I imagine many of you have seen articles, books, and podcasts on the current trend toward solitude in our culture. Robert Putnam wrote a book in 2000 entitled Bowling Alone and he was more recently interviewed on The Daily (July 13, 2024 – “Robert Putnam Knows Why You’re Lonely”) on this topic. Putnam puts the peak of strong community participation around 1965, followed by a steady decline. More positively, The Good Life by Schulz and Waldinger documents the findings of the Harvard longitudinal study of what choices and life patterns yield a resultant “good life.” Choosing both long and short term commitment to relationships is the common ingredient to the “good life.” I have read The Good Life, which I highly recommend. It is informative, inspiring and moving, full of results from scientific study, but also very human stories, which make change feel accessible. I have not read Bowling Alone but listened to Putnam when he was interviewed by the Daily. Interestingly, Putnam himself admitted to his own neglect of the in-person participation which was causing a widespread decline in mental and societal health. As I recall, he pointed to his wife as a person participating in community activity in a positive way, but did not indicate that he would be changing his own practices.
I am writing now about this topic because I just read Derek Thompson’s article in the Atlantic, entitled “How Solitude is Rewiring American Identity.” His article is an accessible way to read up on this damaging trend, and he references both Putnam and the Harvard study, as well as other sources. Thompson sees three technological advances as causes and contributors to this trend: the automobile, the television and the smartphone/internet. He would date the beginning of this trend to roughly the same period as Putnam, the 1960’s. The increasing availability and affordability of the automobile gave rise to the suburbs, which moved American living into much more private space, the suburban backyard. The television moved more of recreation and entertainment into one’s own living room. Smartphones and the internet substituted virtual connection for in-person connection. This results in an increase in connectedness within families and among close friends. Many people text or phone close family and friends daily, because it no longer requires travel or a costly “long distance call.” Social media platforms also increase connectedness with those who are “kindred spirits” or of “my tribe,” people one will never meet but who share one’s viewpoint on something. That’s a gain both in terms of information shared and felt closeness.
But what has been lost by this most recent technological change is a middle community – people we encounter by actual physical proximity. These include neighbors, fellow churchgoers, other parents in your children’s school or extracurricular activities, members of your local gym, check-out employees at the local coffee shop or grocery, nurses and staff at medical and dental offices and many other acquaintances who are neither family nor kindred spirits ideologically. Interacting with that middle community, especially in person, Thompson says, is what forces us to learn how to get along with people who disagree with us. Our lack of contact with such people weakens our ability to practice tolerance and to learn from one another. There is benefit beyond hearing different opinions: according to one study (I can’t remember or cite where I read this) which urged people to talk with fellow travelers on a train instead of merely reading their book (or phone) to pass the time, the people who socialized with total strangers felt happier at the end of their ride than the ones who refrained from socializing. In those encounters, no permanent bond is formed, but there was an opportunity to show kindness and courtesy, which buoyed their spirits.
Initially, we might not want to have that human contact with strangers or those who might not share our perspectives. When I travel I often want to get something done, instead of chatting with a stranger. And around the holidays, I often see people writing to gripe when they have to spend holidays with “difficult” relatives, who don’t agree with them, particularly on politics and social issues. But what if we celebrated the opportunity to hear different opinions than our own? I was just having a difficult discussion about the forces arrayed in our culture against the authority of parents with a relative, getting more and more frustrated that he was not seeing things my way. Somehow by God’s grace, and with a little clarifying help from my husband who was listening to us both, we had a breakthrough, and I realized what he was trying to say. It was a valid point, and simultaneously he saw the validity of what I was saying. In the middle of the conversation I wondered if I should have just nipped this conversation in the bud, but ultimately, I think we both benefited from it. We both spoke, we both listened albeit somewhat reluctantly and we both heard the other and enlarged our own heart and viewpoint. Human contact was essential to that taking place.
Not only does human contact necessitate more adept navigation of differences of opinion, but it also builds bonds. That isn’t saying anything brilliant! Since being here in my neighborhood in Colorado, I have walked in the mornings as regularly as the weather allows with two women. We came from different places, backgrounds and faiths. We don’t walk when the morning temperature is 18 degrees or below. We have had a couple of stretches of frigid temperatures this winter, which means we have not seen one another for up to 10 days. Bill and I both noticed a decline in our moods when we weren’t getting our morning walks with our new neighbors! We need this human contact! And they missed it too! It is good to need people and also good to feel needed. Derek Thompson says this is one of the benefits of in person relationships, this real sense of “neededness.” Yet, there can be simultaneously this inertia, or desire for a break from scheduled social obligations. That inertia, in my experience, builds and intensifies the more I indulge in it. I would liken social engagement to eating healthy and getting exercise and keeping to myself as sticking to comfort and junk foods. I should always expect that what is good for me is harder to do than what isn’t!
Of course, there are times when solitude is good for us. A person who fears being alone with their own thoughts, always choosing to surround themselves with people and media, might need to decline an invitation. I know I need to be alone with God, but surrounded by people and distractions, I don’t always heed that quiet voice that urges me to “be still and know that I (my heavenly Father) am God” (Psalm 46:10). It is a question of balance, which each of us must pursue personally. A Sabbath rest applies not only to vocational work but also to the work of social effort and ministry. One can always veer too far in any direction in correcting a trend. I am writing this at a time in our culture when multiple researchers are observing a trend toward isolation which is harming well-being in a statistically significant way. It seems the solution would lie in more interaction rather than more isolation. Since we only have 24 hours in the day, where will the time come from to socialize with family, kindred spirits AND the “middle” category Thompson urges? For me, I can put my phone away more often and suddenly have more time!
What will move us to change, even in small ways? Life is a series of small decisions. Going to church in person instead of watching it streamed online. Walking with my friends at an hour I would not choose instead of walking alone. Every little bit helps! Do we have to leave off altogether the ways technology enables us to connect? The backlash to Covid makes people reject zooming in favor of getting together, but then getting together may or may not happen. At least zooming would have enabled them to see another face. My friend, Cindy and I are not able to be together very often at all, but we are contenting ourselves with regular emailing and phone calls, which buoy us both. And I am zooming with many other folks and grateful for the technology which allows me to have renewed contact with beloved old friends. Those are good investments in long term relationships where we share much in common. But I must be mindful of Thompson’s “middle” category of relationships which are not self-selected for common ground. May we make ourselves available and physically present to our neighbors. After all, it is what Jesus taught us. (Matthew 22:36-40)