In Imperfect Solidarities, the art historian and critic Aruna D'Souza argues against empathy as a political tool, because "it depends on the ability to translate the experience of another into one’s own language" (p.27). Instead, she argues for the power of mistranslation, for staying together despite misunderstandings, for seeing and fighting for common interests without trying to capture the other into our language completely. I'm drawn by her arguments because I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. Simultaneously, I agree with a lot of what she says about empathy, and disagree with her conclusion of discarding it. Because empathy is predicated on individual transformation and because its language is easily twisted, it should not stand ground for political action - it can't, she posits. Yet later in the book D'Souza suggests that we rely on care practices, that care "requires us to act in spite of our empathy" (p. 84). I am wary to believe it is so, because care, too, arises from somewhere. (This is an excerpt from an essay I am writing about these issues).

I find this book to be great to think-with and I really recommend it to anyone interested in the concepts of empathy and solidarity.

Thank you to Floating Opera Press for sharing the ARC with me. It's quickly becoming my favourite publishers, having read three of their titles so far this year.

Really enjoyed D'Souza words, and I thought the call for care, rather than empathy, as the basis for solidarity building was strong and provocative.

A marvelous and quick-read offering a broad overview of current debates on the limits and (im)possibilities of understanding, empathy and solidarity without sacrificing either insight or hope. The accessible yet care-fully considered examples from numerous works (and mediums) of art was a joy to read. Though readable in one sitting, it has left me with timely and difficult questions which will stay with me well beyond finishing this book. I will be especially likely to recommend this book to undergraduate students interested in feminist and/or post-colonial theory.

This is such an important and timely topic. I agree with the author that we spend too much time and energy basing our treatment of others on feelings we have instead of seeking justice for its own sake. I love the idea of political solidarity based on care when people are so divided. Thanks to NetGalley for letting me read this

I would’ve liked to see this in a longer format, more delved into book! but other than that I did enjoy this and I think the writing was good & flowed quite well. I would definitely read more by this author.

Thanks to NetGalley and Columbia/Floating Opera Press Press for the ARC!

Aruna D’Souza’s "Imperfect Solidarities" is a brilliant essay on the failures of empathy as a political tool, which, she argues, should lead us to recognize an obligation of care without it.

If you’ve spent any time online, you know that there’s been a great deal of talk about the burden to bear witness to atrocity. I mean, genocide now comes with sponsored BetterHelp ads. The problem, D’Souza argues, is that an obligation to empathetically “witness” becomes a voyeuristic right to watch—to objectify. Real lives become dependent on how we feel about them, and this practice stratifies power structures because pity assumes that its object is lesser. Furthermore, empathy doesn’t actually effect change, which is why a presidency can verbally condemn genocide while funding it. Empathy sanctions all behavior as a viable outlet for grief.

Critically, D’Souza argues that empathy is an act of translation, which means that it re-mediates experience until it is palatable enough for white people to consume and “feel something” about. Remember KONY 2012? The need to understand can be its own kind of erasure because it attempts to contain atrocity to a common language. How substantial can care be when it is on the terms of those unaffected by violence?

What’s the alternative? To act first and feel later.

D’Souza calls us to instead sit comfortably with the reality of opacity and mistranslation—“to be able to act together without full comprehension, to be able to float on the seas of change.” We have an obligation to help; we don't always have a right to know.

In the age of internet advocacy, "Imperfect Solidarities" feels like a necessary course-correction. We shouldn’t need to see mangled bodies to act—we shouldn’t need to be “convinced” that they are “worth it.” If we need to look directly at violence, we're complicit in it.

It is hard to write a review about such an eye-opening book.
I requested this one because of the focus of empathy in the description.
The description is accurate in many ways, however, this book is also about ‘care’.
It is divided into chapters that discuss different aspects of solidarity, with examples from art.
My favourite chapters were Coda, and the part of the chapter titled Mistranslation and Revolution that talks about empathy.
This is a long political art book about solidarity and empathy.
The best audience for this are those interested in political art, exhibitions and literature, and who like to read critical essays.