Stein and Honneth on Empathy and Emotional Recognition

For seminal examples of this, see the efforts made by Steinbock (1995) and Zahavi (2001) to demonstrate the contemporary importance of Husserl’s analyses of, e.g., transcendental intersubjectivity, generativity, normality, typicality, and the lifeworld(s). See also the classical works by, e.g., Schutz (1967), Gurwitsch (1979), and Paci (1972). From the side of critical social theory, Honneth (2008: 29–35; 1995b: 150–169; 2007: 118–121) has engaged, in an occasionally critical but generally open-minded and appreciative way, with the work of Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Levinas.

See, for example, the recent studies by Jaeggi (2014) and Guenther (2013).

I am unfortunately unable to explicitly address here the extent to which the rather different frameworks underlying Honneth and Stein’s work (i.e. the former’s strong intersubjectivism and normativism, versus the latter’s phenomenological approach) can be easily and productively reconciled; an important and interesting issue that would (at least) require a separate paper. Indeed, my approach will be generally closer to the phenomenological methodology adopted by Stein. On the other hand, given that Honneth himself gives phenomenological considerations a fundamental role, and that I will be addressing issues that he takes to be of fundamental importance to his own project, this omission will not, I hope, render my argument wholly superfluous. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for urging me to make this limitation of the paper more explicit.

In regard to Honneth’s broader project of reconstructing a critical social theory based on recognition, see the detailed study found in Petherbridge (2013), as well as Honneth’s own presentation in his inaugural lecture (2007: 63–79).

Notably, phenomenologists have also emphasized the role of social types and typification in empathy and interpersonal understanding. For recent treatments of this issue, see Zahavi (2010: 300–301) and Taipale (2015b).

See the interesting, although apparently slightly different, account offered by Honneth his discussion of the Kantian notion of respect (2001: 222).

Honneth discusses the different forms of recognition pertaining to love, rights, and solidarity, in his seminal work, The Struggle for Recognition (1995a, 92–139).

Thus, to cite one example of many, Honneth writes of “einer vorgängigen Einstellung der Anerkennung oder Anteilnahme” as being prior to all cognitive attitudes with regard to the world of social relations (2005: 63, my emphasis).

For reasons of space I am unable to discuss here Honneth’s attempt to render cases of reification compatible with his claims regarding elementary recognition (2008: 52–63).

For a discussion of the manner in which emotions of self-approbation or -disapprobation (such as pride, embarrassment, shame, or guilt) can be directed towards a first-order emotional response, bringing about a lived and pre-reflective sense of that response being normatively appropriate or inappropriate, see Drummond (2004: 123f.).

The convergence between elementary recognition and empathy has been briefly noted, but not discussed in any detail, by Zahavi (2010: 305). See also the phenomenologically minded discussions of elementary recognition from Varga (2010), and Varga and Gallagher (2012), although the role of empathy is not considered.

When referring to Stein, I have used the critical Edith Stein Gesamtausgabe editions of Zum Problem der Einfühlung and Beiträge zur philosophischen Begründing der Psychologie und der Geisteswissenschaften (2008, 2010). Where possible, I have indicated in square brackets the relevant pagination in the English edition (1989, 2000), although I have occasionally differed terminologically from these translators in my rendering of Stein’s German.

Stein’s descriptions of this level or modality of empathy are highly suggestive but could probably benefit with more precision. Unsurprisingly, one finds a variety of interpretations in the secondary literature. See Zahavi (2014: 137f.), Jardine (2015), Shum (2012: 185–195) and Dullstein (2013: 343–346).

For a detailed phenomenological discussion of the motivational and evaluative nature of the emotions, see Drummond (2013). See also the papers in the present Special Issue by Szanto (2015) and Vendrell Ferran (2015), which deal with Stein’s account of emotional rationality as well as the contribution by Taipale (2015a), who develops Stein's view that in empathy we typically take another person's emotions to be situated in a motivational context unique to that person.

See Goldie (2000: 12–16), Drummond (2004).

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for encouraging me to relate Stein’s position to this distinction from the contemporary debate.

Stueber often presents his arguments for re-enactive empathy as criticisms of the theory of mind approach adopted by, e.g., Wellman (1990) and Gopnik and Meltzoff (1997), as well as of some hybrid theorists such as Nichols and Stitch (2003), as these thinkers deny re-enactive simulation an epistemically central role in social cognition (2006: 165–171). Since Stein also explicitly rejects the claim that theoretical influence forms the basis of social understanding (see Stein 2008: 40–42 [26–27]), I will not consider the success of these arguments as criticisms of theory–theory, but will rather focus on their relation to Stein’s own positive proposal. For an extensive phenomenological discussion of the social cognition debate, and a defence of a Stein-inspired position within this debate, see Zahavi (2014).

Interestingly, another important distinction drawn by Stein coincides in many respects with Stueber’s, namely that between sensuous empathy, in which the other’s body is given as a lived body (i.e., as directly embodying fields of sensations), and the variety of empathy which targets the other’s motivated egoic acts. On Stein’s account, both sensuous and act-targeting empathy can occur already at the perceptual level, and equally they can both undergo explication through presentification (2008: 74–78 [57–62]). A more detailed discussion of the merits of Stein’s proposal as compared to Stueber’s would do well to assess whether her pair of distinctions allows us to accurately conceptualize a wider variety of empathic situations than does Stueber’s more binary account.

I include the caveat ‘in the same way’ here, since it may be that when we examine the way in which empathic enactments in their temporal unfolding are motivated, then a unidirectional foundational relationship between empathy and affective response will become unsustainable. After all, and as Stein herself points out, our epistemic interest in getting to know a certain matter more closely is itself shaped by our affective responses to that matter, as well as being dependent upon a more general stance towards the value of a specific type of knowledge (2008: 125f. [108]). One consequence of this is an active empathic interest—what Stein at one point calls the “characteristic stance (Haltung)” of empathy, namely our actively “turning towards and submerging ourselves within foreign lived experience” (2008: 36 [23, translation modified])—may often be rooted in our affective response to the other, as well as in our own prevailing personal values and interests. However, these more genetic-phenomenological considerations do not challenge the central theses here, namely that (i) our interpersonal affective responses are essentially motivated by and founded upon empathetic senses, and that (ii) at least certain basic forms of empathy do not presuppose an affective response.

See Husserl (1989: 282–288, 341–343).

Stein also claims that emotional sharing [Mitfühlen] is grounded in empathy (2008: 25f. [14f.]); see Zahavi (2014: 245).

See Honneth (1995b: 162–164).

For a detailed phenomenological treatment of respect as a moral emotion of the recognitive strand, and as grounded in empathy, see Drummond (2006).