The Role of Empathy in Literary Reading: From <i>Einfühlung</i> to the Neuroscience of Embodied Cognition, with the Example of Kafka’s <i>The Metamorphosis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Hermann Lotze, Robert Vischer, and Theodor Lipps pioneered the notion of Einfühlung, a term translated into the English empathy by Edward Titchener in 1911. This article investigates the role of empathy in literary reading by reconnecting it to its origins in the theories of Einfühlung and by revisiting these theories in the light of neuropsychological studies of embodied cognition carried out since the nineties. Contemporary to the coinage of the term empathy and to the broader dissemination of the notion of Einfühlung, Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis (1915) is here used as a test terrain for the hypotheses generated by this investigation. Kafka’s novella shows us how literature can use “fantastic cognition” (Kukkonen) to open a space of empathic indetermination in which the reader can resonate with structures of feeling extended beyond “normal” human sensorimotor forms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".