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 26, 2011

Empathy and Sympathy in the Context of Ethics

This work is now available thanks to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics.
URL: http://www.iep.utm.edu/emp-symp/
This work is in effect an unpublished chapter (now published)  from my book Empathy in the Context of Philosophy (Palgrave 2010) in the refereed on-line journal (iep).  Several typos and “wordos” in this essay from last April 2011 have now been corrected (with my thanks to all those who called them to my attention).

An excerpt from the article’s abstract: After discussing the early uses of “sympathy” in David Hume and Adam ASmith, this article is organized historically. Two traditions are distinguished. The first is the Anglo-American tradition, and it extends from Hume and Smith to the twenty-first century work of Michael Slote. Stephen Darwall’s contribution is applied in engaging Hume and Smith. Finally, the interrelation of empathy, sympathy and altruism is explored in the work of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel.  The second tradition is the Continental one. It extends from the spirituality of Johann Herder to the phenomenological movement of Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, and Edith Stein. The intentional analysis of empathy is directly relevant to the constitution of the social community in a broad, normative relationship with the “Other.” Empathy (Einfühlung) is sui generis an intentional (mental) act that starts out in the superstructure of intersubjectivity in Husserl and steadily migrates towards the foundation of community under the influence of Heidegger, Scheler, and Stein. The choice of which philosophers and thinkers to include is also determined by the contingent facts that those chosen are most likely to be encountered in contemporary debates about empathy, sympathy, and ethics. Stein, Husserl, and Heidegger are primarily epistemological, ontological, and post-onto-theological, and are in the background of any contemporary, formal engagement with ethical theories, which is the focus of the present article. Scheler turns his phenomenological intuition of essence (wesenschau) towards the moral sentiments; and his analysis of the diversity of sympathetic forms is a lasting contribution to the topic. Contemporary Continental thinkers such as Larry Hatab and Frederick Olafson associate empathy with Heideggerian Mitsein and Mitdasein (being in the world with others) as the existential foundation of ethics). The roles of Friedrich Nietzsche, the Holocaust, and the “Other,” especially in Emmanuel Levinas, are distinguishing marks of the ethical approach on the Continent. The article ends with a discussion of how the discipline of psychoanalysis contributes to the role of empathy.  Please see the above-cited URL for the complete article.
Please give me the benefit of your feedback on this work. Let me hear from you.

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

April 14, 2011

Live from the Humanistic Psychology Conference (Div 32)! A Heideggerian Approach to Empathy

This is the presentation in PowerPoint (PPT) format on Heidegger’s Special Hermeneutic of Empathy here: SHPAgostaEmpathy20101214 [click to download] as delivered at the Conference on Humanistic Psychology (Chicago) sponsored by the Chicago School of Professional psychology…

According to Heidegger (Being and Time) [the following are quotes unless otherwise noted]:

•But the fact that “empathy” is not a primordial existential phenomenon . . . does not mean that there is nothing problematic about it.
•The special hermeneutic of empathy will have to show how being-with-one-another [Miteinandersein] and human being’s knowing of himself are led astray and obstructed by the various possibilities of being which human being himself possesses, so that genuine “understanding” gets suppressed, and human being takes refuge in substitutes; the possibility of understanding the other correctly presupposes such a hermeneutic… (Heidegger/Macquarrie 1927: H125)
In short:

•Dasein is individualized out of its distractedness of the conformity to the crowd behavior by death [explicit in Heidegger]
• Dasein is humanized by its encounter with the other, who gives Dasein its humanness [Agosta’s reading of Heidegger]
•Without the other – and the other’s empathy – Dasein dies a kind of affective, spiritual death similar to being an emotional zombie to whom nothing matters [Agosta’s reading of Heidegger]

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 long 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: 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

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.

May 4, 2010

Empathy in Context …

I am humbled by the comments of my colleagues, friends, and associates on Empathy in the Context of Philosophy.

“An insightful and provocative exploration of a topic that has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves and the conceptual clarity needed for a proper understanding. Agosta’s study is rich in historical context and thorough in covering the intersections of philosophy and psychology on the question of empathy. It is also accessible and stimulating for a host of applications to current concerns. Agosta rightly, in my view, finds in Heidegger a primary vehicle for advancing the discussion, yet he has his own voice and sense of how to think it through. An impressive achievement.”

Lawrence J. Hatab
Louis I. Jaffe Professor of Philosophy
Old Dominion University
*************************************************
That much used and routinely abused word, empathy, has enjoyed an uncomfortable popularity in fields as disparate as politics and psychoanalysis. At last a philosopher has arrived to bring clarity to the confusion. Lou Agosta has brought together the salient points about empathy as seen in neurology, psychoanalysis and literature into a happy home under Heidegger. Heidegger calls for ‘a special hermeneutic of empathy’ but does not give one. Agosta delivers it. The book is a must-read for anyone who chooses to use the word again.

Arnold Goldberg, M.D.

Author, Misunderstanding Freud

Professor of Psychiatry

Rush University Medical College

***************************************************************

Lou Agosta’s Empathy in the Context of Philosophy is a vivid, sweeping, thought-provoking and attitude changing treatment of one of the central, if often neglected, ideas of our culture, namely Empathy. It collects and scrutinizes ideas from a remarkable array of sources — from neuroscience to hermeneutics, from analytic philosophy to Freudian psychoanalysis, from Grimm Brothers stories to speech acts — all the while demonstrating Empathy’s seminal role in our understanding of mind, ethics, and ourselves. If morality stands apart from empathy, Dr. Agosta also shows how it is a pre-condition of it. He does this, and quite a bit more, through a lively tour of much of Twentieth Century thought, all the way correcting some of that thought’s myopia and self-righteousness, and allows us to regain a fine understanding, perhaps lost in the travails of modern life, of what it is that both makes us human and provides the possibility of joy with others.

Joel Levin

Author of Tort Wars and of Marrano Justice

Joel Levin, Esq.

Levin & Associates Co., L.P.A.

*************************************************************

Empathy in the Context of Philosophy is a masterpiece of philosophical-historical scholarship, presenting a rich and comprehensive account of the explicit and implicit conceptions of empathy that have appeared in the course of Western thinking from Hume through contemporary phenomenologists, both philosophical and psychoanalytic. Agosta’s Heideggerian interpretation of empathy is truly a tour de force. In Being and Time Heidegger criticized traditional Cartesian conceptions of empathy and called for a “special hermeneutic of empathy,” presumably grounded in his analysis of existence, but he failed to offer such a hermeneutic himself. It is this missing hermeneutic of empathy that Agosta supplies, masterfully applying Heidegger’s modes of Dasein’s disclosedness to elucidate the design structure of empathic engagement, which Agosta rightfully claims constitutes the foundation of authentic relationality. This book will be an invaluable resource not only for scholars in philosophy and the human sciences, but for practitioners of psychoanalytic and humanistic psychotherapy as well.

–Robert D. Stolorow, Ph.D. [Psychology], Ph.D. [Philosophy]

Author, Trauma and Human Existence (Routledge, 2007)

http://robertdstolorow.googlepages.com for Empathy in the Context of Philosophy”]Cover Art for Empathy in the Context of Philosophy[/caption]

January 23, 2010

Empathy and Intersubjectivity – the Legacy

As noted on the first page of the attached article, “intersubjectivity” is understood in the article to mean our interrelated being together with one another in the interhuman world of regard for and sensitivity to the feelings of other individuals (persons). My contacts in the psychoanalytic community have told me that, since the mid-1980s when my article was first published, “intersujbectivity” has taken on a life of its own in the context of self psychology and relational theory, the latter reportedly alternatingly competing with and cooperating with self psychology is a (mostly) friedly rivalry. Without wishing to claim priority, I merely note that I was not familiar with this psychoanalytic literature on intersubjectivity at the time – though, of course, ‘object relations’ was a familiar literature – either because it [intersubjective approach] only existed in nascent form in scattered article or because I simply overlooked its significance. I would be please to be corrected on the dates and emergence of the literature (so please feel free to leave a comment below). However, with the publication of Robert Stolorow and G.E. Atwood’s (1994) Contexts of Being: The Intersubjective Foundations of Psychological Life, among other works, the intersubjective approach comes into its own. At this point, my intention is to note the distinction in the development of the term “intersubjectivity” without pretending to give an account of the points of convergence or divergence. That remains a future task to be engaged. By the way, as far as I know, the attached PDF is not otherwise available in electronic form, and you will have to use the rotate feature on your PDF reader to rotate the pages 90 degrees or, failing that, print a hard copy to read. After having received numerous requests for it, I felt it better to make it available in some form, even if only as an imperfectly captured electronic image. See EmpathyIntersubjectivitybyAgosta

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 7, 2010

Engaging Heidegger’s Special Hermeneutic of Empathy for Self Psychology – the presentation

This is a presentation engaging Heidegger’s Special Hermeneutic of Empathy from the perspective of Heinz Kohut’s Self Pscyhology. A shortened version of this is scheduled to be delivered at the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis on Wednesday Feb 24th at 1:30 PM (13th floor 122 S. Michigan Ave). Open to the public – though it is always advisable to call ahead to verify the logistics and if you want to get the service lerning unit – right now, the snow is coming down in big globs here in Chicago. This is a draft. If you have any questions/inquiries that you would like me to address in the talk, please post a comment and I will address the matter in the talk (or if the answer is too long or complex, I will communicate the details separately via an email (so provide one)). Makes sense? 

  • This work takes its start from

– One idea in Kohut: the loss of the selfobject’s empathy leaves one apathetic, lethargic, depressed, a sense of not being human (e.g., p. 200 (How Does Analysis Cure))  and from …

- One line in Heidegger’s Being and Time where he calls for “a special hermeneutic of empathy [Einfühlung]” but does not give one – this talk is NOT psycho-biography, but (if it were) one might say that empathy was what was missing from the biography (and the psyche)…Please see attached for the PDF of the ppt… LFCAgostaEmpathy20090212

January 6, 2010

Advance Praise for Empathy in the Context of Philosophy

I am humbled by the comments of my colleagues, friends, and associates.

“An insightful and provocative exploration of a topic that has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves and the conceptual clarity needed for a proper understanding. Agosta’s study is rich in historical context and thorough in covering the intersections of philosophy and psychology on the question of empathy. It is also accessible and stimulating for a host of applications to current concerns. Agosta rightly, in my view, finds in Heidegger a primary vehicle for advancing the discussion, yet he has his own voice and sense of how to think it through. An impressive achievement.”

Lawrence J. Hatab
Louis I. Jaffe Professor of Philosophy
Old Dominion University
*************************************************
That much used and routinely abused word, empathy, has enjoyed an uncomfortable popularity in fields as disparate as politics and psychoanalysis.  At last a philosopher has arrived to bring clarity to the confusion.  Lou Agosta has brought together the salient points about empathy as seen in neurology, psychoanalysis and literature into a happy home under Heidegger.  Heidegger calls for ‘a special hermeneutic of empathy’ but does not give one. Agosta delivers it. The book is a must-read for anyone who chooses to use the word again.

 Arnold Goldberg, M.D.

Author, Misunderstanding Freud

Professor of Psychiatry

Rush University Medical College

***************************************************************

Lou Agosta’s Empathy in the Context of Philosophy is a vivid, sweeping, thought-provoking and attitude changing treatment of one of the central, if often neglected, ideas of our culture, namely Empathy.  It collects and scrutinizes ideas from a remarkable array of sources — from neuroscience to hermeneutics, from analytic philosophy to Freudian psychoanalysis, from Grimm Brothers stories to speech acts — all the while demonstrating Empathy’s seminal role in our understanding of mind, ethics, and ourselves.  If morality stands apart from empathy, Dr. Agosta also shows how it is a pre-condition of it.  He does this, and quite a bit more, through a lively tour of much of Twentieth Century thought, all the way correcting some of that thought’s myopia and self-righteousness, and allows us to regain a fine understanding, perhaps lost in the travails of modern life, of what it is that both makes us human and provides the possibility of joy with others.

                                                                Joel Levin

                                                                Author of Tort Wars and of Marrano Justice

  Joel Levin, Esq.

Levin & Associates Co., L.P.A.

*************************************************************

Empathy in the Context of Philosophy is a masterpiece of philosophical-historical scholarship, presenting a rich and comprehensive account of the explicit and implicit conceptions of empathy that have appeared in the course of Western thinking from Hume through contemporary phenomenologists, both philosophical and psychoanalytic. Agosta’s Heideggerian interpretation of empathy is truly a tour de force. In Being and Time Heidegger criticized traditional Cartesian conceptions of empathy and called for a “special hermeneutic of empathy,” presumably grounded in his analysis of existence, but he failed to offer such a hermeneutic himself. It is this missing hermeneutic of empathy that Agosta supplies, masterfully applying Heidegger’s modes of Dasein’s disclosedness to elucidate the design structure of empathic engagement, which Agosta rightfully claims constitutes the foundation of authentic relationality. This book will be an invaluable resource not only for scholars in philosophy and the human sciences, but for practitioners of psychoanalytic and humanistic psychotherapy as well.

–Robert D. Stolorow, Ph.D. [Psychology], Ph.D. [Philosophy]

   Author, Trauma and Human Existence (Routledge, 2007)  

http://robertdstolorow.googlepages.com

************************************************************

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers