ArgumentThe new English term “empathy” was translated from the GermanEinfühlungin the first decade of the twentieth century by the psychologists James Ward at the University of Cambridge and Edward B. Titchener at Cornell. At Titchener's American laboratory, “empathy” was not a matter of understanding other minds, but rather a projection of imagined bodily movements and accompanying feelings into an object, a meaning that drew from its rich nineteenth-century aesthetic heritage. This rendering of “empathy” borrowed kinaesthetic meanings from German sources, but (...) extended beyond a contemplation of the beautiful to include a variety of experimental stimuli and everyday objects in the laboratory. According to Titchener's structural psychology, all higher thought could be reduced to more elemental aspects of mind, and experimental introspection showed empathy to be constituted of kinaesthetic images. The existence of kinaesthetic images, Titchener argued, formed an incisive critique of the view that thought could take place without images, held by one of Titchener's major psychological rivals, the school of thought-psychologists in Würzburg, Germany. The new term “empathy” in early American academic psychology therefore delineated a kinaesthetic imaginative projection that took place on the basis of ontological difference between minds and things. (shrink)

In 1910 Geiger presents at the 4th Congress of Experimental Psychology a lecture on empathy. The focus is on the key psychological question: How do I know external personalities and what is the origin of this knowledge? He immediately shows that this question is complex and needs clarification. There are at least three different questions linked with it, and they must be disentangled. The first question is the “question of fact”, which is a phenomenological question: What experiences are in my (...) consciousness when I’m aware of facing an external ego? This requires a descriptive answer showing what kind of phenomena are given in the empathic act. Geiger further subdivides it in two parts. The first one is whether the other’s spiritual life given in empathy is experienced or just imagined. The second one asks if the relationship between the other’s perceived body and empathized spiritual life shall be conceived as just an associative process, or rather as a tighter “symbolic relation of empathy”. The second question is about the psychological function performed by the empathic act. Here Geiger contrasts the theory of association to the theory of empathy, considering whether we understand what the other is experiencing through an analogical induction or by means of a direct transposition of ourselves into the other. The third question asks if the correlation between expressive movements and corresponding feelings in the other person is acquired in the personal development. Here the empiricist, the associative and the imitation theories are considered in their features and limitations. Finally, in the last part of this paper Geiger introduces a very important distinction between the empathic act for single experiences, and the act of retrospectively reliving the internal motivations which link subsequent mental phenomena occurring in the other person. (shrink)