The Surprising Reason Why Americans Are So Lonely
euraeka.com
euraeka.com
Every one of my parent's 14 siblings and my 32 first cousins lived within 10 miles. We all saw each other at least once per week.
Our mailman cut our hair, our dry cleaner picked up and delivered, our principal was also manager of the local swimming pool, and we worshipped in our neighbor's basement.
We knew the names of every police officer, fireman, cashier, clerk, waitress, gardner, and handyman in our neighborhood. If you ever needed anything, someone knew someone else who could help you. We didn't have google, cell phones, or cable TV; we had lots of other people in our lives all the time.
In college, I lived with 35 others in a fraternity house. We didn't do a whole lot of planning. There was always someone around to do stuff with.
Today, I don't know the name of a single neighbor. I don't remember the last time I lived in a house without a fence in back or with a porch in front. My nearest relative lives 1000 miles away. I know the names of exactly 2 waitresses; guess where I eat out all the time?
Loneliness probably has more to do with the proximity of people in your life than all these other "factors".
I don't know when things changed, but they sure have. Anyone with experiences similar to mine?
That's how I thought everybody grew up.
My dad died and my mom remarried and moved off to a retirement community in Florida. They have about 1200 units which are mostly full in the winter. Everybody attends the same church, everybody participates in the same activities, everybody sits out on their porch in the evening. You're never bored because somebody is always coming by and either talking to you or asking you to participate in something. If somebody has a problem going to the store, other people drive them. If somebody has a problem cooking their meals, neighbors pitch in and help them out.
When my mom died last month, there were a thousand people at her memorial service. The line of people coming by to give me a hug, cry, and offer their condolences took almost an hour. These were people who had kids and grandkids off all over the world, but for them the people in the park were their family.
There is something in that experience that I want, especially as I grow older. We all spend a lot of time plugged in and wired up, but we seem to have forgotten how to sit on the porch as the sun goes down and have a good heart-to-heart talk about our lives and values.
As cool as technology has become, we're missing something very important.
We haven't forgotten, we've just changed the space. Like right now, in this thread we're doing exactly what you claim is missing. Whether the porch is physical or virtual isn't nearly as important as the actual sharing of ideas.
The system we've created allows more freedom, freedom to choose your communities more closely. In some cases the trade off might be less patience, and I suppose in my own case, I value freedom above possible lack of patience.
I think the "freedom" to choose one's community is at the core of the complete lack of reasonable political discourse these days. It's very rare to see people calmly discussing issues with each other; they segregate themselves into their like-minded social groups, seeking validation for their preconceived notions rather than searching for the truth. When your barber who has been cutting your hair for 20 years expresses a view that you find surprising, you're going to tend to have a discussion with him about it, rather than shout at him and call him names.
Each community, physical or virtual, has its own unique ideology. The difference between the physical and virtual is that physical ones must necessarily be inclusive, virtual ones are encouraged to be exclusive.
Without getting too sidetracked, there is also the issue of the disconnect between seeing words on a screen and knowing deep in your subconscious that your dealing with a real person. Text on a screen is really difficult to anthropomorphize and sympathize with.
>The difference between the physical and virtual is that physical ones must necessarily be inclusive, virtual ones are encouraged to be exclusive.
It depends on the community. I don't see how physicality is the determining factor of what is inclusive or exclusive. Look at country clubs, or Hollywood.
>Text on a screen is really difficult to anthropomorphize and sympathize with.
Have you ever read a novel or story that moved you? Empathized with a fictional character? It is very possible to connect with text, you just have to be creative.
That would be like saying that the only important part of sex is the exchanging of fluids. Yes, the internet is great, but it cannot replace a strong family or community.
It strikes me as like saying the important parts of sex are the physical sensations and emotional connection (regardless of where the fluids end up.) It's dead on.
I have a strong family and a strong community, but much of it is online. I met my wife on the internet (in 1998, on a website devoted to our favorite video game); another friend from the same website was a groomsman at our wedding; we named our son after the website's founder. Members of our online community have organized prayer groups, attended weddings and funerals of other members, and helped each other in times of physical, emotional, or financial crisis. I personally have met with people from our community in Chicago, Vancouver, Kansas City, Seattle, Denver, Colorado Springs, Provo, and at a hog farm near Medford, Oregon.
The important part of community is not that we can walk over to each others' houses. It's that we can share with each other, help each other, take joy in each others successes, give comfort in failure or tragedy, learn from each other, and treat one another as friends.
Not every website can live up to this standard of "community". But mine has for the last twelve years.
There was a time, when I was a kid, that to meet your friends, you went to their house, rang the doorbell, and asked the above question to the parent of X who opened the door. Or you called them, and then their parents would answer the phone, and you asked the same question.
Now, all kids have mobiles, and just call or text each other directly, completely bypassing the parents. Parents get to meet the friends of their children much less, and kids get to meet their friends' parents much less, and I think we're worse off as a society because of it.
I'm curious, why?
One of the themes I'm getting from other comments here is that modern society makes you too independent - everything we need we get from machines, and in the places where we must interact with other humans there's a corporatized formality to it that robs it of human substance.
For example: Your local grocery store is probably a gigantor-chain, the person at the counter is probably running through a script of unenthusiastic niceties - a far cry from smalltalk with the grocer you see every day at the corner store.
By contrast, when you interact only with your self-selected peers of your own age group, your social circle becomes a bit of an echo chamber. In addition to the intellectual incest, if you don't have to deal with outsiders or people with different backgrounds or perspectives, you never figure out how to, and that's an important life skill. At the societal level, when people don't have to interact beyond their selected circle, they start becoming more insular, and that impedes the ability of groups to understand each other and communicate with each other, creating friction that can lead to conflicts and the inability to resolve such conflicts.
For parents, it was a great way of getting to know their children's friends, it forced an interaction whereas today, parents have to actively seek that out.
On the flipside, giving mobiles to kids makes it much easier for parents to keep track of them, or for the kids to get help from their parents. But it also helps kids keep secrets from their parents, which is good in some cases and bad in some cases.
Technological change certainly is a mixed bag.
Though I don't largely blame it one the US as much as I blame it on my introvert attitude, living here seems a lot lonely by comparison. Living in the suburbs, I've probably seen more squirrels outside my current residence than there are humans (quite an exaggeration, but I do feel that sometimes). Graduating from college or high school meant that most of your friends will be living in different states with a huge chance of losing contact from them afterwards. I originally thought of this as culture shock, so I'm glad even natives are experiencing this.
I didn't have your childhood experience - my childhood was much like your current situation. I knew a couple kids in the neighborhood, but we mostly just played video games indoors (when we were younger, we would climb trees, explore the creek, or play with an extensive collection of GI-Joes). And then they all moved away, and I didn't know anyone anymore (and neither, I suspect, did my parents).
Then I moved to Brooklyn. Not Park Slope, not Red Hook, and definitely not Williamsburg. I moved into what was up until very recently (in the last decade) one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the borough, and which laid claim to the most dangerous block in the five boroughs: Bushwick.
I moved in three years ago, several years after the neighborhood started getting safer. It's still not that safe: you have to keep an eye on who else is on the block with you. But now there's a nice coffee shop, a delicious bistro-bar, a wine/beer bar, and a coctail/dance club within five blocks.
I don't work with anyone in my neighborhood. But I know several painters, several musicians, several photographers, a puppeteer, and several businessfolk. I'm also on a first-name basis with most employees of the coffee shop and bistro-bar (who, incidentally, do all sorts of other things as well). I met the woman who cuts my hair at the bar (price? bring a six-pack of beer over) - and she does a wonderful job. One of the guys who works at the coffee shop put on a play/concert with his band at the local performance theater.
A small music venue (official, as opposed to all the ad-hoc venues scattered throughout the [il]legal lofts off the Morgan stop) is opening in the next six months: I know the proprietor.
I've never known a community like this. It's fantastic. I don't know of any other neighborhood in this city that can claim a community as active, as friendly, and as full of vermont transplants (I'm from the opposite direction, however).
- I moved to the neighborhood when the community was just beginning
- It is not based around typical cultural or ethnic norms (there are Haitian, Asian, European, Hispanic immigrants involved: this is not an affluent-white-urban group, though caucasian transplants to the city tend to be the majority)
- It is not based around our job description or industry, though creative-types are definitely in the majority
- It's not whether you're deemed cool by the American Apparel masses
We're just neighbors. Awesome neighbors.
(before this, I lived in northern Astoria - whose community was rather insular and comprised of primarily Greek individuals; there were yuppies there, but they weren't a part of nor 'invited' in to the community)
I grew up in the coutnry, so there weren't many people living nearby, but the few other kids that did live close, we knew well. We generally let ourselves into each others homes and there was never any problems, though if we wanted to visit our friends who lived further away, we would get our parents to drive us.
There was a comment earlier on this thread a while back about seeing "more squirrels than humans" in the suburbs... it then apologized for the exaggeration. For my entire life, I've lived in a place where that isn't an exaggeration, and my nearest friends (people who I know well who are not my immediate family) live 20 miles away.
Seems like just something a large part of our generation, especially parts of it that grew up in the suburbs, takes for granted.
I am originally from the Netherlands (very densely populated), and now live in a rural area in the US. I wouldn't want to go back anymore to that kind of life. (Then again, I'm agoraphobic, that probably has something to do with it... :-)
It's not utopia, but it's good enough that we have seriously considered the risk of moving into a closed off neighborhood when we move. We are lucky and are going to hang out here as long as we can.
This "loneliness" aspect of the US is something that is definitely in the 'con' column when sizing up whether to move back or not.
I think most people would rather pick their communities than have it selected by default hence the fences popped up once it became feasible to do without your physical neighbors.
But now, I know the names of just 3 of my neighbours, and they all happen to be old folks (65+). We have lots of young people, but we just say "Hi" and that's it.
Then we go the park with our little kid, and lots of spanish speaking people (mostly mexican emigrants, I live in Los Angeles) have gathered at the BBQ and having fun. Their kids are more friendly with our kid, more giving, understanding. An american kid, much like our kid (he was born here) would always try to be individualist - not sharing much, crying sometimes for no reason, etc.
I miss the good old days.
Still can't tell you why Americans are so lonely.
Then it launched into a description of the problems of a local diner owner.
The article was heavy on the heartstrings, light on the facts.
My cousins live about a mile away, and have had similar success after installing a big front porch.
It's not "energy independence," or anything like that, it simply takes an effort to get these things started, and keep them going. And you have to like your neighbors; having a front porch doesn't hurt, either.
Wow, that's pretty zen.
And reddit comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/bwsm2/
It wouldn't surprise me if the opposite were true: that by buying everything from the internet you save time you would otherwise spend in shopping malls... which you can then invest in meaningful (real life) relationships instead.
What you end up doing with the time you save is up to you of course. But no amount of shopping is going to compensate for a lack of friends and family.
() Each part of your existence is cordoned off into unique zones. There is the work zone, the shopping zone, and the home zone.
() None of these 'zones' are close enough together to walk. So you get into your car (with tinted windows!) and drive from zone to zone.
() Your house has a big fence (it's a 'privacy fence').
() Your house is huge. So big that you have rooms dedicated to things like excercise and 'media'. You don't have to leave your house...ever! You can excercise at home. No need to go to the movies. That gourmet kitchen can feed 200...
() Look at your street. In suburbia the streets are curvy and twisting... why? Go stand out on your front sidewalk. Notice how when the street twists it looks like you only have a handful of neighbors? That's why...
() That subdivision has a name. I bet it's something ranch, or something glades or some other name designed to make you think you're living far out in the country away from everything (a great post on the subject: http://denverinfill.com/blog/2006/09/guide-to-suburban-denve...)
Everything about suburban life is designed to isolate. You drive in your tinted car to the giant grocery store. You nod at the cashier, hurry back to your car and drive home. You park as close to the store as you can.
You'll find that folks in suburban areas are obsessed with security. That's what their being sold. 'Come live here and you'll be so isolated no one can ever do anything bad to you ever!!'. Of course the cynic in me takes a trip back to the 60's and hears 'Come live here and you'll be so isolated you'll never have to deal with those black people in the cit...ever!!'
So ya... living in that environment you're bound to be unhappy. I've done that. I've lived it. It sucked.
Contrast that with my current situation:
() Small house with a small fence.
() Nice front porch
() Streets on the city grid.
() Grocery store is a 5 minute walk away
() (lots of) Restaurants, shops, and parks are all within walking distance
() My wife and I own one car, but we almost never use it. Our bikes get us around quite nicely.
() We both take public transit daily.
It's amazing. When we're walking or riding the bus we are nearly constantly interacting with other human beings. Walking down the road we'll meet new folks and pet their dog. More than once we've invited folks inside for a drink... It's really a pleasant way to live. I'm sure that we're statistically slightly less safe (our house was broken into once, and cars are occasionally robbed on our street) but we're 100% more happy.
I've noticed that the kids in the neighborhood (and there are a LOT) are also much better adjusted and well socialized as well. When we lived in the suburbs it became comical. We had tons of trouble finding places to eat. We'd go to $30/plate restaurants that would still have kids running around like it was Chuck-E-Cheese. I really think that the lack of daily socialization breeds a child that is fundamentally self-interested.
Urban kids do much better. Sure we've had the occasional problem... but it's been far less frequent. It just seems like a more natural and overall better way to live.
It doesn't have to be this way, though. Part of the urban conversation that happens in America is diluted by the polarizing notion that you either have the twisty, identical, soulless gigantic suburb, or the gardens of glass and steel that is high-rise condos. The people on either side see the opposing extreme as the alternative - but it needn't be so.
Walkable suburbs are entirely feasible - you don't need big concrete high-rises to be dense and transit-friendly.
The big differences:
* houses align to the city grid (well a city grid, Denver actually has two.. it's complicated;) ). This is really important as the grid is far more friendly for pedestrian access. * mixed use: There are integrated retail spots throughout the neighborhood. I don't have to leave the confines of my neighborhood to take care of almost anything * Ready access to transit. I have a bus stop 2 bloycks away * Proximity : I'm about 2 miles out of Downtown.
I still have a house (albeit much smaller than out in the burbs). I have two dogs. I have a yard. So in many ways I have the same trappings as those houses farther out, just less space.
Really when we talk abut 'suburbs' we're talking about 'exurbs' or extra urban areas.
That said, it can be very difficult to get this right. Here in Denver our old Airport gave way to a 'new urban' development called Stapleton. To me it's an absolute tragedy. The planners took 'walkable' to mean, quite literally, 'able to easily walked'. They forgot that you have to actually have things to walk TO. They built a neighborhood that sort of mashes up the two concepts. The houses are on the grid (for the most part), but the retail centers are highly zoned off. So they failed to actually integrate the retail into the neighborhood itself. They sit on the edges of the development. It has nice wide sidewalks and a really big park, but most people live at a pretty good distance.
So the results are mixed. You do get a lot of leisure walking going on. On a day like today (almost 80 degrees and sunny) you'll see a lot of folks out and about pushing strollers and the like. However, most people find themselves packing up the car when they want to eat or go to the grocery store.
Contrast that with my neighborhood where half the streets don't have sidewalks that go all the way through. Yet it's highly trafficked all day and well into the evening simply because we have lots of places worth walking to.
note: As you can tell, this is one of most favorite topics to absolutely geek out about:)
I have this sinking feeling that the globalization of food production is a race to the bottom, but it's a race that can only work with the extremely low costs of transportation that we have. But if oil prices rise, and with it transportation costs, we will have huge problems turning back the change from individual local farms to centralized agribusiness.
This article was very refreshing by talking about growing a business to the right size, not to the largest possible size.
It's all based on the idea that we're running out of traditional sources of energy so quickly that we won't be able to innovate ourselves out of it. I don't believe that for a second. It's wishful thinking by people who will latch on to any difficulty to make that same argument over and over again.
There are huge amounts of natural gas left and we have nuclear. I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient for a smooth transition to more wind and solar to save us from the horrible prospect of the stifling, oppressive horror that was the village.
The media berated her because they were sure other people would do something bad to him.
I often think this lack of trust, paranoia and fear separates us--leads to loneliness.
Saying that people have fewer friends or neighbours doesn't equate to being more lonely. People may have richer lives with less face-to-face contact because they can now interact with people who are more in tune with their beliefs and dreams.
It doesn't help to have lots of neighbours if all of them think you're just that weird goth kid. But if you can share a virtual space with thousands of other weird goth kids, you may be better off, and less lonely.
Is 20% all that much? The way I see it, one has to strive for gains to compensate for losses (in bad years). I am pretty sure 3% gain is not enough to compensate for losses.
In the worst case, your product becomes obsolete from one year to the next. Happy if you had some healthy years and can invest in creating a new product.
I am all for cosy countryside romanticism, I just don't understand why bad economics have to be part of the equation.
We have an arrangement where everyone in the white-collar world is expected to live a lifestyle that makes sense only for the most ambitious-- 40-60+ hour work weeks, unpaid overtime, a social life based on weak ties ("networking"), and national job markets. This is fine for the most ambitious 0.1%, but it shouldn't be expected of the other 99.9% who will never be CEOs.
Because we deny the reality of class, we're in a sort of perennial "gold rush" mentality. Look at the shitty houses built in suburbia, most of which will be falling to pieces in 30 years. Isn't this the same level of quality you'd expect in housing built one mile from a gold mine, on land that will be abandoned after the mine is exhausted?
Europeans focus more on community and less on individual ambition because they know that most of them will never be CEOs. Oddly enough, virtually every study of social mobility has concluded that Europeans have at least as much social mobility as we do in all dimensions that matter. We sacrifice a lot more, and don't get much for the sacrifice.
Urban Tribes - http://www.amazon.com/dp/1582342644
Maybe it's a generational thing? While the political and social structures have definitely changed (particularly with regards to church), the end result is very much the same. I think the 'Generation Y' (god I hate that term) is showing a very different attitude towards community than our parents did. They're (we're?) settling into more urban neighborhoods. They value their friendships and relationships more than the previous generation did. They're relying on those friendships much longer and postponing starting families.
It really does seem to me that this generation is living gasp a much more European lifestyle than generations past. Having lived in Europe myself for several years, I can definitely see the similarities.
Maybe it is more an urban vs. suburban thing, more so than generational. Of course, younger people might be more urban and older people more suburban.
I was describing the behavior and mentality of the currently dominant generation and classes.
I think you'll find Americans today are working much longer hours. That is if they're lucky enough to have a job at all.
That's a powerfully descriptive image, all right.
I don't think this is true. Google failed me but according to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo... ), the plurality of people in the US live in "urban, urbanized area, central place" (39%), as opposed to "not in a central place" (29%) or "rural" (21%). And my experience is that the US is much more suburban than the rest of the developed world, Europe particularly. Seems a very odd thing to say. Turns out, most people actually live in cities, and have jobs other than writing this kind of nonsense.