Decode Empathy: What It Means (and Doesn't Mean) During Divorce

Decode Empathy: What It Means (and Doesn’t Mean) During Divorce

I came home from work like any other Tuesday, expecting the familiar comfort of the life David and I had built over a decade. Instead, I found him sitting in the living room, unusually still, beside his best friend. The air felt thick, charged with unspoken words. As soon as I opened the door, a cold dread washed over me – I knew, with sickening certainty, that something was fundamentally wrong.

My eyes scanned the hallway, noticing the gaps on the walls where photographs and favorite pieces of artwork used to hang. In that instant, even before a word left anyone’s lips, I understood my world was about to end. This silent, devastating confirmation marked the beginning of an ending without explanation, plunging me into a deep exploration of empathy, or the striking lack thereof, particularly for the partner left standing in the wreckage. This experience became the foundation for my journey into decoding empathy and understanding its nuances.

The Echo Chamber of Silence

My relationship with David had been the cornerstone of my adult life. We were two men who had navigated the complexities of coming out, finding each other, and building a shared world against a backdrop that wasn’t always welcoming. We had arguments, sure, like any couple. But the foundation felt solid, built on mutual respect, shared dreams, and what I believed was deep, abiding love.

His abrupt departure, therefore, felt less like a breakup and more like a betrayal of reality itself. How could the person I knew best, the one I shared my deepest vulnerabilities with, simply… vanish emotionally? My requests for a conversation, for closure, for understanding, were met with silence or terse refusals. He stated, via text, that discussing it was detrimental to his mental health.

While I could intellectually grasp the importance of self-preservation, emotionally, it felt like a brutal dismissal. It wasn’t just the end of the relationship that hurt; it was the denial of a shared process, the refusal to acknowledge the decade we built together or the pain his departure inflicted. It left me feeling not just heartbroken, but invisible, lost in what grief expert C.S. Lewis described as a winding valley where “any bend may reveal a totally new landscape”1 – except my landscape was shrouded in an unexplainable fog.

Start to Decode Empathy

An important part of the process of learning to decode empathy is recognising our own ways of not giving empathy – and decommissioning them! This requires a deep introspection, where we examine our actions and patterns that may inadvertently dismiss or undermine the feelings of others.

By identifying these unintentional blocks to empathy, such as judgment, impatience, or defensiveness, we can begin to dismantle them. It is essential to cultivate an awareness of how our responses can impact those around us and actively work to replace those negative habits with more compassionate and understanding behaviors. Through this journey, we not only enhance our ability to empathize with others but also foster deeper connections and a more harmonious environment in our relationships.

Empathy vs. Sympathy: A Divorce Dilemma

This painful silence forced me to confront the nature of empathy in the context of divorce. Often, we use empathy and sympathy interchangeably, but they are distinct. Sympathy is feeling for someone – acknowledging their hardship, perhaps feeling pity. Empathy, as defined by the renowned psychologist Carl Rogers, is “the capacity to think and feel oneself into the inner life of another person.”2 It’s about striving to understand their perspective and emotional state, stepping into their shoes, even if you don’t agree with their actions. Researcher Brené Brown puts it more directly:

Empathy fuels connection; sympathy drives disconnection.3

Empathy is Feeling With People.

In divorce narratives, sympathy often flows towards the person initiating the split. We hear phrases like, “They must have been so unhappy,” or “It takes courage to leave.” Society often frames the leaver as brave, pursuing authenticity or happiness. There’s a narrative of liberation attached. While their pain and reasons are valid, this focus inadvertently overshadows the experience of the person left behind.

Whatever you’re feeling is valid and I’m here for you 100%.

Empathy, true empathy, requires us to acknowledge the emotional reality of both parties. It demands that we recognize the profound disorientation, grief, betrayal, and fear experienced by the partner who didn’t choose the ending. Yet, this perspective often gets lost. Others sometimes view the person left behind with pity (sympathy) or, worse, subtly blame them – “What did they do wrong?” “Why didn’t they see it coming?” True empathy for their experience – understanding the groundlessness, the shattered trust, the agonizing ‘why’ – seems harder to come by. It requires us, as Rogers suggested, to truly attempt to grasp their inner world, a world suddenly turned upside down.

Mental Health: A Shield or a Wall?

David reasons that protecting his mental health is a common and complex factor in modern separations. He prioritizes mental well-being, believing that no one should feel forced into interactions that are genuinely harmful. However, in the context of ending a long-term, committed relationship, does this priority absolve him from the responsibility to provide some form of respectful closure or explanation to his partner?

My need wasn’t for reconciliation, but for comprehension. Legendary family therapist Virginia Satir believed that:

Communication is the largest single factor determining what kinds of relationships [people make] with others and what happens to them in the world.4

When communication ceases entirely, especially at such a critical juncture, it creates a void. His refusal to engage, which he framed as self-care, effectively built an impenetrable wall. This wall prevented us from mutually processing the shared experience we were both enduring, albeit in different ways. It felt less like a shield for his vulnerability and more like a weapon that inflicted further pain by denying my reality and the validity of my need for answers. Is it possible to protect one’s own mental health while still offering a modicum of empathetic acknowledgment to someone whose life is also being upended? Or does prioritizing individual well-being sometimes necessitate actions that, however unintentionally, deepen the other’s wound? This presents a profound ethical tension with no easy answers.

Societal Scripts and the Lonely Road

Society provides scripts for the leaver – the quest for self-discovery, the escape from unhappiness. These narratives, amplified by self-help culture and media portrayals, offer a framework, even validation. But what about the script for the person left behind? Often, it’s one of victimhood, failure, or simply… silence. Friends and family might offer support, but the societal narrative rarely champions the complexity of being left.

The focus often stays on the “why” from the leaver’s perspective, implicitly suggesting that if those reasons are understood (even if just by the leaver), the situation is resolved. The emotional fallout for the other partner becomes secondary, collateral damage in one person’s pursuit of change. This imbalance leaves the abandoned partner feeling isolated, their grief and confusion lacking a recognized place in the broader story of the divorce. They may experience what family therapist Pauline Boss termed “ambiguous loss” – a loss without certainty or closure. Boss notes:

Ambiguous loss differs from ordinary loss in that there is no verification of death or no certainty that the person will come back or return to the way they used to be.5

In the case of divorce without explanation, the person leaves physically, but the lack of understanding creates psychological ambiguity – a haunting uncertainty that stalls the grieving process. People often expect the affected individual to simply “move on,” without the benefit of the closure that a final, honest conversation could have provided.

Towards a More Balanced Empathy

My journey through the aftermath of my divorce has been arduous. Conversations dwindled, and unanswered questions compounded my grief immeasurably. This experience highlighted a significant gap in how we collectively approach the empathy required during separation. While the person who initiates the divorce undoubtedly experiences their own pain and has valid reasons, their emotional needs cannot completely overshadow the devastating impact on the partner left behind. As the poet Hafez often reminds us, we can find potential for growth even amid pain:

Even after all this time the sun never says to the earth, ‘You owe me.’ Look what happens with a love like that, it lights the whole sky.6

But for that light to enter, the blackness in the void it often needs tending, understanding, and acknowledgment, not dismissal.

True empathy in divorce doesn’t mean forcing confrontation or demanding answers that aren’t there. But it does mean fostering a culture where the pain of both individuals is acknowledged. It means recognizing that closure, even a painful one, often requires some level of shared understanding or, at the very least, respectful acknowledgment of the shared past and the present pain. It involves moving beyond simple sympathy for the leaver and cultivating genuine empathy – that Rogers-esque capacity to feel into – the complex, often bewildering, experience of being left.

Perhaps the goal shouldn’t be to assign blame or heroism, but to hold space for two concurrent, valid, yet vastly different experiences of the same ending. How can we, as friends, family, and a society, offer support that acknowledges the full spectrum of pain in a divorce, ensuring no one feels quite so invisible in their grief? Moving forward requires not just understanding why someone leaves, but truly trying to comprehend what it feels like to be the one left behind.

Video of Hafez’s Tomb in Shiraz, Iran

I went to Iran for a vacation. It was amazing. But that’s for a different post.

Footnotes:

  1. Lewis, C.S. A Grief Observed. Faber & Faber. (Originally published 1961). [Note: While widely quoted, the exact phrasing can vary slightly between editions. The sentiment accurately reflects Lewis’s description of grief’s unpredictable nature.]
  2. Rogers, Carl R. A Way of Being. Houghton Mifflin, 1980. [Source Link: Often cited in psychological literature, specific page number may vary by edition, but the concept is central to his work.]
  3. Brown, Brené. From various talks and writings, including her RSA Short animation on Empathy. [Source Link]
  4. Satir, Virginia. The New Peoplemaking. Science and Behavior Books, 1988. [Source Link: Widely quoted principle from her foundational work in family therapy.]
  5. Boss, Pauline. Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live with Unresolved Grief. Harvard University Press, 1999. [Source Link]
  6. hājeh Shams-od-Dīn Moḥammad Ḥāfeẓ-e Shīrāzī, While many attribute this quote to Hafez, scholars find it challenging to locate a definitive textual source in translation, leading to debates about its authenticity. Nevertheless, it powerfully encapsulates a theme resonant within Sufi mysticism and Hafez’s poetry regarding suffering and enlightenment. I include it here for its thematic resonance.

Same-sex Divorce Posts

Discover more from Alex Westerman

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments