As the hawk is wont to pursue the trembling doves

mpathy (n)
A feeling or capacity for awareness, intellectual understanding and sensitivity for others that are experiencing an emotion.

While the ability to empathise is a sophisticated imaginative process that develops with age, empathy seems to be hard-wired in the human brain. It doesn’t necessarily equate to compassion, as compassion involves the additional element of a desire for circumstances to improve. However, empathy certainly is a prerequisite for compassion.

We're well aware that emotion drives animals to respond to various stimuli. Elation is openly and unambiguously expressed in many species. Granted, we've seen this often in domesticated individuals, but what of those that are not? Dolphins, for example, emote very distinct chuckles when joyous. Likewise, fear, pain and grief are also freely exhibited in a variety of species. According to Lyonnaise neurobiologists J. Decety and P. Ruby, it is not too far-fetched to conclude that the emotion empathy may indeed exist in animals as well.

The brain chemical dopamine underlies the emotions of joy and happiness in both human and nonhuman individuals. Pain receptors, known as nociceptors, permit some organisms to feel pain. These neurobiological elements enable the sharing of emotion and thus empathy, according to University of Parma research neurobiologist, Gallese. He discovered particular neurons in the cerebral cortex of monkeys that quite well could be the neurobiological basis for empathy in a wide range of species.

Prior to making direct contact with Doug, after the arduous 5-month wait for him to return from California and settle back into daily routine in accordance with the academic calendar, in all of my previous communications I'd demonstrated compassion and, therefore, empathy for any potential awkwardness that revealing my knowledge of the real situation could pose for Doug. I spared him all embarrassment in the brief phone conversation we had that mid-September morning. I was also mindful to articulate that I respected his personal circumstances, position and stature, wished to safeguard it and that being aware of his true identity and commitment now called for new "rules of engagement". I'd place all other emotions, expectations and experiences we'd shared aside to preserve a simple but cherished friendship.

So how could it be possible that “Doug” could not feel some sensitivity to the disappointment that was no doubt evident in my voice when he claimed that he’d never been in contact with me? It was difficult not to telegraph a sadness that I was feeling when I pleaded with him not to make this more difficult than it already was. And yet, almost in mid-sentence, he cut the conversation short and hung up.

I was not willing, without some confirmation from him, to think of my dear friend as someone that had deliberately deceived and intentionally hurt me. The hundreds of hours we'd chatted may have entered into a realm of "forbidden territory" for a married man, yet I was open to consider that it might have simply been a situation that had accidentally transcended appropriate boundaries. But if that was the case, then why continue the myth and pretend that I had imagined everything; that I was operating on pure speculation, or worse yet, that I had concocted this for some strange reason? And why be so cruel and cold, especially since we were fellow members of the same immigration board, as he had commented.

The manner in which the whole situation had been handled by him, a year or more by this time, had caused me pain, sadness and so much self-doubt on the heels of all I'd experienced at the hand of DF and KMC. Could one person feel more dejected and rejected?. In the end, it appeared that Doug, the very person who'd sworn that he was "NOT, NOT, NOT going to abandon me", had indeed done that without so much as a good-bye, or an explanation and from this last conversation, apparently with no compunction either. None of it made sense.

How was it possible that he couldn't empathise with how devastating it was for me to be treated so coldly. I was the one who'd been vulnerable and cautious, and who'd been encouraged to trust again by none other than him? Had I not epitomised the true meaning of a friend, with my generous and forgiving nature? Did I not deserve at least an explanation, an apology or some acknowledgment? And then I realised that perhaps he perceived, from my surprise phone call, that I might be motivated to take advantage of his vulnerability, as mine had been.

Aposematism, derived from the roots "apo" meaning 'away' and sematic to mean 'warning', is nature’s defense in organisms to ward off potentially threatening individuals. Often it involves distinct, often glaring and strident colouration that works in a diametrically-opposed fashion to that of camouflage. Indeed, aposematism is an advertisement almost akin to, “Don’t eat me, I taste bad!"

In addition to aposematic colouration, there are other natural behavioural defense mechanisms utilised by organisms, when threatened or cornered. Birds exhibit what is known as "agonistic" display. When perched, males engage in fluffing the feathers of the crown and nape, to appear more visible and give off a larger presence, or they raise and flare their wings in a "stiff pose" display. Birds, predominantly males, chase each other aggressively, sometimes resulting in in-flight collisions and combat. When really excited, they adopt a "full threat" pose in flight, gliding directly at a combatant with tail and wings outspread.

The range of agonistic behavioural activities employed are relative to the perceived level of threat. If scansorial (tree climbers), they either move around the trunk of a tree to hide or remain motionless until the threat has passed. Others become proactive and harass the predator, at times engaging in swooping to strike an intruder. And in the rare event that the predator captures them, they exhibit loud squeals to frighten the pursuer.

Given that this is commonplace in animals, I wondered if his unengaging response to my gentle phone call was an example of "agonistic" display. Had I failed to communicate my appreciation for any potential vulnerability on his part? Perhaps he perceived, mistakenly, that I might have less-than-honest motivations for contacting him. I sat down at the computer to draft him an email, telling him, first, of how painful his reaction was to witness, and spelling out that it was time for the masquerading to end; that I was approaching him as a genuine friend that was hurting and needed some answers.

I sent the email the next day. The next contact would be just before Christmas 2005.

As the hawk is wont to pursue the trembling doves ~ Ovid