In dieser Studie wird umfassend untersucht, wie sich die sympathetic imagination im Werk von J.M. Coetzee entwickelt. Zugrunde liegt die Annahme, dass die Art und Weise wie J.M. Coetzee seine sympathetic imagination zum Einsatz bringt die Empathiefähigkeit des Lesers zu steigern vermag. Ausgangspunkt für die Untersuchung und deren zentrale Analysekategorien für die Besprechung der Romane Coetzees ist ein Blick auf Spiegelneuronen als neuronale Grundlage für Empathie, ein relative neues und stetig sich erweiterndes Feld. Geteilte Aufmerksamkeit (shared attention) und Perspektivübernahme (perspective-taking) bilden den Mittelpunkt bei neurowissenschaftlichen Diskussionen über den Zusammenhang zwischen Spiegelneuronen und Empathie. Eine Analyse von Coetzees Romanen zeigt, dass in seiner Literatur vergleichbare Mechanismen zur Wirkung kommen. / The following study attempts a comprehensive evaluation of how the sympathetic imagination evolves in the works of J.M. Coetzee. The underlying assumption is that the way Coetzee employs his sympathetic imagination in his fiction enhances the reader’s empathetic capabilities. A starting point for the central categories of analysis and the close readings of his novels will be a brief exploration of the neuronal basis of empathy as discussed in the context of the discovery of and continuously extending research on mirror neurons as the neurological basis for empathy. Shared attention and perspective-taking constitute the focus of neuroscientific discussions of the connection between empathy and mirror neurons. A close look at Coetzee’s fiction will reveal comparable mechanisms in literary representation.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / In three of J. M. Coetzee’s recent novels, Disgrace (1999), Elizabeth Costello (2003), and Slow Man (2005), the South African author explores notions of authorship and challenges the possibilities of the sympathetic imagination. The notion of the sympathetic imagination has roots in Romanticism, and it connotes inhabiting another in order to understand or interpret. Romantic poet John Keats described the poet as “continually in for [sic] and filling some other body” (Letter to Richard Woodhouse), and Coetzee addresses the notion of the sympathetic imagination in his work. There are two facets of the sympathetic imagination: that which governs social relations and that which authors and creative minds attempt to claim as a driving force behind their work. It is important not to conflate the two separate facets of the sympathetic imagination. The social facet encourages good citizenship and allows humankind to behave in humane ways. It counters one’s private desire for mastery and balances self-interest with self-sacrifice; the sympathetic imagination helps others attain their goals and places others’ needs alongside one’s own selfishness. A sympathetic imagination is an essential quality in society, yet it will always yield only partial success. It cannot achieve complete success because truly inhabiting and embodying another living person is simply impossible, but in fiction, Coetzee explores the possibilities and limits of the sympathetic imagination at the level of language and metaphor. The other facet of the sympathetic imagination is often claimed by authors, poets, and artists to allow them to inhabit the subjects of their creativity. Coetzee tests the limits of authorial claims that writing is accomplished by applying a sympathetic imagination. In doing so, he creates metaphysical frames in which his own author-characters interact with other characters to reveal that some characters resist being written. In these metaphysical frames of fiction, Coetzee suggests that an author’s sympathetic imagination will never have total success; he sets forth a notion of partial success that helps address what is gained when the sympathetic imagination runs up against limits. My argument is that the authors and characters in these three novels attempt acts of sympathetic imagination and recurrently encounter limits. Coetzee questions perceived notions of authorship and the possibilities of the sympathetic imagination without offering alternatives. He critiques common notions of authorship and character writing but offers no real solutions.