Could you be an empath? If merely reading that question arches your top lip into a derisive sneer, then please lean in, take a deep, mindful breath, and know that I feel you. 

Over the past few years, a small clique of very special people have come to believe that they have a rare ability to experience the emotions of others. These self-identified “empaths” hold that they are not only gifted, but also at high risk of mental exhaustion due to their powers. As such, a small industry has developed to protect them from the vicissitudes of everyday life.

It takes astonishing self-absorption to make another’s feelings about you

US psychiatrist and author Dr Judith Orloff MD is regarded by many as the “godmother of the empath community” and she’s published a slew of books spanning self-help, spirituality and what might politely be called pop psychology. On her website she offers courses, videos and private sessions ($365 to be paid in advance for a 55-minute consultation). Orloff claims to be an empath herself, which she says means she “feels others’ emotions, physical symptoms and energy”. Being thus “naturally giving, spiritually attuned”, she has developed defence mechanisms to ward off “emotional vampires” who seek to “zap” her “energy”.

For Star Trek fans, the term “empath” might invite memories of the meaningful stares of Deanna Troi. Alas, this is not science fiction, though that’s not to say it is fact either. People do of course have varying levels of empathy and callousness, and there is evidence of a biological basis for this.

In the early 1990s, a team of Italian researchers discovered individual neurons in the brains of macaque monkeys that fired both when the monkeys grabbed an object and also when the monkeys watched another primate grab the same object. Known as mirror neurons, they are a type of brain cell that respond equally when we perform an action and when we witness someone else perform the same action. This is a world away from claiming to feel the others’ emotions as if they were one’s own. If you cry out after touching a hot surface, I know not to do it — that doesn’t mean I feel the scale or nuance of your pain if you get divorced.

The irony in the empath movement is that it takes an astonishing level of self-absorption to make another person’s feelings about you. As psychotherapist and author Dr Stella O’Malley wryly observes, the label “seems to be used as a shorthand way of saying that they’re kind or nice” and “it is almost paradoxical to label yourself an empath because if you are universally empathic then you would know that calling yourself an empath will irritate people”.

Perhaps a cultural difference is at play. To the British, for most of whom merely existing is a bit embarrassing, there is an inescapable cringe factor to the idea of soaking-up another person’s leaking feelings. From reading the accounts of self-identified empaths, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that these are the same bores who, just a couple of decades ago, would’ve claimed to be “spiritual” on account of visiting a Buddhist temple on a gap year. Arguably, the popularity of this emerging label is due to the spread of Californian cultural imperialism across social media.

There is a place for remaining detached, for being a bit of a cold fish

The cues we rely on to find our tribe are now lined-up in social media bios. “Empath” sits neatly alongside preferred pronouns and various self-diagnosed neurodivergent conditions — it’s a way for those who believe themselves to be special to find like-minded folx. In the crowded world online, where character can’t be subtly gauged with conversation and facial expressions, it is not enough to simply exist. Personal and political territory must be marked with a metaphorical line of piss, whether that’s “BLM” or a Ukraine flag or even “anti-woke”. Perhaps ludicrous labels such as “empath” do allow people to form connections, just not in the ways they might anticipate.

It might not come as a shock to learn that women are more likely to identify as being empaths than men. Orloff suggests this is because “in Western culture sensitivity may be seen as a weakness or too “feminine”. This is undoubtedly true, though an inverse argument could be made — that for women, being seen as being “kind” is a form of social currency. We gain status by being unkindly kind — by ripping into others when they’re seen as insufficiently emotional. This is why groups of women gush white lies. Women refrain from ever telling the truth that a dodgy pair of trousers does make a fat arse look gargantuan. To forget, to put the truth above another’s feelings, is a social sin that we are rarely allowed to get away with. Given these brutal “be kind” rules, it follows that a greater number of women than men may see a social advantage in calling themselves “empaths”.

Sexual politics aside, there is a place for remaining detached, for being a bit of a cold fish. Were war reporters to be overcome by the suffering of those they report on, the wider world would neither be able to learn about nor from conflicts across the globe. If firefighters broke down and cried when they should be busting into burning buildings, they’d have more than wet hankies weighing them down. In short, were we all to become blubbering emotional sponges, society would collapse.

In truth, there is no such thing as an empath. We can’t feel another person’s emotions. Perhaps the label does serve a useful social purpose — like a leper’s bell, it can show us whom it would be sensible to avoid.