Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elisa Aaltola
PhD, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy
PL 1627
70211 Kuopio, Finland
elanaa@utu.fi
1
Empathy, Intersubjectivity and Animal Philosophy
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate key works on empathy and intersubjectivity, and
to compare how they relate to non-human animals. It will be suggested that intersubjectivity
forms a powerful objection to scepticism concerning the minds of other animals, and lays the
grounds for normatively loaded empathic responses. It will also be argued that the core of
intersubjectivity takes place outside of propositional language, thus defying the linguocentric
stance often adopted in relation to other animals. Although descriptions of non- or pre-lingual
responses is challenging, the type of ‘attention’ brought forward by Simone Weil is offered as
one alternative way of understanding what it is to pay heed to animal others, and the work of
the ethologist Barbara Smuts is brought forward as an example of such attention.
Introduction
theorists and philosophers alike have began to argue for the relevance of these loosely related,
often conflated terms. The aim of this paper is to map out the potential of this development for
animal philosophy. Emphasis will be placed particularly on empathy and intersubjectivity, as the
It is not surprising that empathy and its co-concepts have begun to garner attention. Reason in
its more detached form has been the target of increasing re-evaluation ever since Genevieve
Lloyd’s gender based critique of its role in Western philosophy (Lloyd 1984). In animal
2
philosophy, a similar re-evaluation has been endorsed by figures such as Mary Midgley (1983),
and has been perhaps best expressed by Cora Diamond, when she argues that reason can act as
a form of “deflection” from the obvious and tangible in front of us (Diamond 2004). This type of
criticism has been echoed by many past thinkers, such as Edmund Husserl and Hannah Arendt,
who both warned us of mathematizing the reality by using nothing but reasoned categories and
detached logics between thereof to explain what surrounds us. (Husserl 1970; Arendt 1968)
The main thesis behind all these claims is that with nothing but reason to guide us, we gain a
distorted view, which can easily be manipulated so as to allow us to ignore or even wilfully
cause the plight of others. It is this that has sparked many ecofeminists to defy the heightened
status of reason (Plumwood 1991), and which has served to at least partially question the type
It has to be noted that intersubjectivity and empathy have been explored in animal philosophy.
Continental authors have made intersubjectivity one central theme of their thinking on other
animals. This follows the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, who famously maintained that the
“faces” of other human beings leave no room for skepticism. The face signals us that the other
being is an individual, and “convinces even ‘the people who do not wish to listen’” (Levinas
1961, p. 201). Although Levinas himself was critical of the mindedness of non-human creatures
(and thus the possibility of an ‘animal face’), Matthew Calarco has argued that his stance
applies to also other animals (Calarco 2008; see also Wolfe 2003). Here the other being is met
via an immediate, embodied encounter, and laid bare of all rigid conceptualizations (or
3
philosophy of Levinas, Jacques Derrida has maintained that shared vulnerability interrupts self-
endowed existence, and as such lays the path for an “interruptive encounter” with animals,
thus forcing us to respond to the animal condition (Derrida 2004). Again, a sense of
talked of ‘moments of madness’ (Calarco 2008) when suddenly seeing a cat (‘that cat’) gaze at
him. Words escaped and failed him, and as soon as they began to resurface, the moment –
during which the subjectivity of the cat had emerged crystal clear – was lost. (Derrida 2004) For
Derrida (and for Calarco), these moments defy Western metaphysics, which in his view partly
derives from the conceptual dualism between humans and all other animals. Suddenly, there is
no great Heideggerian abyss between myself and the pig or the hen, no unreachable dividing
line that forever distances humans from their kin – rather, one creature meets another, and
both recognise each other’s subjectivity. A further relevant theorist is Gilles Deleuze, who
talked of ‘becomings’ or ‘line of flight’ between humans and other animals. Rigid identities and
categories constructed around them lose meaning, and what is important is the process itself,
the becoming something, the movement in between. (Deleuze & Guattari 1988) Here, we are
pushed toward radical intersubjectivity, wherein even boundaries between self and other are
compassion, have been elegantly explored by Ralph Acampora (2006). Yet, the precise nature
metaphysical notions and critiques, requires further scrutiny. Hence, this paper hopes to add
intersubjectivity.
4
Empathy, on the other hand, has been brought forward in the feminist care tradition. Resting
on Carol Gilligan’s notion of gendered ethics, care theorists have suggested that reason and
justice have been used to subjugate women, nature and other animals. Instead, what is
required is an emotive, contextual and relational take on ethics, linked to feminine identity.
Here, a wide variety of emotions related to the broad umbrella notion of “care” are brought
forward. Empathy stands as just one attitude amongst a plethora of emotion, and although it is
often referred to (Curtin 1991), and although common ways of avoiding it have been mapped
out (Adams 2007; Luke 1995), it remains seldom analysed in any greater detail. Two exceptions
emerge: Josephine Donovan, who has talked of the importance of listening to animal voices,
has offered historical analyses on empathy, with particular emphasis in Schopenhauer and
Scheler (Donovan 2007), and Lori Gruen has utilised empathy as a method of understanding
and respecting differences amongst beings. Yet, even in these accounts the precise nature of
empathy, and the criticism directed against it, are not a key emphasis. Therefore, it is hoped
that this paper will shed more light on what the often mentioned but rarely analysed
“empathy” is.
Empathy as Origins
Before exploring the precise meaning of “empathy”, it is good to note that, of course, interest
in empathy and its co- concepts is nothing new. Their famous advocates include Adam Smith
5
and David Hume, the latter of whom powerfully maintained that: ‘No quality of human nature
is more remarkable, both in itself and in its consequence, than that propensity we have to
sympathize with others, and to receive by communication their inclinations and sentiments,
however different from, or even contrary to our own’ (Hume 1975, p. 316).1 Sympathy emerges
as an extraordinary capacity, which acts as the doorway to the reality of others, and provides
the grounds for morality. Arthur Schopenhauer talks of ‘compassion’ (Mitleid) as the only true
motivator of moral actions. He summarizes: ‘Only insofar as an action has sprung from
compassion does it have moral value, and every action resulting from any other motives has
none’ (Schopenhauer 1998, p. 144). Edith Stein, Husserl’s brilliant student and one of the few
Western philosophers to dedicate a whole book on the notion of ‘empathy’ (Einfühlung), also
sought to draw links between empathy and morality. She argued that we have ‘value feelings’
(Stein 1989, p. 101) and that ‘the ability to love, evident in our loving, is rooted in another
depth from the ability to value morally’ (Stein 1989, p. 102). In the process, an important role is
played by empathy, for it enables deeper familiarity with others and therefore ultimately also
with morality: ‘Every comprehension of different persons can become the basis of an
understanding of value’ (Stein 1989, p. 116). Through perceiving others, we also come to
perceive morality.
1
For Hume, ‘in sympathy there is an evident conversion of an idea into an impression' with the use of imagination
(Hume 1975). External signs in others convey an idea of an emotion in us, which is again ‘converted into an
impression’, which can ‘become the very passion itself and produce an equal emotion, as any original affection’
(Hume 1975, p. 317). The emotions of others are felt so vividly that they seem like our own: ‘The sentiments of
others can never affect us, but by becoming, in some measure, our own: in which case they operate upon us…. In
the very same manner, as if they had been originally deriv’d from our own temper and disposition’ (Hume 1975, p.
593). Therefore, sympathy enables one to experience what others experience – albeit in a weaker degree.
6
Contemporary thinkers have made similar correlations. For instance, Michael Slote has asserted
that: ‘One can claim that actions are morally wrong and contrary to moral obligation if, and only
if, they reflect or exhibit or express an absence (or lack) of fully developed empathic concern for
(or caring about) others on the part of the agent’ (Slote 2007, p. 31). Famous for her takes in
attachment and bonding’ (Churchland 2011, p. 7) and continues: ‘Kant’s conviction that
with what we know about our biological nature’ (Churchland 2011, p. 175). 2 According to
Churchland, it is typical to social species that their neurobiology enables individuals to care also
for the interests of (some) others, and this care in its various manifestations (including
empathy) forms the foundations of morality. Renowned psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen has
supported the correlation by exploring the effects that lack of empathy has. Discussing various
familiar personality disorders (such as psychopathic tendencies and narcissism), which are
characterised by the inability to empathise, Baron-Cohen concludes that lack of moral concern
or awareness can often be reduced to empathy disability. The key ingredient is objectification
of others, which walks hand in hand with lack of empathy: ‘When you treat someone as an
object, your empathy has been turned off’ (Baron-Cohen 2011, p. 7). Here, Martin Buber’s
suggestion that one must remain in an ‘I-you’ mode of thinking, instead of transgressing into an
‘I-it’ mode, is important. According to Baron-Cohen, it is the latter mode that accompanies
2
Primatologist Frans de Waal argues in a similar vein: ‘Aid to others in need would never be internalized as a duty
without the fellow-feeling that drives people to take an interest in one another. Moral sentiments came first;
moral principles second’ (de Waal 1996, p. 87).
7
‘empathy erosion’, and enables one to treat others as objects instead of subjects, as points of
This relation between empathy and origins of morality has clear relevance for animal
philosophy. Ever since Diamond brought forward the term ‘deflection’, it has appeared as if
standard, reason-prioritising animal ethics (until now the most substantial segment of animal
philosophy) has been in trouble. This is not so much because it fails to recognise the crucial role
the very factor that quite possibly motivates and directs moral thinking. You may offer me a
perfectly reasoned depiction of why the Argument from marginal cases (which lays down
analogies between the treatment of animals and human beings of equal cognitive level) applies,
but if I empathise more with disabled people and babies than I do with non-human animals, I
may quickly ignore your argument as if I had never heard it. Animal ethics is yet to meet the
human animal in her entirety – her moral phenomenology – and it may be because of this that
Paying attention to empathy is important also for another reason. It would appear that most
societies and far too many individual people suffer from empathy erosion, and even
terminology, they treat other animals as an ‘it’ to be rendered into an object of manipulation.
One could say that modern animal industries are the extreme manifestation of manipulation,
within which even the most tangible of sufferings gains little relevance. The non-human animal
8
of the industrial farm has become the ultimate object, whose experiences count for little or
nothing. Arguably, it is precisely the unwillingness to empathise with other animals that has led
within which animals are wrongly depicted as machine-like creatures poor or wholly lacking in
mental content and ability. Hence, in order to change this epistemic relation to other animals,
within which pigs and cows are approached as ‘its’, empathy is required. In other words,
empathy acts as a catalyst into perceiving animals as something more than objects of
manipulation. Following suit, it may be only by adopting empathy that the practical demands
There is considerable divergence when it comes to definitions of ‘empathy’. 3 Empathy and its
sister concepts are often used indiscriminately – particularly sympathy, compassion and
empathy tend to conflate. One often repeated distinction is that whereas sympathy and
compassion concern feeling for another being, empathy consists of feeling with (see Nilsson
2003). Yet, things are not so easy. Particularly compassion can also be viewed as a strong
feeling with another – so strong, that categories between ‘I’ and ‘other’ crumble down. Hence,
Schopenhauer brings compassion close to another sister concept, ‘emotional contagion’, since
3
References to ‘sympathy’ are very old, and can already be found in Aristotle’s philosophy. ‘Empathy’, on the
other hand, although also briefly mentioned by Aristotle, came as a translation from German ‘Einfuhlung’ (‘feeling
oneself into’) in the early 20th century. Theodor Lipps was one of the most popular advocates of this term, and
used it in relation to aesthetics.
9
within it ‘I suffer directly with him, I feel his woe just as I ordinarily feel only my own’
(Schopenhauer 1998, p. 143). Hume talks similarly of ‘sympathy’, thus proving the common
distinction lacking. An alternative way to distinguish empathy from its siblings is to peel off this
contagious element. Such a decision was made by Stein, who argued that ‘Empathy is a kind of
act of perceiving sui generis… Empathy… is the experience of foreign consciousness in general’
(Stein 1989, p. 11). What is important in this account is that empathy is representational, like
memory or fantasy, not “primordial”: it represents the experiences of others to us, but we do
not actually have to feel those experiences. Therefore, empathy is a quasi experience, rather
than a direct, lived experience, of the mental contents of another being. This means that
whereas sympathy and compassion blur the ‘I-other’ distinction, in empathy it remains intact
(hence, Stein criticized the stance – advocated by her contemporary Theodore Lipps –
according to which in empathy the boundaries between ‘I’ and ‘other’ disappear). When
looking at a fox trapped in a cage, I can perceive that she is in a state of fear and pain, without
Therefore, empathy is usually separated from emotional contagion: we do not need to share
another person’s mental state in order to have empathy with her. Consequently, it is
commonly argued that empathic experiences are ‘off-line’ (see Nilsson 2003; Goldman 1995).
But what does this quasi, off-line experience comprise of? According to some, imagination
takes center stage, as we try to imagine what the experiences of others are like, without
necessarily sharing those experiences. From this perspective, empathy is like sketching, with
4
In a state of empathy, we do not actually feel the pain, fear or sadness of others, but rather engage in grief or
concern for what we perceive to be the unfortunate state of the other individual (Churchland 2011).
10
the help of imagination, the experiences of another creature. To use Peter Goldie’s words,
‘Empathy is a process or procedure by which a person centrally imagines the narrative (the
thoughts, feelings and emotions) of another person’ (Goldie 2000, p. 195). Yet, it would appear
Stein is after something more direct or immediate, as for her empathy is a form of intuition to
be separated from mental states we can doubt, such as perception or fantasy. Following suit,
we can loosely define empathy as an experienced insight into the experiences of others. When I
empathise, I grasp (or rather I feel that I grasp) in an embodied, affective sense the mental
states of another being – however, I do not need to feel those experiences as they originally
occurred, nor do I simply intentionally produce detached flights of fancy or inference. (In
“cognitive” varieties – see Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright 2004. The definition used here forms a
This definition goes some way of answering the age old question, which concerns the leap of
faith required in inter-species empathy. How can a human being cross the species boundary
and perceive the experiences of other animals? As Richard Holton and Rae Langton emphasise,
many other animals may simply be too different from human beings for empathy to produce
accurate readings. Thomas Nagel’s famous bat, together with species such as platypus, remain
overly singular for one to conceive of their experiences: ‘We have no idea what it is like to see
the world this way – and no amount of sharpening our sensitivities could ever help us find out’
11
(Holton & Langton 1998, p. 15). As a result, ‘the method of imaginative identification has
Fortunately, Stein’s approach offers a partial solution to this issue of other minds. Human
beings do not need to share the experiences of other animals and thereby claim to fully know
them, for all that suffices is that they seek – with whatever limited means are available – to
envision what those experiences might be. In other words, the species differences need not be
miraculously collapsed and the human morphed into the non-human mind, for the latter
remains her distinct, breathtakingly different and in many ways unknowable being even when
we experience empathy toward her. The catch is to perceive of insight as something other than
may be unable to explain or fully depict, but which nonetheless appears real, tangible, and
immediately present.
Stein maintains that empathy toward other animals is entirely possible, for even if their
physiologies are different or even alien in many ways, they are not so distinct as to disable all
identification – particularly when we position them in the context of lived experience. Stein
argues: ‘Should I perhaps consider a dog’s paw in comparison with my hand, I do not have a
mere physical body, either, but a sensitive limb of a living body. And here a degree of projection
is possible, too. For example, I may sense-in pain when the animal is injured’ (Stein 1989, p. 59).
Empathy springs from an awareness of how bodies very different from each other still
5
It has to be noted that a similar problem concerns also other human beings, who are always different from
ourselves, and thus possibly beyond empathetic projection.
12
encompass key points of affinity, such as sentience and life, through which one can seek to
envision the lived experiences of others, even if often only faintly and only for a moment. Stein
argues: “This individual is not given as a physical body, but as a sensitive, living body belonging
to an ‘I’, an ‘I’ that senses, thinks, feels and wills. The living body of this ‘I’ not only fits into my
phenomenal world but is itself the centre of orientation of such phenomenal world. It faces this
world and communicates with me.” (Stein 1989, p. 5) Body parts and sensory systems that
appear alien can perform similar experienced functions or phenomenalities for their subjects,
and these experiences are communicable. Therefore, the worlds of bats and platypuses may
not be wholly beyond our reach, even if they include much that a human being can never
completely fathom let alone experience. A whale in the deep blue may experience fear or joy,
despite the obvious physiological and environmental differences. The key here is to look at
behavior, and follow its lead: if the behavior of the whale paves the way for insights or
perceptions of fear, no further reasons may be required. Perhaps in an effort to portray this line
other animals: ‘thus, too, I can understand the tail wagging of a dog as an expression of joy if its
appearance and its behavior otherwise disclose such feelings and its situation warrants them’
6
But how, exactly, can empathy allow for the difference of those animals, who are far removed from human
beings? Some further advice is found from Smith, who argued in his Theory of Moral Sentiments for a contextual
take on sympathy: ‘Sympathy does not in general arise from an idea of another person’s passion, but rather from
an idea of the situation in which the other finds himself’ (Nilsson, p. 47). Smith asserts that: ‘I consider what I
should suffer if I was really you, and I not only change circumstances with you, but I change persons and
characters’ (TMS 7.3.1.4). It would appear such contextuality is crucial if empathy with other animals is to hold
relevance. What is needed is thorough attention on the situation of the animal – not only her physiology, but also
her history, sensory world, surroundings, evolution, etc.
13
Indeed, Stein emphasises that it is possible to entertain experiences one has little familiarity
with: ‘He who has never looked a danger in the face himself can still experience himself as
brave or cowardly in the empathic representation of another’s situation’ (Stein 1989, p. 115).
Perhaps similarly, she who has never known what it is like to be confined to a space hardly the
size of one’s body or (more positively) what it is like to swirl through waves can imagine the
anxiety or joy of doing so. Again, it is behavior that serves as the reference point, and
constructs empathetic insights: the sorry gait, the barren look, or the playful flicks of the tail. Of
course, there likely exists a varied plethora of experiences wholly unknown to human beings.
This is the little talked of aspect of the mental lives of other animals: the types of mental
contents that are wholly specific to them. Here, it is perhaps only imagination, a flight of fancy,
that can serve as a proximate – and easily mislead – guide. Yet, it would be an overestimation
to suggest that all non-human experience falls into this category, and that therefore none of it
The obvious question still remains: How can one ever know for certain? Even if human beings
need not share the experiences of other animals, the issue of accuracy stays seemingly
relevant. Are these insights not mere projection, for surely behaviour too can be
misinterpreted? Yet for Stein, such a question makes no sense. According to her, empathy is
‘inner intuition’ (Stein 1989, p. 34), a form of immediate knowledge that offers certainty, a
beyond-doubt grasp of the experiences of other beings. The accuracy of empathy cannot
sensibly be questioned: “The world in which we live is not only a world of physical bodies but
also of experiencing subjects external to us, of whose experiences we know. This knowledge is
14
indubitable.” (Stein 1989, p. 5) This point must be emphasized. For Stein, empathy cannot be
questioned, for it is the very method through which we can comprehend that the world and
even our own experiences exist: it is only by understanding that we and our surroundings are
there for others to witness and experience that we do not fall into the desperate abyss of
solipsism and beyond. In fact, search for evidence is absurd, as Stein continues to claim that
through the viewpoint of “inference of analogy”, “we see nothing around us but physical
soulless and lifeless bodies” (Stein 1989, p. 26). For her, this is “odium of complete absurdity”.
In our everyday dealings with others, it is empathy rather than inference that offers certainty
by being a platform which it makes no sense to question (or makes sense only for those, who
have not come to grips with what is at stake). Without empathy, we not only live in a world of
pure physicality, but will have to question even this world’s existence: ‘Empathy as the basis of
intersubjective experience becomes the condition of possible knowledge of the existing outer
world’ (Stein 1989, p. 64). What is more, comprehending one’s own individuality is dependent
on grasping the individuality of others: ‘Our own individual… occurs on the basis of the
perception of foreign physical bodies in which we come upon a conscious life by the mediation
of empathy. We first actually consider ourselves as an individual, as “one ‘I’ amongst many”,
when we have learned to consider ourselves by “analogy” with another’ (Stein 1989, p. 64).7
Husserl offers a similar argument. When we perceive the world, we are already assuming that
others have their own viewpoints to it, that it is shared and interpreted via perhaps innumerous
7
In a similar vein, Evan Thompson states that self-knowledge requires empathy: ‘One’s awareness of oneself as an
embodied individual embedded in the world depends on empathy’ (Thompson 2001, p. 14). Patricia Churchland
offers this view scientific credential as she argues that self-attribution and other-attribution develop in relation to
one another (Churchland 2011).
15
phenomenalities: ‘And each subject can at the same time recognize, in virtue of mutual
understanding, that what is given to him and what is given to his companions is one and the
same thing’ (Husserl 1989, p. 208). It is only by abandoning skepticism and affirming
intersubjectivity that we can calmly trust that the world and its contents exist and are not just a
Cartesian, demonic play with our imagination. In short, the world must exist, because I am not
alone in perceiving it. Therefore, empathy exists beyond doubt, because it gives us the world.
To question its validity is nonsensical. Objectively, it may well be that empathy is coloured by
presumptions, but this type of a skeptical analyses has no place in its context. A point of
reference used by the phenomenologists is sight: it may well be subjective and only offer us
partial readings, or even hallucinations, but we trust it nonetheless. This is because we have to
trust it – to doubt sight would lead into a state of chaotic disbelief that paralyzed our everyday
lives. Empathy can be viewed in a similar light. Equally, as when I see a tree, I do not doubt its
existence or my own perception of it, I do not doubt my own empathy, for otherwise I lose the
world. Therefore, empathy emerges as a bridge to the experiences of others, a clear insight –
like a light suddenly illuminating a dark landscape – into what it is to be the other creature.
Theoretically, it can be doubted and indeed its contents may be utterly misconceived, yet to
This approach is commonly followed in relation to other human beings. We usually do not step
back and doubt our empathetic responses toward them, but instead accept these responses as
methods of knowledge. It appears unclear why the same should not apply to other animals. Yet,
many contemporary approaches to non-human animals begin with the sceptical assumption
16
that hens or sheep have no inner lives until we have definite proof for believing so. It is often
considered unscientific to rely on empathy, even if ever so slightly, and thus for instance many
welfare scientists (despite Bernard Rollin’s pleas) still use quotation marks when they discuss
animal consciousness or joy. It is precisely against this sceptical attitude that Stein’s way of
formulating empathy as a type of immediate knowledge, on par with sight, offers a poignant
challenge. The crucial point here is that there need not be certain evidence, nor certainty –
what suffices is that we have something which it makes little sense to doubt.
Here, we do not only ascertain, as Nagel did, that bats have inner lives, but also make claims
about the content of those lives. But do attributions of content not easily lead us astray?
Moreover, does Stein’s account really mean that ‘any empathy goes’, that even the most clearly
warped anthropomorphic conceptions are as valid as any other? Alternatively, does reliance on
empathy not mean that certain animals will unduly remain outside the sphere of recognition?
As already Hume pointed out, similarity and proximity render sympathy stronger, and the same
claim has been repeated time and again in contemporary social psychology, with obvious
implications for non-human animals. Thus, the dreaded consequence of empathy may be
anthropomorphism, which to some runs the risk of offering animals too much moral
significance, and which for others will eradicate the difference of animals, and as a result
render genuine moral respect toward them impossible (see Weil 2012) – moreover, on the
other side we run the risk of mechanomorphia. Thus, according to critics, empathy is unreliable,
and will yield us humanized or mechanomorphised animal forms empty of animal content.
17
This would suggest that something more than empathy is required. Now, for Hume the answer
was to be found from efforts of impartiality. Reflection could help one to steer away from
stubborn bias against those unlike oneself – simply giving up and conforming to existing biases
was not an option. Arguably, a similar commitment is required in relation to other animals:
empathy requires work in the form of reflection. But how, precisely, is this accomplished
Here the philosophy of Simone Weil offers one enticing alternative. Weil’s philosophy includes
the notion of ‘attention’, which gains an aura of religious mysticism, but which can also be
understood in a more secular sense, as a moral imperative. Indeed, for Weil attention is the
core of all human activity, albeit it is seldom truly realized or noted. Attention enables one to
see clearly, to comprehend the obvious, and to thus escape prejudiced constructions. The key
element is that it escapes wants, expectations, efforts, and ultimately all egoistic factors: we
gain attention when we ignore, even if only for a moment, our own self-directed motivations.
Thus, Weil explains that in order to perceive truth: ‘attention alone – that attention which is so
full that the “I” disappears – is required of me’ (Weil 2002, p. 118, see also Weil 2005).
Now, Weil’s philosophy has been incorporated into some animal philosophy. Josephine
Donovan refers to “attentive love” in the context of ethical awareness (Donovan 2007), and
Anat Pick has used Weil as a guide to comprehend creaturely vulnerability (Pick 2011).
However, what has remained unexplored is whether attention per se has an epistemological
18
affirmative (indeed, Lori Gruen marks that: “empathy for different others requires
many small acts of attention”, see Gruen 2007, 339; Kheel 2008, 229). It may be only when the
demands, expectations and desires of the self are set aside that the other being appears, in all
her difference. Of course, such setting aside is difficult, and may never be fully achieved; in fact,
to wholly let go of it would be detrimental to personhood. Yet, seeking at least partial letting go
of the most obvious motivations of the self appears necessary in order for one to truly grasp
another being and to afford space for her particularity. It is in this type of attention that the
door to immediacy is found. In essence, it requires one to approach other animals without
expectation or demands, and to dive beyond or under readymade presumptions. In this way,
attention consists of meeting another animal outside the most obvious of prejudices, positive
or negative, to see the pig or the rat and to follow their lead. In this process, it is important that
one does not consciously try to understand the other being. In fact, it is by letting go of all
efforts that the other creature may surface. Weil continues: ‘Not to try to interpret them, but
to look at them till the light suddenly dawns’ (Weil 2002, p. 120).
Intersubjectivity
For Buber, there is a way out from the objectifying ‘I-it’ mode, which is to be found from
forsaking categorical distinctions between ourselves and others and seeking for a state of
‘inbetweenness’ (Wallace 2001). Here, the ‘I’ and the ‘other’ cease to be two separate and
19
independent individuals, and rather constitute a new, joint way of being. It is here that we
meet the term ‘intersubjectivity’. Intersubjectivity goes beyond empathy, for rather than
approaching two creatures as separate, it views them as a continuum, a whole (Zahavi 2001).
Following suit, it is often defined as a coming together of two (or more) individuals to form
something more, something novel. One plus one is more than two. Stein describes
intersubjectivity as follows: ‘From the “I” and “you” arises the “we” as a subject of a higher
level’ (Stein 1989, p. 17), and ethologist Barbara Smuts argues that in intersubjectivity: ‘the
relationship creates for each individual a new subjective reality…. That transcends (without
negating) the individuality of the participants’ (Smuts 2001, p. 308). Like empathy,
interdisciplinary attention in the past few years. What makes it significant in the context of
empathy is that it acts as the basis for the latter: it is via intersubjective openness toward
empathy. The first of these is ‘theory-theory’, which presumes that one has a theory of mind
concerning the other being before empathy can truly flourish. This is the chosen path of
skepticism, which via inference seeks to find evidence of the minds of others by applying a
theory to all those individuals it encounters. The other option is ‘simulation-theory’, according
to which ‘mind-reading depends not on the possession of a tacit psychological theory, but on
the ability to mentally “simulate” another person’ (Thompson 2001, p.11). According to this
approach, which touches on emotional contagion, as we simulate other beings, we come to see
20
them as minded creatures. Yet, some argue that neither of these options does justice to
empathy. Something remains lacking, some common ground which empathy requires as its
basis, and this ground is, according to Evan Thompson, intersubjectivity. The claim is that the
self must be ‘intersubjectively open’ before empathy can take place – one must have a ‘pre-
reflective experience of the other as an embodied being like oneself’ (Thompson 2001, p. 12).
Similarly, Shaun Gallagher criticizes both theory-theory and simulation-theory on the grounds
that: ‘I must already have an understanding of the other and their experience – including the
Therefore, intersubjectivity feeds empathy. It is the approach we have toward other beings: we
presume that others have minds, that there are experiences and other mental contents, with
which we can identify. It is precisely intersubjectivity that lends empathy its aura of immediacy,
for it presents the minds of others as accessible. In order to come to grips with empathy toward
other animals, it is crucial to map out what intersubjectivity in relation to them may mean.
than meeting others with theory or simulation, others are indeed approached as beings with
minds. This point was emphasized by Husserl, who argued that only by forsaking scepticism,
can one discover a route to the experiences of others. That is, after one accepts the stance,
according to which other beings are creatures with minds (rather than merely a stance,
according to which they might have minds), it becomes steadily easier to comprehend what
their mental contents are. The vital thing is the chosen approach. The most common example
21
of this is that we approach other human beings, not as potential zombies, but as minded
mortals – in fact, it makes no sense at all to adopt the skeptical stance in relation to them.
Husserl states that: ‘Now, as to the persons we encounter in society, their bodies are naturally
given to us in intuition just like the other objects of our environment, and consequently so are
they as persons, unified with the bodies. But we do not find there two things, entwined with
one another in an external way; bodies and persons. We find unitary human beings, who have
dealings with us’ (Husserl 1989, p. 246). Similarly, Wittgenstein famously stated: ‘My attitude
toward him is an attitude towards a soul: I am not of the opinion that he has a soul’
(Wittgenstein 1958, p. 178). Human beings do not have minds only after proof is offered, we do
not approach them primarily as bodies, but rather they are seen as creatures with embodied
minds – and this appears self-evident. It is here that we find the core of intersubjectivity.8
Intersubjectivity is argued to be a vital ingredient, not only in comprehending others, but also in
comprehending the world and ourselves. It is precisely here that we find the core root of Stein’s
argument against skepticism, mentioned above. Serious doubt, thoroughly felt skepticism,
would lead to an intellectual catastrophe, a reality devoid of meaning. The same sense of
intersubjective immediacy can apply to perceiving other animals. Thus, for instance Dale
Jamieson has argued that other animals ought to be approached via an ‘affective stance’. For
8
The term ‘affective’ is often used here. Thompson argues that instead of ‘an epistemic gulf that can be crossed
only by inference’, we need to underline ‘affective engagement’ (Thompson 2001, p. 13), within which the starting
premise is that other beings are their own subjects.
22
beings to be zombies and recognize their minds only after evidence has been offered, it strikes
as unfeasible to assume that other animals are pure instinct, nothing but biological
mechanisms. Instead, it would be wise to accept the type of intersubjective openness many of
us have toward other animals, but which many have learned to ignore or altogether reject. That
is, refusal of skepticism begins with intersubjectivity and its openness toward the mindedness
of other animals.
Perhaps the most obvious trait of anthropocentrism has been precisely the refusal to become
intersubjectively open to creatures different from human beings, partly because this has
enabled its narcissistic yet lonely dream of human solitude. In fact, it could be argued that
human epistemology has suffered a significant restriction in the shape of skepticism, as the
innumerous different takes on this world, odd, peculiar and surprising viewpoints of other
animals, have gone unnoted. As a result, human understanding of non-human animals, the
world, and the self may remain limited and obscured. That is, if indeed Stein and Husserl are
right in maintaining that we can only truly have a grasp of the world and ourselves if we accept
the mindedness of others, the worrying possibility is that not recognizing the minds of other
animals has rendered the world and the human self into grey, bland entities, devoid of the type
of richness animal oddity and difference can foster. As the ethologist Barbara Smuts argues:
‘Experience suggests that by opening more fully to the presence of “self” in others, including
animals, we further develop that presence in ourselves and thus become more fully alive and
23
But where does intersubjectivity spring from? Thompson argues that social minds develop via a
‘dynamic co-determination of self and other’ (Thompson 2001, p. 3). Social animals are born
with this ability, they are ‘intrinsically “intersubjectively open”’ (Thompson 2001, p. 14). We
come to this world with the ability to relate to others as creatures with minds. This openness is
pre-lingual or non-lingual, and thus takes place on a much more fundamental level than theory-
theory: ‘An embodied practice of mind begins much earlier than the onset of theory or mind
capabilities… [which constitutes] a strong claim for primary intersubjectivity’ (Gallagher 2001, p.
103). Here, we understand others via an ‘immediate, less theoretical (non-mentalistic) mode of
interaction’ (Gallagher 2001, p. 87). This claim is supported by recent neurostudies and
‘interpersonal neurobiology’, which define social beings as inherently intersubjective. From our
very first experiences, far before the development of propositional language, we want to relate
to others as a ‘you’ and to be treated as a ‘you’ by others – in fact, our psychological health
Intersubjectivity is not pre- or non-lingual only in youth, but often also in adulthood. Although
the era of reason has made second-order thinking appear vital, and although it has fed the
notorious illusion that propositional language is our ‘prison’, outside of which there is no
experience, no meaning, and perhaps no reality at all, much of what we say and do is based on
– not propositional reflection – but something far more immediate. Often it is only when
immediacy offers conflicting responses, or no responses at all, that we seek to understand what
is happening by means of analysis and theory (Gallagher 2001). Intersubjectivity forms one of
24
these immediate ways of relating to one’s surroundings. Therefore, it is evolutionarily written
into the minds of social creatures, and manifested in their daily routines.
The important implication here is that by not allowing space for intersubjectivity with other
animals, we may be making a crucial mistake. If it really is the core of social comprehension, not
offering it space will render us socially inept. And if understanding the minds of others is
correct way, then those who block off intersubjectivity in their dealings with other animals will
lose the prospect of ever comprehending animal cognition. Intersubjectivity is the bridge to
grasping what happens in the minds of other animals, and ignoring it will yield to nothing but
mechanomorphia. In this way, the fundamental reason why skepticism is flawed stems from its
inability to recognize the importance of the social aspect of knowledge concerning other minds,
and the most elemental grounds for approaching other animals via intersubjectivity is that only
development and intellectual cultivation, which require detachment from lived experience, it
would be more beneficial to seek the child in us, the pre-linguistic state of being, in which
immediacy is vividly present. (Merleau-Ponty 2002) Perhaps it is precisely this that is required
sentimental or simply absurd to suggest that cows and pigs have inner mental lives. That is, less
attention needs to be placed on reasoned meta-analyses and propositional language, and more
25
emphasis channeled on immediacy and intersubjectivity. Arguably, if indeed intersubjectivity is
inherent to social beings, most of us have experienced it in relation to other animals. Yet,
cultural ramifications, our education into ‘being human’, may have laid obstacles on the way. It
There are further solid grounds for doing so. Accentuating reason and propositional language
often (albeit not necessarily) entwines with anthropocentric hierarchies. That, which distances
us from intersubjectivity is also that, which is named as the guiding feature of humanity. As
infamously exemplified by Descartes in his Discourse on the Method, language and reason are
often celebrated as human qualities, which all other animals lack, and which imply unique
moral importance. Within this ramification, intersubjectivity with other animals is viewed as
something ‘less than human’ – the stuff of children, the mentally undeveloped, or (in the
anthropocentrism that not only is the moral relevance of other animals manifested via reason,
or their reasoned capacities brought forward, but that also the very status of reason be
scrutinized critically. Offering reasoned arguments for animal ethics, whilst dismissing other-
Few have analysed intersubjectivity in great detail, and in fact, there seems to be something
Perhaps this capacity that comes before language is also intricately difficult to define with
26
are left with are sketches that touch on its possible neurological origins or social psychological
manifestations, and carefully illuminated accounts of its presence. Because of its avoidance of
beings (Wallace 2001). On the level of immediacy, it can be tangibly evident, but on the level of
Perhaps the best place to search for inter-species intersubjectivity are the accounts of those,
who have spent considerable time with other animals, whilst carefully trying to comprehend
what their own relation to those animals is. One of the most eloquent or resonating accounts
comes from Barbara Smuts. An ethologist, who spent years in the company of wild baboons,
and who since has researched also dogs, has sought to understand the mysterious space that is
formed of and between humans and other animals. After spending a significant amount of time
with baboons, Smuts found that she was ‘learning a whole new way of being in the world – the
way of the baboon’ (Smuts 2001, p. 295). Expanding on the idea, Smuts writes: ‘The baboon’s
thorough acceptance of me, combined with my immersion in their daily lives, deeply affected
my identity. The shift I experienced is well described by millennia of mystics but rarely
the group-mind of the baboons’ (Smuts 2001, p. 299). Crucially, in this process, she ‘had gone
from thinking about the world analytically to experiencing the world directly and intuitively’
27
Smuts’ account beautifully demonstrates that within intersubjectivity, one is guided toward a
understanding of ourselves and others. Suddenly, these moments ‘just exist’, and with
breathtaking ease guide our actions toward new directions. A human being finds herself
immersed in the company of other animals, and witnesses in herself an ability to relate to a cat,
a cow, or a rat. The mysteriousness of these moments is accentuated by the way in which
human–animal interaction can defy the readily given categories of ‘human’ and ‘animal’, and
perhaps even question the validity of language itself. Here, the categories between ‘I’ and
‘other’ become unstable or fluctuating. Describing her relation with her rescue dog Safi, Smuts
states that: ‘Trust deepens, mutual attunement grows, and that elusive quality we call
consciousness seems to extend beyond the boundaries of a single mind’ (Smuts 2001, p. 305).
The two have formed a new way of being, a new space of intersubjectivity, with its own rules
and perspective. Smuts describes one particular moment when she found a very profound
connection with Safi: ‘Looking into her eyes, my body relaxed. Her face became the world, and I
seemed to fall into her being’ (Smuts 2001, p. 305). It is difficult to think what could more
concretely defy the standard dichotomy between humans and other animals.
Arguably, interaction with other animals constitutes often the type of a moment of madness
that Derrida discusses – mad, because propositional language and standard dichotomies fail to
do it justice. It is these moments that Smuts’ accounts exemplify. By simply entering into a
wordless world, where other animals are subjects just as surely as she is, Smuts gains
epiphanies which escape language, and which seem far more substantial than the constricted,
28
biased, and perhaps hopelessly narcissistic constructions offered by reasoned analysis. Her
‘becomings’ or movement, which challenges stereotypes and strict categories built around
‘humans’ and ‘animals’. It is no longer important what species you are, but rather how you
relate to others, how you submerge into their world, and how each moment is marked by
creation of something new. Here, anthropocentric hierarchies and dualisms are questioned as
one plus one does, indeed, become more than two, and as the most crucial question becomes:
Therefore, intersubjectivity marks a point of openness toward other animals, and Smut’s
account serves as its graceful manifestation. It acts as the basis on which to build empathy, and
also forms an alternative to the way in which the latter respects boundaries between ‘I’ and
mysticism, yet it would appear that it is also intrinsic to our animal being, and hence something
Outside Theory
It is not difficult to see why empathy and intersubjectivity form an attractive basis for animal
philosophy. First, they invite us to witness the experiences of other animals, and thereby to pay
29
heed to the animal herself. She becomes the primary point of interest, and arguably it is only
such prioritization that can do justice to other animals. We need to understand them better, to
try and ‘see’ them, before animal philosophy and ethics can gain validity. The animal needs to
be the reference of all inquiry, the constant point of attention, for one to be able to find or
construct norms and values that resonate more with what she is than with our own prejudices.
The second and related benefit is that empathy and intersubjectivity shield us from deflection.
The animal is not rendered into an abstract point of theoretical pondering, but remains a flesh
and blood creature, with her own very tangible and inherently specific viewpoint. In fact, there
are no generic “animals”, but only specific beings, with their own particular bodies, mental
characteristics, and histories. Empathy and intersubjectivity spring from the specificity and
concreteness at the root of the individual animal. Thus they by necessity resist generic
The third advantage is defiance against dualism. By questioning the rigidity of the boundaries
between humans and other animals, particularly intersubjectivity can, on a concrete level,
‘animals’ as rigid categories, but rather something new is formed of the two – a process that
The fourth advantage is that empathy and intersubjectivity remind us of the difference of other
30
‘sameness’ and forces all non-human animals to fit anthropomorphic illusions, thus creating
‘little people’ of pigs and sheep, a contrary argument is that intersubjectivity and empathy hold
the promise of underlining difference. Taken as efforts to question the priority of the ‘I’, and to
enter into a space of other-directedness, they can at best show us glimpses of what it is to a be
another, utterly different creature. As Smuts argues: ‘These moments reminded me how little
we really know about the “more-than-human world”’ (Smuts 2001, p. 301). Here Weil’s
“attention” in the form of holding back one’s own presumptions, even one’s own thoughts and
emotions, takes precedence. It is only then that the other being emerges, in all her tantalizing
difference.
Finally, it is important to note that empathy and intersubjectivity may perhaps never be
objective – in fact, they take flight from the subjective level – but this does not hinder their
potential to steer away from the types of warped biases installed in us. The promise that
empathy and intersubjectivity hold is not so much objectivity as immediacy. It is all that comes
that ought to be scrutinised, not subjectivity as such. By sweeping aside at least some of these
influences, and by facing the animal (even if on an inherently subjective level), can animal
Conclusion
31
Empathy has been linked to the origins of moral awareness, and positioned even as the latter’s
necessary basis. Intersubjectivity, on the other hand, gives grounds for empathy. Together the
two offer a challenge against, not only anthropocentric modes of thought, but also more
Although many would argue that there is no cognition outside propositional language, a
tantalizing possibility – unduly discarded in much of modern philosophy – is that most of what
happens within and between beings is external to language. Here animal minds emerge as
Woolf states in her book Flush about a dog: ”Not a single myriad sensation ever submitted itself
to the deformity of words”. Empathy and intersubjectivity are gateways to this type of non-
human immediacy. Allowing them to play more of a role will not only show us the plethora of
experience inaccessible to language, but will also be beneficial for the human animal. Smuts
follows Husserl and Stein when she suggests that the intersubjective mode of being offers the
prospect of building entirely new ways of understanding the world: ‘My awareness of the
individuality of all beings, and of the capacity of at least some beings to respond to the
individuality in me, transforms the world into a universe replete with opportunities to develop
personal relationships of all kinds’ (Smuts 2001, p. 301). With empathy and intersubjectivity,
the world may appear anew, filled with fresh perspectives, mutuality and awe.
Although this paper has concentrated on those creatures most obviously sentient, it should be
noted that empathy and particularly intersubjectivity can be expanded toward also those less
32
akin to mammals and birds (indeed some, such as Marti Kheel, expand empathy to natural
entities, see Kheel 2008). Arguably, our understanding concerning the capacities and
subjectivities found in the animal world is very limited, and it is a wise decision to remain open
toward minded engagement even with those creatures tiny, distant or bizarre, who at first
References
Acampora, Ralph (2006). Corporal Compassion: Animal Ethics and Philosophy of Body. University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Adams, Carol (2007). “The War on Compassion”. In Carol Adams & Josephine Donovan (eds.) The
Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Baron-Cohen, Simon (2011). Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty.
London: Penguin Books.
Baron-Cohen, Simon & Wheelwright, Sally (2004). “The Empathy Quotient: And Investigation of
Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism and Normal Sex Differences”.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34: 2.
Calarco, Matthew (2008). Zoographies: The Question of the Animal, New York: Columbia University
Press.
Churchland, Patricia (2011). Brainturst: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton
University Press.
33
Crist, Eileen (1999). Images of Animals: Anthropocentrism and Animal Mind. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix (1988). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Brian Massuoni (transl.). London: Athlone.
Derrida, Jacques (2004). “An Animal That Therefore I Am”. In Peter Atterton & Matthew Calarco
(eds.) Animal Philosophy: Essential Readings in Continental Thought. London: Continuum.
Diamond, Cora (2004). “Eating Meat and Eating People”. In Cass Sunstein and Martha
Nussbaum (eds.) Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. London: Routledge.
Donovan, Josephine (2007). “Attention to Suffering: Sympathy as a Basis for Ethical Treatment of
Animals”. In Donovan, Josephine & Adams, Carol (eds). The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics.
Columbia University Press.
Gallagher, Shaun (2001). “The Practice of Mind: Theory, Simulation or Interaction?”. Evan
Thompson (ed.) Between Ourselves: Second-person Issues in the Study of Consciousness. Thorverton:
Imprint Academic.
Goldie, Peter (2000) The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Holton, Richard & Langton, Rae (1998). ‘Empathy and Animal Ethics’. Singer and His Critics. Dale
Jamieson (ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gruen, Lori (2007). “Empathy and Vegetarian Commitments”. In Carol Adams & Josephine Donovan
(eds.) The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Philosophy. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Hume, David (1975). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jamieson, Dale (2002). “Science, Knowledge, and Animal Minds”. In Dale Jamieson (ed.)
Morality's Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
34
Kheel, Marti (2008). Nature Ethics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Levinas, Emmanuel (1961). Totality and Infinity. Alphonso Lingis (transl.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press.
Lloyd, Genevieve (1984). The Man of Reason: 'Male' and 'Female' in Western Philosophy.
London: Routledge.
Luke, Brian (1995). “Taming ourselves of Going Feral? Toward a Nonpatriarchal Metaethic of Animal
Liberation”. In Carol J. Adams & Josephine Donovan (eds.) Animals and Women: Feminist
Theoretical Explorations. London: Duke University.
Midgley, Mary (1983). Animals and Why They Matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Nilsson, Peter (2003). Empathy and Emotions: On the Notion of Empathy as Emotional Sharing.
Umea Studies in Philosophy 7.
Pick, Anat (2011). Creaturely Poetics: Animality and Vulnerability in Literature and Film. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Plumwood, Val (1991). “Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the
Critique of Rationalism”. Hypatia 6:1.
Smutts, Barbara (1999). “Reflections” in J.M. Coetzee: The Lives of Animals. Princeton
University Press.
Stein, Edith (1989). On the Problem of Empathy. Watraut Stein (transl.). Washington: ISC
Publishing.
Thompson, Evan (2001). “Empathy and Consciousness”. Evan Thompson (ed.) Between
Ourselves: Second-person Issues in the Study of Consciousness. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
35
Waal, de Frans (2006). “Appendix A: Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial”, in Primates and
Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wallace, Alan (2001) ‘Intersubjectivity in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism’, in Evan Thompson (ed.) Between
Ourselves: Second-person Issues in the Study of Consciousness (Thorverton: Imprint Academic).
Weil, Kari (2012). Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? New York: Columbia University
Press.
Weil, Simone (2005). An Anthology. Sian Miles (ed.) London: Penguin Books.
Wolfe, Cary (ed.) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
36