Editor’s introduction

This special issue of Administrative Theory & Praxis on the topic of “Otherness and Empathy in Public Administration” includes six manuscripts contributed by Mariglynn Edlins, DeLysa Burnier, Stephanie Dolamore, Rosa Castillo Krewson and Christian Matheis, Maren Trochmann, and Laura Hand. The editorial introduction provided by the guest editor introduces the topic and connects the contributions in this special issue to the broader theme and literature. To feel the pain of others, or more broadly to relate feelings to others, which is the etymological meaning of empathy, is a key feature of the relational nature of any communal organization. It is difficult to imagine that without an ability to empathize human beings would have been able to build strong enough relational bonds that would sustain a communal organization, which was crucial for survival over the hundreds of thousands of years prior to the advent of the modern society (Stanisevski, 2011, 2015). Furthermore, as Aristotle (1857, pp. 136–140) observed in his discussion of pity, roughly referring to what today we would call an empathy, this sentiment that enables an emotional connection to the suffering of somebody else is more likely to be expressed toward those that are closer to us. While it is possible for one to feel empathy toward a person that is not well known to us, empathy generally requires relating to that person at least on a level of common humanity and closer this other person is to us easier it becomes to relate to that person (Aristotle 1857; Stanisevski, 2015). The dynamic interconnection of empathy and Otherness, therefore, seems apparent. How do empathy and Otherness, however, also connect to modern public administration? The emergence of modernity brought forward a rather curious belief that human beings could “progress” beyond the basic human tendency to build close relational bonds in communities and accordingly should form societies based either on dispassionately rational bureaucracies (Taylor, 1919; Weber, 1946) or on rational self-interest in a market dominated society (Downs, 1957; Niskanen, 2017). If public administration is to be dispassionately rational (Taylor, 1919; Weber, 1946) or based on a rational selfinterest in a market dominated society (Downs, 1957; Niskanen, 2017), could it be empathetic as well? In particular, could public administration, both in the study of public administration and in the day to day practice of public organizations and public administrators, be empathetic toward the more marginalized individuals and communities? Finally, does developing practices in public administration that are more