Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 333–350 | Cite as

Direct Perception and Simulation: Stein’s Account of Empathy

Article

Abstract

The notion of empathy has been explicated in different ways in the current debate on how to understand others. Whereas defenders of simulation-based approaches claim that empathy involves some kind of isomorphism between the empathizer’s and the target’s mental state, defenders of the phenomenological account vehemently deny this and claim that empathy allows us to directly perceive someone else’s mental states. Although these views are typically presented as being opposed, I argue that at least one version of a simulation-based approach—the account given by de Vignemont and Jacob—is compatible with the direct-perception view. My argument has two parts: My first step is to show that the conflict between these accounts is not—as it seems at first glance—a disagreement on the mechanism by which empathy comes about. Rather, it is due to the fact that their proponents attribute two very different roles to empathy in understanding others. My second step is to introduce Stein’s account of empathy. By not restricting empathy to either one of these two roles, her process model of empathy helps to see how the divergent intuitions that have been brought forward in the current debate could be integrated.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Beata Stawarska who first introduced Stein’s account of empathy to me. I would furthermore like to thank Dan Zahavi, Soren Overgaard, Antonio Calcagno, two anonymous reviewers, participants at the conference “Empathy and Sympathy: Hume and beyond” (Antwerp, June 2010), and the my research group at the University Hospital Heidelberg for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This study was funded by the post-doc program of the Medical Faculty Heidelberg.

References

  1. Bateson, C.D. 2009. These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In The social neuroscience of empathy, ed. J. Decety and W. Ickes, 3–15. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. de Vignemont, F. 2010. Knowing other People’s mental states as if they were One’s own. In Handbook of phenomenology and cognitive sciences, ed. D. Schmicking and S. Gallagher, 283–299. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Vignemont, F., and P. Jacob. 2012. What is it like to feel another’s pain? Philosophy of Science 79(2): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Vignemont, F., and T. Singer. 2006. The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallese, V. 2001. The ‘shared Manifold’ hypothesis. From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7): 33–50.Google Scholar
  6. Goldman, A. 2006. Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, S. 2011. Two routes to empathy, insights from cognitive neuroscience. In Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, ed. A. Coplan and P. Goldie, 31–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacob, P. 2011. The direct-perception model of empathy: A critique. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2(3): 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lipps, T. 1907. Das Wissen von fremden Ichen. In Psychologische Untersuchungen, vol. 1, ed. T. Lipps, 694–722. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  10. Singer, T., B. Seymour, J. O’Doherty, K.E. Stephan, R.J. Dolan, and C.D. Frith. 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439: 466–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stein, E. (1917/2008). Zum Problem der Einfühlung. Edith-Stein-Gesamtausgabe 5. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
  12. Stein, E. (1985/2002). Aus dem Leben einer jüdischen Familie. Edith-Stein-Gesamtausgabe 1. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
  13. Stein, E. 1989. On the problem of empathy. In The collected works of Edith Stein, Vol. 3 (3rd revised edition, translated by W. Stein). Washington, D.C: ICS Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Stueber, K. 2006. Rediscovering empathy. Agency, folk psychology, and the human sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Visher, R. (1873/1994). On the Optical Sense of Form: A Contribution to Aesthetics. In Empathy, Form, and Space, ed. H. F. Mallgrave, 89–123. The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  16. Wispé, L. 1987. History of the concept of empathy. In Empathy and its development, ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, 17–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Zahavi, D. 2001. Beyond empathy. Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5): 151–167.Google Scholar
  18. Zahavi, D. 2007. Expression and empathy. In Folk psychology re-assessed, ed. M. Ratcliffe and D. Hutto, 25–40. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zahavi, D. 2008. Simulation, projection and empathy. Consciousness and Cognition 17: 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zahavi, D. 2010. Empathy, embodiement and interpersonal understanding: From Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry 53(3): 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zahavi, D. 2011. Empathy and direct social perception: A phenomenological proposal. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2(3): 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zahavi, D. 2012a. Empathy and mirroring: Husserl and Gallese. In Life, subjectivity & art: Essays in honor of Rudolf Bernet, ed. R. Breeur and U. Melle, 217–254. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zahavi, D. 2012b. Basic empathy and complex empathy. Emotion Review 4(1): 81–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zahavi, C., and S. Overgaard. 2012. Empathy without isomorphism: A phenomenological account. In Empathy: From bench to bedside, ed. J. Decety, 3–20. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinic of Psychiatry, Section “Phenomenological Psychopathology and Psychiatry”University Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations