Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding empathy: why phenomenology and hermeneutics can help medical education and practice

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article offers a critique and reformulation of the concept of empathy as it is currently used in the context of medicine and medical care. My argument is three pronged. First, that the instrumentalised notion of empathy that has been common within medicine erases the term’s rich epistemological history as a special form of understanding, even a vehicle of social inquiry, and has instead substituted an account unsustainably structured according to the polarisations of modernity (subject/object, active/passive, knower/known, mind/body, doctor/patient). I suggest that understanding empathy by examining its origins within the phenomenological tradition, as a mode of intersubjective understanding, offers a different and profitable approach. Secondly, I argue that the appropriation of empathy in medicine means that, ironically, empathy can function as a technique of pastoral power, in which virtue, knowledge and authority remain with the doctor (Mayes in Bioeth Inq 6:483–493, doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9195-9, 2009). And thirdly, empathy is in danger of being resourced as a substitute for equity and funding within health systems. I conclude however with hope for the productive possibilities for empathy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agosta, L. 2014. A rumor of empathy: Reconstructing Heidegger’s contribution to empathy and empathic clinical practice. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(2): 281–292. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9506-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M., D.G. Finniss, and I. Kerridge. 2014. Medicine’s inconvenient truth: The placebo and nocebo effect. Internal Medicine Journal 44(4): 398–405. doi:10.1111/imj.12380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. 2005. Empathy, 113–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broyard, A. 1993. Intoxicated by my illness. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, F., and A. Frewer. 2011. Ethics consultation and empathy. HEC Forum 23(4): 247–255. doi:10.1007/s10730-011-9164-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burks, D.J., and A.M. Kobus. 2012. The legacy of altruism in health care: The promotion of empathy, prosociality and humanism. Medical Education 46(3): 317–325. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04159.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bylund, C.L., and G. Makoul. 2005. Examining empathy in medical encounters: An observational study using the empathic communication coding system. Health Communication 18(2): 123–140. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1802_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, ed. J. Law. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coplan, A., and P. Goldie. 2011. Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coulehan, J. 2004. Empathy. Annals of Internal Medicine 140(10): 841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derksen, F., J. Bensing, and A. Lagro-Janssen. 2013. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: A systematic review. British Journal of General Practice 63(606): e76–e84. doi:10.3399/bjgp13X660814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Blasi, Z.D., and J. Kleijnen. 2003. Context effects: Powerful therapies or methodological bias? Evaluation and the Health Professions 26: 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie, R., and J. Macnaughton. 2007. Bioethics and the humanities: Attitudes and perceptions. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, S., I. Kerridge, and C. Hooker. 2014. Suicidology as a social practice. Social Epistemology. doi:10.1080/02691728.2014.895448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garden, R.E. 2007. The problem of empathy: Medicine and the humanities. New Literary History 38(3): 551–567. doi:10.1353/nlh.2007.0037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelhaus, P. 2012. The desired moral attitude of the physician: (I) empathy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15(2): 103–113. doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9366-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleichgerrcht, E., and J. Decety. 2013. Empathy in clinical practice: How individual dispositions, gender, and experience moderate empathic concern, burnout, and emotional distress in physicians. PLoS ONE 8(4): e61526. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. 2001. From detached concern to empathy: Humanising medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. 2003. What is clinical empathy? Journal of General and Internal Medicine 18: 670–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. 2014. From idealized clinical empathy to empathic communication in medical care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(2): 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9510-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge?. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, A. 2001. Dilthey, empathy and verstehen a contemporary reappraisal. European Journal of Social Theory 4(3): 311–329. doi:10.1177/13684310122225145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, R. 2005. Empathy. The Lancet, p. 1071. Retrieved from http://usyd.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwVZ07DgIxDEQjehokqLlApNibKEmNWHEAOIB_Kbfi_toYUcAl7DeWZyaEK2Mz0SlzlmrOsx2xInV3OQoDjL8z9s80X0_hYNs5vNb78_aI3zKAKN7RHTPRVC_UJt4XS51zEpDRPFyyDi5FQGuyZMS88FxCigpj0oJp7qNagUs4kj-Nb–PuUx3ic4prA.

  • Hojat, M. 2007. Empathy in patient care: Antecedents, development, measurement, and outcomes. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., D. Louis, F. Markham, R. Wender, C. Rabinowitz, and J. Gonnella. 2011. Physicians’ empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Academic Medicine 86: 359–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., D.Z. Louis, V. Maio, and J.S. Gonnella. 2013. Empathy and health care quality. American journal of medical quality: The Official Journal of the American College of Medical Quality 28(1): 6–7. doi:10.1177/1062860612464731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., S. Mangione, T.J. Nasca, M. Cohen, J.S. Gonnella, J.B. Erdmann, and M. Magee. 2001. The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61(2): 349–365. doi:10.1177/00131640121971158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., M. Vergare, K. Maxwell, G. Brainard, S.K. Herrine, G.A. Isenberg, and J.S. Gonnella. 2009. The devil is in the third year: A longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Academic Medicine 84: 1182–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, L. 2014. The empathy exams. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press.

  • Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E., and X. Yao. 2005. Clinical empathy as emotional labour in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 293(9): 1100–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern (trans: Porter, C.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Lupton, D., and A. Petersen. 1997. The new public health: Discourses, knowledges, strategies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaughton, J. 2009. The dangerous practice of empathy. The Lancet 373: 1940–1941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makkreel, R. 1996. How is empathy related to understanding? In Ideas in Husserl II, vol. 24, ed. T. Nenon, and L. Embree, 199–212. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayes, C. 2009. Pastoral power and the confessing subject in patient-centred communication. Bioethical Inquiry 6: 483–493. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9195-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, R. 2008. Empathy: A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11(3): 325–335. doi:10.1007/s11019-007-9104-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, R. 2009. Empirical research on empathy in medicine—A critical review. Patient Education and Counseling 76(3): 307–322. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, R. 2010. Empathy development in medical education: A critical review. Medical Teacher 32: 593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheler, M. 1954. The nature of sympathy (trans: Heath, P.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Schertz, M.V. 2007. Empathy as intersubjectivity: Resolving Hume and Smith’s divide. Studies in Philosophy and Education 26(2): 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. 1967. Phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seigworth, G., and M. Gregg (eds.). 2010. An inventory of shimmers: The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shouse, E. 2005. Feeling, emotion, affect. M/C Journal 8(6): 26.

  • Slaby, J. 2014. Empathy’s blind spot. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(2): 249–258. doi:10.1007/s11019-014-9543-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slote, M. 2009. Moral sentimentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, E. 1989. On the problem of empathy (trans: Stein, W.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.

  • Stueber, K. 2006. Rediscovering empathy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stueber, K. 2014. Empathy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stanford, ed. E.N. Zalta. CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus, F. 2001. The hermeneutics of medicine and the phenomenology of health: Steps towards a philosophy of medical practice. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus, F. 2014. Empathy as a necessary condition of phronesis: a line of thought for medical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(2): 293–299. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9487-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavakol, S., R. Dennick, and M. Tavakol. 2012. Medical students’ understanding of empathy: A phenomenological study. Medical Education 46(3): 306–316. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04152.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usherwood, T. 1999. Understanding the consultation: Evidence, theory and practice. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J., J. Cody, M. Schaal, and M. Hojat. 2012. The empathy enigma: An empirical study of decline in empathy among undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing: Official Journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing 28(1): 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J.H. 2011. The humanising power of medical history: Responses to biomedicine in the 20th century United States. Medical Humanities 37(2): 91–96. doi:10.1136/medhum-2011-010034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1949. The methodology of the social sciences. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2010. Empathy, embodiment and interpersonal understanding: From Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry 53(3): 285–306. doi:10.1080/00201741003784663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2011. Empathy and direct social perception: A phenomenological proposal. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2(3): 541–558. doi:10.1007/s13164-011-0070-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2014. Empathy and other-directed intentionality. Topoi 33(1): 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, D. 2015. You, me and we: The sharing of emotional experiences. Journal of Consciousness Studies 22(1–2): 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, K25, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Claire Hooker

Authors
  1. Claire Hooker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Hooker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hooker, C. Understanding empathy: why phenomenology and hermeneutics can help medical education and practice. Med Health Care and Philos 18, 541–552 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9631-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-015-9631-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation