I’m not sure that the two (empathy for others and self promotion) are mutually exclusive although, without doubt there is scope for conflict of interest. it reminds me of debates in literary theory about reading a poet or novelist’s life events into their creative work, and that this is by no means the method of interpretation: the analogy isn’t perfect.

while of course Orwell, Gandhi, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Patricia Moore publicised their activities, and through this themselves, it is without doubt that the insights they brought to the general public through their undercover activities inspired many and made others think. And in the modern day, forms of self-publicity are available without any moral aspect to them. also, a certain amount of promotion – of oneself or one’s work – has needed to be done in the recent past in order for the mainstream media to take note and to give public space to communicate stories and ideas, and a “human story” of the dramatic undercover ruse has helped that to happen, although of course in an ideal world, the stories of injustice and inequality that these people have sought to publicise should be understood and taken up for its own sake.

Perhaps with the accessibility of the internet and its freedom of participation, this situation will change and stories can come to public consciousness directly from those experiencing it, without a “translator” from a privileged background who acts as conduit.

I think you’re right to point out that empathy experiments are often temporary affairs. Indeed, they are sometimes terribly superficial, as in the case of many life-swap TV shows. There is something very powerful about the examples of people who immerse themselves in other lives and cultures for long periods of time. Gandhi, for instance, was one of them, living for years on ashrams effectively as a peasant farmer, unlike Orwell who dipped in and out of being a tramp. But obviously Gandhi became more well-known than Bruno Manser!

I think it’s important to look at people’s intentions for empathising. Were they doing it for the right reasons? As I explain in my forthcoming book ‘Empathy’, Orwell went down and out in the East End of London and Paris, as well at other times in his life, not simply because he wanted good copy for his books and newspaper articles, but because of a genuine desire to understand life on the social margins and to tell the world about it.

One of the reasons I highlighted Patricia Moore’s case was precisely because it wasn’t an instance of a rich person trying to discover the lives of poor people; it was about crossing generational divides rather than class divides. I don’t believe it was an exercise in self-promotion, as you can find out if you read her book, ‘Disguised’. She was deeply concerned with the plight of the elderly, believing them to be a forgotten sector of society. She went on to become a respected gerontologist, as well as being a designer, and spent years campaigning for the rights of the elderly. Most of her TV appearances took place several years after she did her experiment on the streets, at the time her book came out (which is also when the video was made). Even if it looks otherwise, it is clear to me that she saw her empathetic journeys, as well as her media appearances, as a form of social activism.

There is a strong sense of self promotion in all the examples you cite. The video (love the music by the way) concluded with global tv footage of Pat Moore (captioned Moore and Associates) which strongly suggests that this is a highly self-conscious media exercise. Orwell writes powerfully, but it is always rather ludicrous to think of this Etonian with lots of rich arty chums as really Down and Out. Ehrenreich and Toynbee are also professional journalists knowing that this is a great yarn (Ehrenreich’s started writing up her experiences half way through for Harpers).

I feel that these writers are great white explorers of class divides: that it is only because they come from the same class as their readers that they can be a trusted intermediary (I think, for example of all those books and novels in which a Western protagonist explores the third world).This is not to say that they are not sympathetic, or even empathetic. Nor is it to say that their work is unimportant in creating empathetic understanding.

But it is to question the purity of their own motives given that their plan was always to dip in, and then come out promptly and promote their experiences. There are many many people who empathise so strongly with another group that they immerse themselves and simply disappear. The thing is: you don’t usually hear about them.

So I tried to think of an example of extreme empathetic immersion and came up with Bruno Manser who abandoned Switzerland to live with the Penan hunter gatherers in Borneo, who adopted him as an equal. Bruno is hardly unknown- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_manser) but it was never his plan to write a book or go on talk shows . I knew him well and believe that he would have happily stayed anonymously in the forests of Sarawak for the rest of his life. The outside world, in the form of industrial logging, caught up with him and he dedicated himself to defending the forests and the Penan – but he came out very reluctantly and only because his life was threatened. In the end he could not stand it any longer and went back in- only to disappear forever.

WHat do other readers think?

I believe that items that are universally designed are indeed better overall from a usability standpoint. With regards to design, my opinion is that,

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” — Antoine de Saint Exupéry

Start as simple as possible and add features if necessary. So what dictates necessity? I suppose that depends on your perspective. For me, a tool that performs a single task well is all that is necessary. This does not mean that the tool cannot be used for other purposes than that intended by the original design, but staying true to purpose is important to design.

But I have digressed into a design discussion. This article illustrates a great example of empathy to better the world. I find it hard to be empathetic at times, but nothing works quite so well as immersion in an environment. I can’t say that I’m surprised at the fact that she was beaten at one point during her “experiment”, but I am disappointed at the way the United States treats its elderly population.

The elderly built our society and country. They brought our nation to its current state, for better or worse. They have experience and wisdom that we should leverage to design an even better nation. Time is of the essence and an empathetic ear might just lead to another great innovation.