Listening With Empathy

March 18, 2012

Call for Participation: Empathy Conference

What is empathy and what do we need it for?

At Södertörn University August 16-18, 2012, arranged by Centre for Studies in Practical Knowledge

The last ten years we have witnessed an exploding interest in the phenomenon of empathy. The wave of empathy studies is psychology, philosophy, psychiatry and other disciplines is linked to a parallel theoretical interest in the phenomena of feeling, selfhood, inter-subjectivity and morality, but also to practical attempts to understand and improve meetings between workers and clients in different professions, such as health care professions, teaching professions, psychotherapy or social work. To be empathic is increasingly viewed as a must for any person working in cooperation with and/or helping other people, although, as is also pointed out, the empathy must be professional in character to not produce destructive intimacy or burn out. The question of what “professional empathy” might be and how it is possible, or, indeed, fruitful to attain such ability is an interesting one in itself.

The theoretical underpinnings of empathy studies roughly divide it into two camps: the theory-theory approaches, and the simulation-theory approaches. The ideas that to have a theory of mind or an ability to put oneself in the shoes of another are necessary for empathy can serve either as philosophical clarifications of empathy or as taken for granted starting points of the empathy studies; in both cases, however, it is becoming increasingly evident by way of empirical results as well as conceptual clarification that the two approaches are relying on ideas of inter-subjective understanding which do not get the relationships between feeling, thought and action in empathy exactly right. To be empathic does not seem to consist in being able to think that the other is like me, or imagining what it is like to be him, in feeling or acting on his behalf. It is true that most adults that show empathy are able to think and imagine that the other is like me and what it would be like to be in his predicament, but this is neither necessary nor sufficient for being empathic. Rather these two abilities can reinforce and develop an empathic attitude which in its basic form is developed as a feeling in its own right.

To talk about affective and cognitive empathy as two parts or stages of the phenomenon does not solve the issue of how the two belong together, and it, indeed, seems to leave the account of action (acting in order to help the person one feels and understands is suffering) out of empathy altogether. Most suffering persons would surely prefer a fellow being who actually does something for them in contrast to just telling them that they understand and feel sorry for them. This issue connects the discussion of what empathy is to ethics. Is empathy a corner stone of morality, perhaps a necessary constituent in the makeup of every moral subject, or is it rather a bad substitute for ethical concepts such as respect and responsibility, allowing people to think and say that they really know what it is to be in the position of the other, and perhaps, also, to feel sorry for the other rather than doing anything about his suffering?

In the conference we want to gather academics and practitioners from different disciplines who try to move beyond (not beside) the theory-theory and the simulation-theory approaches to empathy. We want to address the question of what empathy is from an empirical as well as theoretical perspective, and we want to connect the issue to what role empathy serves in the development of human beings as well as the exercise of human based professions. Abstracts for presentations addressing these issues and not exceeding 600 words should be sent to the conference secretary martin.gunnarson@sh.se no later than the 15 of April (2012). Final program will be distributed in May 2012.

Fredrik Svenaeus and Martin Gunnarson

Keynote speakers:

Lou Agosta, Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Thomas Fuchs, University of Heidelberg

Jodi Halpern, University of California Berkeley

Matthew Ratcliffe, Durham University

Jan Slaby, Freie Universität Berlin

Speaking personally (and this is Lou Agosta speaking), I struggle with a misunderstanding about my work in empathy studies. When I say that I work on empathy that sometimes lands int he listening of the audience as if empathy were only over here with me and “over there” with the audience was a need for more or better or different empathy. This is misunderstanding. Empathy does NOT belong to any one individual. It lives in the relatedness between speaker and listener. It lives in the community. Empathy in any form or context causes expanded empathy in every form and context.

September 14, 2011

The Chicago Empathy Project is Live!

The commitment of the Chicago Empathy Project (CEP) is to expand the application of empathy in human relatedness. In particular, the commitment is to provide an opening for the exchange of ideas in a context of empathic human relations by delivering motivational presentations, inspirational conversations, training, workshops, and psychotherapy services to the professionals in the mental health, education, and business communities. This post is a call for participation and an invitation to provide leadership in designing and implementing the Chicago Empathy Project (CEP).

The CEP project acknowledges and promotes the value of empathy engaging competing approaches to restoring emotional well being including Talk Therapy, Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), and psychopharmacology. All three benefit from a foundation in empathy. The possibilities for interdisciplinary networking and interdisciplinary research are significant based on a foundation in empathy. Lining up the optimum therapy with a given individual remains an interdisciplinary art requiring experience, skill, and learning. However, the pendulum has swung far-too-far away from the breakthrough results of the work on empathy (initiated by Heinz Kohut and his colleagues including Michael Basch, Arnold Goldberg, Mark Gehrie, and Ernest Wolf). Empathy is alive and well at dedicated centers of excellance such as The Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis where Kohut made his mark. But few know about this or have access to it, notwithstanding generous out reach programs. Other dedicated mental health professionals are becoming the shoe maker’s children, living off the worried well. Even psychiatrists (MDs) with a psychodynamic interest find it hard to practice talk therapy (psychotherapy) due to market pressures, declining insurance reimbursements, and the mis-education of the public to expect behavior modification and psychotropic pills to be a silver bullet. Personal dissatisfaction, emotional upset, and despair over the future are growth industries.With apologies to Melanie Klein (a famous psychoanalyst), the CEP refuses to endorse the paranoid position. There is nothing wrong. However, there is something missing – empathy. Expanded empathy is the requirement and commitment.

The Chicago Empathy project bears witness to one fundamental approach: absent a warm, generous, empathic listening, psychotherapy is hard to distinguish from dental work. It can be painful. A gracious, generous, empathic listening provides access to the inner, emotional life of the other person and, with conditions and qualifications, can jup start the process of emotional healing and recovery. This extends (once again with conditions and qualifications) to applications of CBT and psychopharmacology, especially given the side effects of the latter. Though empathy is not a silver bullet (even as the search for one continues), empathy makes a profound difference in the quality of the caregiver-patient experience, the quality of the student-teacher relationship, and the quality of the consumer-business engagement. As every mother of a newborn, every parent, and every caretaker knows, empathy is a natural ability with which all human beings are born; no university degree or license is required to be empathic, though training and education can make a substantial difference in developing the competence. The Chicago Empathy project empowers people through conversations, presentations, workshops, and one-on-one psychotherapy to expand the use of empathy in human relatedness. The result is developing zones of human understanding, possibility, relatedness; the unblocking of obstacles to personal growth and the restarting of human potential and growth; and the transformation of suffering and emotional upset into creativity, humor, wisdom, and expanded empathy.  Full disclosure: This project is a work in progress and its creation and implementation are the result of the contributions of the engaged, participating community. Full disclosure: as I write this, I do so as someone who has been on both sides of the therapist/patient interface as well as the therapist/client one. It is going to sound a tad like bragging here at the backend but if not now when? … Additional qualifications for commenting on what to look for in an empathy project is that my works on empathy are footnotes in Goldberg, Wolf, and Basch (see bibliography below).  This project charter is not complete nor is my knowledge and experience; all the usual disclaimers apply; so the reader’s [your] feedback, criticism, experiences, impertinent remarks, and contribution are hereby requested. This project needs – a web site of its own; a high profile leader with name recognition; individual narratives of how empathy makes a difference; brain storming; speaking opportunities; consulting engagements; training assignments; community engagement. Please let me hear from you.

Bibliography

Agosta, Lou. (2010). Empathy in the Context of Philosophy.London: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

__________. (1984). “Empathy and intersubjectivity,” Empathy I, ed. J. Lichtenberg et al.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

__________. (1980). “The recovery of feelings in a folktale,” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980: 287-97.

__________. (1976). “Intersecting language in psychoanalysis and philosophy,” International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Vol. 5, 1976: 507-34.

Basch, Michael F. (1983). “Empathic understanding: a review of the concept and some theoretical considerations,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 31, No. 1: 101-126. (See p. 114.) .

Gehrie, Mark (2011). “From archaic narcissism to empathy for the self: the evolution of new capacities in psychoanalysis,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 313-333.

Goldberg, Arnold. (2011). “The enduring presence of Heinz Kohut: empathy and its vicissitudes,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 289-311. (See  pp. 296, 309.) .

Kohut, Heinz. (1984). How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Ernest S. (1988). Treating the Self.New York: The Guilford Press. (See pp. 17, 171.)

This post and all contents of this site (c) Lou Agosta, Ph.D. and the Chicago Empathy Project

August 12, 2011

What to Look For in Selecting a Psychotherapist

Three criteria are front and center in selecting a psychotherapist: cost, schedule, and empathy. These are not the only variables. For example, academic degrees and diplomas, professional certifications or equivalent publications and experience, insurance benefits, location, and Internet reputation (say, on  Facebook or LinkedIn) are also criteria. Okay, I am just kidding about Facebook; but don’t laugh too hard, we are heading in that direction. In addition, it is increasingly common for psychotherapists to call out the therapeutic agreement explicitly, sometimes in writing, managing the expectations and defining the boundaries of the situation. In general, not a bad thing if it is handled with care – and empathy. The challenge faced by most prospective patients or clients, who are searching for a therapist, is that once they are in an emotional emergency, there is no time to interview several prospective psychotherapists to find a good fit. This is a case for having a periodic emotional check up just as one would have a physical check up in order to establish a relationship against a possible future crisis. However, this level of planning rarely occurs. From a negotiating perspective, the individual seeking help is “one down” in terms of leverage. Of course, reputable professionals will bend over backwards to be accommodating. In any case, the patient/client is still responsible for making his or her own best case and being a powerful self-advocate. Once again, no easy answer here if your issue is low self esteem and loss of power. Still, while acknowledging that the variables of negotiating flexibility, schedule, and cost are on the critical path, they are not the focus of this article. That leaves the criteria of empathy. Without empathy, nothing else works.

The short definition of empathy is that it is the capacity to know what an other individual is experiencing because (speaking in the first person for emphasis) I experience it too, not as a merger but as a trace affect or experience that samples the other’s experience. Thus, if one is overwhelmed by the other’s trauma and re-traumatized, one is not using one’s empathy properly. Simply stated, you are doing it wrong. Optimally, I experience a trace, a sample, a virtual vicarious representation of the other’s experience of suffering or joy or indifference so that I “get it” experientially and emotionally as well as cognitively. The boundary between self and other is firmly maintained, but the boundary is permeable in one limited sector, the communicability of affect, sensation, experience. In a larger context, empathy is the capacity that enables the other person to humanize the one by recognizing and acknowledging the possibilities for growth, transformation, and recovery in the one.

Empathy is different than interpersonal chemistry – that certain something = X that just clicks between two people such that they know they can work together. Yet empathy is the basis for this chemistry and fans out into multiple forms of relatedness and possibilities of understanding.

To cut to the chase, look for a psychotherapist that is genuine and authentic in relating, providing a gracious and generous – that is, empathic – listening. If the individual you are talking with does not provide the empathy you require, keep looking. Absent a warm, empathic listening, the process of psychotherapy is indistinguishable from dental work. It can be painful, granted that many individuals seeking a therapist are already suffering from significant emotional pain. Even in the best of situations, it is not that there are zero challenges even with empathy. The process does not work unless one goes up to the edge of one’s comfort zone and goes through the boundary, pressing beyond it. That takes courage – going forward in spite of being afraid (“anxious”).The more the therapist can be authentic in the relationship, the more powerful he (or she) can be in facilitating transformation in the direction of health and well-being on the part of the patient. This is true even when the attitudes that the therapist experiences are not ones that he would endorse if he lived up to all his ideals. A simple example: if I am approached for services by a person with self-esteem issue [low] who is also obese, my attitude towards the perceived extra weight is going to be front and center. Since the person struggling with low self-esteem and an (un)related weigh issue may not endorse such a view himself, it is important to recognize that there is nothing wrong with people coming in all shapes and sizes. Even if I would not endorse such an admittedly edgy slogan as “fat is beautiful”, it is still essential to be in touch with my own ambivalence (given that such exists). It is essential for the therapist to be intimately in touch with his own feelings and attitudes, generally as a result of his own work in psychotherapy or psychoanalysis as a patient. He must be willing to make the call – “the chemistry is just [not] right here and it is me” – otherwise, it just will not work out. The point is that none of this will work without a deep empathy for the experience of the world of the other individual.

What to look for is a therapist who can provide the kind of empathic relatedness that recognizes the humanity of the other, even amidst the effort and struggle of dealing with unattractive, challenging symptoms, not all of which the patient is even willing to share at first due to doubt, shame, or previous unhappy experiences and outcomes. Sometimes it is necessary for a prospective patient to “burn through” several therapists until he finds someone that he can trust. This doesn’t means that the other therapists were “wrong and bad,” though it might mean the mismatch between patient expectations and therapists’ services took awhile to converge on market availability. In short, look for a therapist who can provide the kind of relationship that the patient/client is able to use to overcome obstacles, jump start growth, and facilitate transformation in the direction of positive possibilities.

The key term here is actually “usability,” not in the sense of mis-use but in the proper and powerful sense of a means to guide the person back to naturally occurring development. The differentiator between use and mis-use is – you guessed it – empathy. The more the patient recognizes the therapist’s empathy, the more the patient will naturally restart the process of growth away from rigid, fixed, apathetic, shut down emotional functioning toward a way of being that is alive, vital, dynamic, full of feeling, engaged for better or worse with the issues that promise to provide satisfaction and fulfillment. Full disclosure: as I write this, I do so as someone who has been on both sides of the therapist/patient interface as well as the therapist/client one. It is going to sound a tad like bragging here at the backend but … additional qualifications for commenting on what to look for is that my works on empathy are footnotes in Goldberg, Wolf, and Basch (see bibliography below).  This list of what to look for is not complete nor is my knowledge and experience; all the usual disclaimers apply; so your feedback, criticism, experiences, impertinent remarks, and comments are hereby requested. Please let me hear from you.

Bibliography

Agosta, Lou. (2010). Empathy in the Context of Philosophy.London: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

__________. (1984). “Empathy and intersubjectivity,” Empathy I, ed. J. Lichtenberg et al.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

__________. (1980). “The recovery of feelings in a folktale,” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980: 287-97.

__________. (1976). “Intersecting language in psychoanalysis and philosophy,” International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Vol. 5, 1976: 507-34.

Basch, Michael F. (1983). “Empathic understanding: a review of the concept and some theoretical considerations,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 31, No. 1: 101-126. (See p. 114.) .

Gehrie, Mark (2011). “From archaic narcissism to empathy for the self: the evolution of new capacities in psychoanalysis,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 313-333.

Goldberg, Arnold. (2011). “The enduring presence of Heinz Kohut: empathy and its vicissitudes,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 289-311. (See  pp. 296, 309.) .

Kohut, Heinz. (1984). How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Ernest S. (1988). Treating the Self.New York: TheGuilford Press. (See pp. 17, 171.)

This post and all contents of this site (c) Lou Agosta, Ph.D. and the Chicago Empathy Project

April 15, 2011

Live from Division 32 (the Humanistic Psychology Conference, Chicago)! Empathy and Existential Psychotherapy

And here is the presentation delivered Sunday April 17, 2011:

CHPCases20110306

Empathy is fundamental to an account of the dynamics of emotions in that empathy is responsible for a person’s emotional equilibrium, homeostasis, balance. Speaking in the first person, without another’s empathic regard for me, I cannot get my emotional bearings. We see this most clearly when, for whatever reasons, a person’s emotional equilibrium has been upset or lost. Without the other’s empathic regard for the person, he or she cannot get back the emotional balance that has been lost. The individual may, indeed will, “crash and burn” emotionally until she is able to comfort herself enough to regain her composure. The person being emotional is whip-sawed from one overwhelming affect and instance of emotional behavior to another. It is the other’s intervention, which consists not just in saying “There, there, I understand,” but in really understanding, in being open to the experience as a vicarious experience that hits one palpably, albeit less powerfully than it impacts the other, that makes the difference in recovering emotional composure.

Since this is a blog post, I end on a personal note. As I write this, I do so as someone who has been on both sides of the therapist/patient interface as well as the therapist/client one. It is going to sound a tad like bragging here at the backend but people might really be wondering …  In addition to substantial work on Heidegger, the phenomenologists, and existentialists, qualifications for commenting on what to look for is that my works on empathy are footnotes in the self psychologists Goldberg, Wolf, and Basch (see bibliography below).  This list of what factors are on the critical path is not complete nor is my knowledge and experience; all the usual disclaimers apply; so your feedback, criticism, experiences, impertinent remarks, and comments are hereby requested. Please let me hear from you.

Bibliography

Agosta, Lou. (2010). Empathy in the Context of Philosophy.London: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

__________. (1984). “Empathy and intersubjectivity,” Empathy I, ed. J. Lichtenberg et al.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

__________. (1980). “The recovery of feelings in a folktale,” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980: 287-97.

__________. (1976). “Intersecting language in psychoanalysis and philosophy,” International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Vol. 5, 1976: 507-34.

Basch, Michael F. (1983). “Empathic understanding: a review of the concept and some theoretical considerations,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 31, No. 1: 101-126. (See p. 114.) .

Gehrie, Mark (2011). “From archaic narcissism to empathy for the self: the evolution of new capacities in psychoanalysis,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 313-333.

Goldberg, Arnold. (2011). “The enduring presence of Heinz Kohut: empathy and its vicissitudes,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 289-311. (See  pp. 296, 309.) .

Kohut, Heinz. (1984). How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Ernest S. (1988). Treating the Self.New York: TheGuilford Press. (See pp. 17, 171.)

This post and all contents of this site (c) Lou Agosta, Ph.D. and the Chicago Empathy Project

March 1, 2011

Variations on Empathy IN TREATMENT

Your psychotherapy session is now a major HBO Miniseries, In Treatment. Mine too. Two obvious questions occur. One for prospective clients, one for therapists. If I go to see a therapist about some personal issues and problems, is this what I can expect from treatment? If I am a therapist and someone walks into the room, is something like this HBO series what the individual is expecting? In either case, I decided literally to check out a dozen weeks of the series from Blockbuster and watch it all at once in order to perform a reality check and manage the expectation. Full disclosure: I watched about a dozen of the episodes from seasons one and two.  I did not see how the narrative ends. If you require an update or synopsis on the drama (“melodramatic content”) of the series, that is not provided here.

This is what I learned. The writing is top notch. The screen plays are well written, developed, and engaging – from a dramatic point of view. The acting is top notch. The performances are well crafted. In Treatment is different than real world psychotherapy in at least three respects.

First, the amount of work required getting to a psychodynamic insight, transformation, and result is minimized in the screen play. Thus, the show condenses into a twenty minute segment what might reasonably be expected to require ten or more actual psychotherapy sessions. Unfortunately, by its very nature television turns real human suffering into melodrama. That is not necessarily bad – no finger wagging here – since sometimes we all do the same thing – and that includes psychotherapy patients. We tend to turn suffering into melodrama. Now add psychodrama. However, the challenge is to distinguish real human suffering from the melodrama, each of which is a fundamental part of life. Psychotherapists understand that life can be – is -  a veil of tears. Life is also  inherently dramatic – and melodramatic. Some people are very attached to the melodrama. Without in any way dishonoring or minimizing the challenges of being a victim, the melodrama of victimization or specialness or rescue fantasy provides significant secondary gains (“pay off”). Some flaunt the melodrama; others are ashamed of their melodrama. In some cases, the melodrama is out-and-out human tragedy including shocking trauma, deep suffering, and all the negative side effects that go with it. In other cases, there is a noticeable absence of trauma and yet significance emotional upset, possibly related to pathogenic fantasies and ideas. Significant work over a number of session – not necessarily years, but definitely more than twenty minutes – is required to disentangle these distinctions.

Second, from a clinical point of view, the psychotherapist, Paul, displays excellent intuition. However, he does not have enough time to deploy the long term immersion in listening to the other person required for sustained empathy. What is the difference? Intuition uses subtle clues in the other’s speaking and behavior to provide inferences to the other in a kind of educated guess as to what is going on that can even rise to the level of an “Aha!” moment. Empathy is a form of vicarious experience of the other individual in which I know what the other is experiencing because I experience it too, albeit as a trace affect, experience, or sensation. I repeat: just a trace affect, not total immersion and merging. Empathy includes the additional condition and qualification that the self-other distinction is maintained, even if momentarily suspended via a transient, temporary identification. In a psychotherapy context, empathy requires a sustained immersion – listening – to the other individual and the other’s story, experiences, narrative. There is not a lot of time to do that on camera in a half hour show. Intuition is more dramatic and engaging. For example, in the case of the college student in season two who has a life threatening disease that she does not want to acknowledge (or get chemotherapy for), the young lady presents to Paul with a critical account of a former therapist who kept repeating herself and who was dropped. Paul immediately infers – what is likely accurate – that the client will do the same to him as soon as he stumbles into her blind spot. He shares this with her without apparent impact on the client but with significant impact on the listening audience, who are suitably impressed. Empathy would have required Paul to provide additional context and interpretation based on the real fear (at having a dread disease) and defensive “flight (and fight)” reaction by way of background – you are (perhaps) feeling not listened to, appreciated, or understood; and who do you usually respond when that happens? This is not to say that intuition is useless. It is a powerful tool, and given the urgency of the client’s predicament, it has its uses. The point is just that, as a show, In Treatment is limited in its ability to exploit the distinction between intuition and empathy due to the inherent constraints of the media. The really important content – the empathic resonance – is not visible on the DVD. It never is. To “see” it, one would have to be able to introspect the experiences, sensations, and feelings of the listener and speaker. One more thing. The celebrated psychoanalyst, Heinz Kohut, engaged this distinction between intuition and empathy in detail towards the backend of The Analysis of the Self (1971) where he pointed out that the beginner psychotherapist often has a keen appreciation and use of intuition. As the therapist becomes more experienced in the analysis of the self, this intuition is transformed into the capacity for empathy – as well as human creativity, and wisdom. In this respect, Paul is more of a beginner than is acknowledged in the screen play.

Finally, while psychotherapy can indeed call up the ghosts of the past – trauma and unhappiness – the process can be empowering in the areas of self-expression, creating possibilities, and even fun. In Treatment is a dark and difficult melodrama. Granted that individuals are often impelled into therapy by dark, traumatic, and difficult life experiences, once engaged underway therapy can be a source of satisfaction and even joy. Fun is conspicuously absent (granted, it is rarely apparent at the start). Naturally, all the usual disclaimers apply – your mileage may differ. However, one might reasonably expect to see significantly more favorable outcomes than what occurs in the (otherwise excellent) screen writing. According to the screen writers, the amount of advice, guidance, and confrontation that Paul provides is quite simply “over the top” in relation to real world psychotherapy. Once again this is not to say that advice, and so on, is bad. Far from it. It is useful. However, it is not what psychotherapy is about in its fundamental commitment. In its fundamental commitment, psychotherapy is a commitment to provide a gracious and generous listening (empathy) in the interest of client (patient) possibility, transformation, and self-expression. Often one of the more immediate results of empathy is symptom relief. Significant work is required for the transformation of symptoms into creativity, wisdom, and pragmatic results. Amidst interpretations, pattern detection, transference, and explanations, the work of therapy requires a dogged ability to engage and put what is not working (including the past) back in its place in order to open the future to new possibilities. I know of one client who, in a more cynical moment, said to his therapist, “This process is like being the friend of Tom Sawyer. You have to both paint the fence and pay to do it.” Well, after the age of Listening to Prozac, it can seem like a lot of work; and surely talk therapy takes something extra over and above the band-aide of popping a pill (or a long series of them, the side effects of which you do not want even to think about). Nevertheless, it does not have to be a years long process – though that is possible too – and significant results can be gained in ten or twelve sessions of psychotherapy; and the collateral damage is significantly less than ten or twelve sessions of ECT [electro convulsive therapy] and I have seen ECT used up to 40 sessions. Imagine what can be accomplished in 40 sessions of talk therapy. Okay, ECT is not funny; the delivery of the shocks has been improved to provide micro-bursts; and if you are suicidal, all options are on the table against suffering. Extra caution: Both parties have to be clear and explicit about the therapeutic contract up front in to get results such as those envisioned here. However, the point is that In Treatment just might give talk therapy the boost in requires in this post Prozac, pragmatic, results-oriented age, even amidst its melodrama, virtual experience of treatment, and intuitions.

February 19, 2011

Empathy in the Context of Psychotherapy (Talk Therapy)

Absent a gracious and generous listening (empathy), psychotherapy is hard to distinguish from a dental procedure, probing sensitive, tender spots with sharp instruments. Empathy makes all the difference. If a person is going to express difficult and sensitive personal content, then speaking them into an empathic listening is on the critical path to restoring emotional equilibrium and effective action. Empathy is at the top of the list of what is required for creating the possibility of breakthrough results in the areas meaningful to the speaker (the client).

Indeed empathy itself can be transformational. Just having another person really “get” what it is that is challenging, upsetting, or inhibiting an individual can be activating, enabling a person to recover and sustain commitments that produce results. How does “just talking” make a difference? Calling forth experiences and distinctions that already lurk in the background, boldly stating the obvious (and the less obvious), can make a dramatic difference in removing the blinders that prevent a person from seeing what is “obviously hidden in plain view”. This enables the process of growth and development to resume and go forward in an uninhibited way. In other more challenging cases, empathy combined with an inquiry/analysis into the sources of resistance to change – secondary gain – is required to “jump start” the process of getting moving forward emotionally and in action-oriented ways.

A simple rule-of-thumb is that whatever a person’s issue or obstacle is that “whatever” will be brought into the therapeutic situation. So, to take a deceptively simple example, if your issue is procrastination about career, relationships, money, health (well being), then a similar issue will soon arise in relationship to the therapist. You will be unable to make up your mind whether he or she is really right for you; whether you want to meet once a week or more; how firm is the commitment, and so on. The advantage to having the experience in a well defined situation (rather than the messiness of life at large) is that therapy is context that has fewer variables and that can be looked at in detail between just two people. This enables insights and breakthrough is grasping what is the pattern and why it is activated and triggered here-and-now. This enables insights and break throughs to occur that might not be attainable in the more complex, open system of life at large.

The results of talk therapy include enhanced emotional stability, more power to deal with mood fluctuations when those inevitably occur, improved self-expression, power to deal with upsets in a constructive way that gets one moving again, greater capacity for affection and affinity (and its expression), freedom from worry and preoccupations that drain energy, the experience of oneself as having the power to choose and make a contribution, enhanced self-confidence and personal effectiveness. Talk therapy can also enhance personal traits such as empathy, humor, creativity, and even wisdom in the face of life’s challenges. The impact on relations, career, family, finances, self-expression, and the experience of choosing and personal productivity can be dramatic. This list is far from complete.

This is the age of client service. Any therapist of merit is likely to be a pragmatist. After two or three sessions to get to a diagnostic formulation, he (or she) should be prepared to talk frankly about (1) how he proposes to make a difference in dealing with your complaint – a treatment plan (2) the rewards and risks of talk therapy – a therapeutic contract – even if not in writing (3) fee for service (billing) (4) scheduling.

The results of psychotherapy vary from one person to another, so all the usual disclaimers apply (obviously!). Your mileage may vary; and a key variable includes finding someone to talk with candidly and confidentially where the chemistry between the two persons is just right. In this case, “chemistry” means “empathy”.

At the risk of redundancy (and since this IS a blog), I end on a personal note. As I write this, I do so as someone who has been on both sides of the therapist/patient interface as well as the therapist/client one. It is going to sound a tad like bragging here at the backend but if not now when? … Additional qualifications for commenting on empathy in the context of talk therapy is that my works on empathy are footnotes in Goldberg, Wolf, and Basch (see bibliography below).  This list of critical success factors is not complete nor (obviously) is my knowledge and experience; all the usual disclaimers apply; so your feedback, criticism, experiences, impertinent remarks, and contribution are hereby requested. Please let me hear from you.

Bibliography

Agosta, Lou. (2010). Empathy in the Context of Philosophy.London: Palgrave/ Macmillan. [See not link above right.]

__________. (1984). “Empathy and intersubjectivity,” Empathy I, ed. J. Lichtenberg et al.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.

__________. (1980). “The recovery of feelings in a folktale,” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980: 287-97.

__________. (1976). “Intersecting language in psychoanalysis and philosophy,” International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Vol. 5, 1976: 507-34.

Basch, Michael F. (1983). “Empathic understanding: a review of the concept and some theoretical considerations,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 31, No. 1: 101-126. (See p. 114.) .

Gehrie, Mark (2011). “From archaic narcissism to empathy for the self: the evolution of new capacities in psychoanalysis,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 313-333.

Goldberg, Arnold. (2011). “The enduring presence of Heinz Kohut: empathy and its vicissitudes,” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 59, No. 2: 289-311. (See  pp. 296, 309.) .

Kohut, Heinz. (1984). How Does Analysis Cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, Ernest S. (1988). Treating the Self.New York: The Guilford Press. (See pp. 17, 171.)

This post and all contents of this site (c) Lou Agosta, Ph.D. and the Chicago Empathy Project

April 5, 2010

Heidegger on Aristotle and the Emotions in the Rhetoric

Filed under: Emotions,Hermeneutics,Philosophy — Lou Agosta @ 10:27 am
Tags: , , , ,

In BEING AND TIME, Heidegger famously notes that the analysis of the affects (pathe) has taken barely one step forward since book II of Aristotle’s RHETORIC (H139). This Hot Link is an essay on this subject published in Philosophy Today (Dec 2010) – click following here - AgostaHeideggerIssue4 2010-Agosta

The occasion for this reengagement with the possibility of a ‘step forward’ is the availability of Heidegger’s lecture course at the University of Marburg in 1924 on the Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy. This course includes a detailed analysis of book II of the RHETORIC as volume 18 of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe (2002) just translated (2009). Here Heidegger’s penetrating but sparse remarks in BEING AND TIME on Befindlichkeit [‘affectivity’] are deepened and implemented in his reading of Aristotle’s RHETORIC.

The relevance of this reengagement is direct. The dominant view of the affects in contemporary philosophy is arguably the position that affects are an unclearly expressed proposition, including the cognitively articulated propositional attitude. The position of this short paper is that the modern propositional account of the affects is cleared away by and does not survive a reading of Heidegger’s volume 18 on book II of Aristotle’s RHETORIC.

Lest someone think this is a trivial matter, the long and distinguished tradition going back to the Stoics in which affects are indistinct cognitions that require clarification is well articulated in modern times by Anthony Kenny and then in Martha Nussbaum’s monumental Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Please click on the above-cited essay for further details. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

January 21, 2010

The Recovery of Empathy in a Folktale

A wonderful example of empathy and its absence is documented in one of the fairy tales (Märchen) of the collection edited by the Grimm Brothers. “The Story of the Youth Who Set Out to Learn Fear” is about a youth – the classic simpleton of the folktale – who tries to learn what shuddering is (i.e., fear in the sense of “goose flesh”). The hero-simpleton tries so hard to feel fear that he is effectively defended against all feelings. He has no feelings, not even fear. He is insensitive to others’ feelings in the everyday sense. Thus, he lacks empathy and the corresponding aspects of his being human (humanness). He is also ontologically cut off from the community of fellow travelers who share feelings empathically and on the basis of which life matters to them (and him). This deficiency occasions a misunderstanding in the narrative with the sacristan at the local church, and the youth throws the latter down the stairs, resulting in the youth’s disgrace and banishment. As in all classic folktales, the hero goes forth on a journey of exploration of both the world and of himself. He becomes a traveler on the road of life, which is the beginning of his ontological adventures to recover his feelings and become a complete human being.

For those interested, here is further detail on the story itself.  Märchen von Einem der auzog das Fürchten zu lernen,  translated as “The story of the youth who went forth to learn what fear was” in The Complete Grimm’s Fairy Tale, (1814/17), ed. W. Grimm and J. Grimm, tr. M. Hunt and J. Stern. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972: 29f. “Grüseln” means literally “to shudder” or “get the creeps,” “goose bumps,” a classic physical expression of fear. In the Anthropology (1797: §16; 33; 154), Kant calls out “The thrill that comes over us at the mere idea of the sublime and the gooseflesh [grüseln] with which fairy tales put children to bed late at night are vital sensations; they permeate the body so far as there is life in it.” The point is, anyone lacking such an experience, as depicted in the Märchen, is hardly alive, is an emotional zombie.  Bruno Bettelheim does not call out the link with empathy in his treatment of this folktale in his The Uses of Enchantment ((1975) New York: Alfred Knopf: 280-82); though, as I recall, Professor Bettelheim did make the connection in classroom discussion that I attended at the University of Chicago in the Spring of 1975. On the relevance of folktales to philosophy see, L. Agosta. (1978). “Kant’s treasure hard-to-attain,” Kant-Studien, Vol. 69, No. 4, 1978: 422-443; and also L. Agosta. (1980). “The recovery of feelings in a folktale,” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980: 287-97. Meanwhile….

The point is that empathy is not an obscure capability that requires elaborate technology to make it visible, as when researchers deploy a functional magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (fMRI) to correlate mirror neurons (though we can learn from the latter too). Rather empathy hides in plain view. This folktale, this Märchen, is in fact a ghost story, to be told on dark, windy autumn nights. The empathy of the audience is aroused by constellating fearful images of the living dead. This makes for a series of humorous encounters with ghouls and haunted castles as the youth sets about trying to learn shuddering – compulsively saying “I wish I could shudder,” having no idea what it means. The hero performs many brave deeds instead – as he is literally not sensible enough to grasp the distinction “fear” and recognize when he should be afraid. The ghost story provides a framework for images of the disintegration and fragmentation of the self, including literal ghoulish images of bowling with detached heads and a corpse that rises from the dead because the youth gets into bed with it to warm it up – a scenario quite creepy – against which the youth is firmly defended by his complete lack of feeling. None of these images and events matter to him in the way they would matter to an affectively, emotionally whole person. He is surrounded by ghouls and living corpses but, ontologically speaking, he is the one who is an affective zombie, emotionally dead. Without empathy, the individual is emotionally cut-off, i.e., dead.

The subtext of the story is that the individual cannot recover his humanity on his own. He requires the participation of another – and a relationship with the other – to restore the being human (humanness) of his feelings – and to teach him how to shudder. Having raised the curse on the haunted castle and won the hand of the fair princess, the hero finally stops trying to shudder. Only then is he overcome by shuddering at the first opportune occasion. On the morning after his wedding night – his new wife teaches him shuddering – no, this is not going where you think – she teaches him shuddering in a pun that cleverly masks the physical and sexual innuendo – she throws bowl of cold water filled with gold fish on him with the flipping gold fish included – he wakes up exclaiming that “Ach, yah, now finally I know shuddering!” Now he is finally a whole, enriched, and complete human being. Here is the original essay – caution the word “emapthy” does not occur in this essay. However, I suggest that empathy is what immediately underlies the capacity for feeling that forms the pivotal challenge faced by the protagonist in the folktale. For more details see -

JRHRecoveryFeelingFolktaleAgosta


January 17, 2010

Kant’s Treasure Hard-to-Attain: Why Kant Scholars are Engaged by Folktales

In the Anthropology (1797: §16; 33; 154), Kant calls out “The thrill that comes over us at the mere idea of the sublime and the gooseflesh [grüseln] with which fairy tales put children to bed late at night are vital sensations; they permeate the body so far as there is life in it.” The point is, anyone lacking such an experience, as depicted in the Märchen, is hardly alive, is an emotional zombie. But this discussion goes beyond the one explicit example in Kant to the issue of the highest good, a moral idea of which we have no decisive experience. In our human lives, rarely is virtue rewarded, and when such a thing happens it is as often by accident or a happy good fortune, and nothing like a strict causal connection. Still, for those, like Kant,relying on a healthy human understanding, who are persuaded that the world is governed by rules and is a cosmos, not a radom chaos, the underling reason (rationality) urges that virtue should be rewarded. According to Kant (1785: 21/404): ‘But the most remarkable thing about ordinary reason in its practical concern is that it may have as much hope as any philosopher of hitting the mark. In fact, it is almost more certain to do so than the philospoher, because he has no principle which the common understanding lacks, while his judgement is easily confused by a mass of irrelevant considerations…’  Textual evidence is available that Kant regarded the dialectical concept of the highest good as the possession of the ordinary person’s reason (1790, II: 128-9;458). Indeed,  in this case, saying that the ordinary person contradicts himself in confusion is not necessarily a reproach from which the philosopher escapes. The short answer is that Kant scholars are engaged by folktales because certain of the latter are sourced in aesthetic ideas that depict the highest good, which is nowhere else exemplified in our human experience. Taking a step outside the explicit framework of Kant’s practical philosophy is a radical move, but, I submit, a necessary one if we are to make sense of Kant’s appeal to untutored reason.  The details are complex and require further argument – KantStudienKantsTreasureHardToAttainAgosta

November 29, 2009

Empathy and the Emotions: Unexpressed Emotions are Incomplete…

Join me today for a conversation that engages the issue of how unexpressed emotions are incomplete. The emotions constitute information processing that operates in parallel with cognition (intelligence). Translation between these two differing systems occurs frequently, but emotions are not reducible to propositional (cognitive) attitudes. On background, the overall approach to the emotions of the position in this post is that emotions are not a natural kind: There is nothing necessarily in common between basic emotions, social pretenses, and irruptive motivational reactions (“moral sentiments”).  Of course, the reader will recognize tha Paul Griffiths has explored this approach, which is hereby acknowledged. With this background in place, the argument of this post is that unexpressed emotions are incomplete across all the different kinds. Empathy, as form of receptivity to the expression of emotion, implies an invitation to unexpressed emotions to attain completeness. This position is recommended to escape from the paradox that an unexpressed emotion does not exist. The occurrent but unexpressed emotion with its inchoate, emerging affective (felt) component – not a mere disposition – exists in interesting and important ways that are engaged. This position also escapes from the paradox that emotions, expressed or unexpressed, must have an affective (felt) component.  Many emotions have a readily identifiable affective (felt) component, but by no means all. Three paradigm cases (and subcases) are explored in detail in the attached unpublished paper [actually an unpublished book chapter not included in Empathy in the Context of Philosophy (Palgrave, 2010) ] and used to drive the argument. The lack of expression is just as significant, though less obvious, than that of expression and arouses an empathic receptivity. The point is that the observation of small details, including empathic receptivity to micro expressions, informs the interpretive activity of empathic understanding providing as it were the means of a raid on the inarticulate. Additional consequences and the resulting dynamics of this discovery—unexpressed emotions are incomplete – for empathy are explored in this  attachment:    CH04EmpathyandEmotionsUnbound20090112  Please give the benefit of your feedback.

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers