the source of much of Michael’s insensitive behavior, let’s return to the “Yankee Swap” incident. Michael is upset with Phyllis’ gift because he only sees it in terms of his own desires. Michael describes the intent of the oven mitt as follows: “Phyllis is basically saying: hey Michael, I know you did a whole lot to help the office this year, but I only care about you a homemade oven mitt’s worth” (“Christmas Party”). Michael is offended, because he can’t understand Phyllis’ intentions as someone who is not as well paid as he (he was the only one to get a bonus) and who also is not viewing the $20 Secret Santa gift as a statement about anybody’s personal worth. Nor does he place much value on the time and energy that go into such a homemade gift.
As the contemporary philosopher Robert Gordon notes in his article on the role of simulation in moral judgment, the key to good moral judgments is the ability to decenter one’s ego and see things from the perspective of the impartial observer.2 Gordon is continuing the ideas of the eighteenth-century philosophers David Hume (1711–1776) and Adam Smith (1723–1790). Both Hume and Smith thought that morality was based in our sentiments and that the key to learning to be moral was to be able to enter into the feelings of an impartial spectator. Impartial does not necessarily mean dispassionate—in fact, if you think that emotions are key to moral behavior (as Hume, Smith, and even some contemporary neuroscientists do), then to be impartial is to have the right kinds of feelings—the feelings that take into account the community’s perspective.
The question then becomes: How does one move from an egocentric view to a more group-centered view? After all, someone like Michael seems very resistant to getting outside of himself. A classic example of this is when Oscar expresses frustration at Michael’s attempts to show that he is ok with Oscar being gay. Oscar finally explodes and says, “I don’t want to touch you. Ever consider that? You’re ignorant. And insulting. And small” (“Gay Witch Hunt”). While this is pretty much true, Michael is hurt by Oscar’s response, but rather than recognize that Oscar’s frustration is a response to the poor way in which he has handled the situation, he places Oscar in a position where he needs to make up with Michael—as if Oscar were the only one who had done anything wrong! To an extent, this makes sense: if Michael’s problem is his egocentrism, he can’t just decide not to be egocentric—something needs to pull him out of himself.
Who Has Two Thumbs and Is Michael’s Friend: This Guy!
Hume and Smith were well aware that people did not immediately have the ability to see things from other people’s perspectives. Instead, they argued that the natural contact between people would force them outside themselves. They appealed to a kind of proto-empathy referred to as “emotional contagion.” Contagion is not a process that is in our conscious control—so we can’t prevent it from happening. An example of contagion is when a very nervous person enters the room and other people get nervous just by being around that person. Close contact with your family and friends presents situations where the needs of people other than yourself infect you. Over time, you can’t help but be pleased by the things that make your friend happy. This unconscious transmission of what it feels like to be someone else is complemented by the fact that anyone who wants to have a healthy relationship with friends and family needs to pay attention to their concerns. So, the initial feelings sneak into us through contagion, and then we build on them out of a desire to maintain these relationships.
The problem for Michael is that he is a very lonely man. Without people around him to care about, he has difficulty thinking about things from anyone else’s perspective. Consider his best friend, Todd Packer. This friendship seems entirely one-sided, as Michael himself makes clear when he says, “Todd Packer and I are total BFFs, Best Friends Forever. We came up together in sales. One time we went to a bar and met this set of twins. And Packer said that we were brothers. One thing led to another, and we took them to our hotel room … And Packer did both of them! It was awesome!” (“Sexual Harassment”). Todd Packer is even more egocentric than Michael. Packer is about taking whatever he wants and is not sorry if someone points out that he has done something to hurt someone. Michael, on the other hand, awkwardly expresses remorse.
Michael’s only other real friend is a subordinate who can’t stop sucking up to him. Although Dwight may serve as Michael’s confidant, he will always defer to Michael. In doing this, Dwight is not a real friend. Michael, of course, doesn’t seem to mind this relationship. “I don’t want someone sucking up to me because they think I can help their career. I want them sucking up to me because they genuinely love me” (“The Return”). Although this reasoning enables Michael to recognize the unhealthy nature of a friendship with Andy, it also highlights the problematic aspect of his relationship with Dwight. Dwight’s friendship will not help Michael get outside himself, since it’s always focused on what Michael wants.
The problem of finding a real friend to help Michael grow as a person is compounded by the fact that Michael’s whole life seems to revolve around the office. He can’t really be friends with his employees. As Ed Truck points out to Michael, he “can’t be their friend— they’ll always see you as the boss” (“The Carpet”). To his detriment, Michael’s entire world is designed to feed into his egocentricity since (at least in the workplace) it really is all about him.
There is a glimmer of hope for Michael. Jim doesn’t seem to view Michael solely as the boss (especially when he was away from Scranton—and since his return with promotion his status is even closer to Michael’s). Jim has acted to help Michael out—for example, when he was embarrassing himself singing karaoke (“Email Surveillance”) and when he threw an otherwise unattended party at the Mid-Market Office Supply Convention (“The Convention”). Jim has also served as a check on Michael’s egocentrism—for example, when he told him the joke about Pam’s long engagement was “lazy” (“The Dundies”) or when he told Michael that the Benihana waitress was not “the one,” she was just a rebound (“A Benihana Christmas, Part II”). If Michael is ever going to get outside himself in a major way he needs that kind of corrective feedback. The bond that he forges with Jim, when Jim confesses his affection for Pam on the Booze Cruise is another step in the right direction, as this kind of sharing of feelings and trust can serve as a conduit for the kind of emotional contagion that would drag him away from his own concerns. Of course, Michael blew that trust almost immediately in “The Secret” and that put a damper on his attempts to bond with Jim. Still, if Michael could nurture a friendship with Jim or someone like Jim, then he could build on that connection and learn to be more sensitive and considerate—though probably it would take a long time. (But hey, he was right about Jan, so maybe we should bet on him after all.)
NOTES
1 Interestingly, on the commentary to this episode, it is mentioned that Steve Carell apologized to the Asian family that had been in the background when they were filming at Chili’s—even though it should have been clear that this was a television show that was filming.
2 Robert Gordon, “Sympathy, Simulation and the Impartial Spectator,” Ethics 105:4, 1995, 727–742.