powerfully stated:
"today you would say that the clans have polarized, the villages have been decimated and the tribes have become weaponized"
32
I think that Iceland's experience is instructive. Adolescents with too much time on their hands were using drugs, aimless, depressed and getting into legal trouble. They developed a community response in which adults developed programs which engaged kids after school, mentoring and supervising them in all manner of activities. Substance abuse rates dropped markedly, fewer mental health and delinquency problems. resulted. Brooks is very right to focus on the loss of community--that we adults need to be creative and find ways to be involved with the next generation for our good and theirs.
40
Are you coming to the barn raising, mr brooks? Golly gee whizz.
17
The comment tag says there are comments but when clicked on bubble comes up and line where previous comments are supposed to be says "No comments yet." Here's my comment. I live in New York State in a small village, Waterford. A few weeks ago people in village got notice that tax assessments on village property are going up 3 or 4 fold. Retired & elderly people live here on limited incomes. Some are surviving on Social Security & have been living in the same houses for some 40+ years. Recent floods have caused insurance to rise enormously. Living expenses, medications, health cost co-pays, have gone up. Neighbors know each other, houses are close to each other, and neighbors help one another out by sharing snow shoveling, mowing, tomatoes and fish, etc. But, apparently, the people who live in the town (not the village) in $500,000 & up value houses, new houses with big yards not close to each other, are getting a tax break, big time. The people who live in the village are getting a huge increase and are being told that they are being made to "share the burden." This is absurd. Those of us who live in the village in more-than-100 year old- houses have been planning to stay here to retire and many are already retired. We love our village & do not want to be forced out because we have to pay taxes for people who are living outlandish lifestyles in enormous new houses while we are baling water in the flood zone in houses with roofs that are caving in. So much for community!!!
76
That’s basically a microcosm of our entire US society.
54
Mr. brooks, once again, well done.
20
Please stop talking about one-parent families like the children are doomed. There's research to show this is in accurate and it's also unfair.
Also, it's completely possible to have rich social connections and divorced at the same time.
63
As seems to be so often the case with Mr. Brooks, he misses the seeds of destruction sown by the ideology he has supported for the last 30 years. Unfettered free markets will destroy society because they, by their very nature, monetize all personal interaction. Advertising and marketing, the lifeblood of commerce, thrives as a parasite on human dignity and decency. Your phone becomes not a tool for your communication, but a nuisance and intrusion on your life and time when it is hijacked for telemarketing. Television, envisioned as a great equalizer for education and the transmission of culture sinks to the least denominator, so overrun with advertising that it becomes unwatchable. I was a software developer in the early days of the internet. For its first few years it was a marvel of information publishing by universities and legitimate scientific organizations. I watched as the marketers and profiteers degraded it into being just another conduit for advertising. Now it has transmogrified again into being the ultimate tool for industry to spy on every citizen everywhere, all for further profit and concentration of wealth.
This is the free market. It is it’s very nature, exploitation of the many by the few. It is something anyone who has studied economics (I have an advanced degree in the subject) does or should understand.
So, Mr. Brooks, when you look for the source of the destruction of our social goods, take a hard look in the mirror.
99
Maybe this generation needs to do what "us baby boomers" used to do. We were young and going to college or working a minimum wage job (about $1.80 an hour). Then in the hours or sometimes days after we'd listen to records, smoke pot and spend hours talking with one another. "Relating" to each other one on one, two on two, maybe three on three. We talked about everything, terrified of Nixon, running out of gasoline, the environment going to Hell, how great the pot was, did we have a future? I'm a retired Social Worker now having helped so many people try to survive this thing we call LIFE. I had a great career and a great life. I still have many friends, almost too many to even be able to talk to much anymore. I stay busy with "Hands on Stuff" like Painting, Gardening, Horseback Riding (sadly an almost lost activity), walking and talking. No IPhone, Facebook or Twitter. I do like the computer though so I can email with even more of my friends. Someone is going to have to start teaching Humans how to be decent people again and keep those gadgets at a minimum.
They have destroyed so much and we are in charge of that, not the machines or the robots. We must always make sure that those nuts, bolts and wires never forget that.
38
I’m 60. I love to share stuff with my kids in college and friends and relatives I grew up with. Without FB and other technologies I would miss out. Just like playing cards, drinking wine, shopping, sex and work, too much of a good thing is not good.
18
V from La's comment is a wonderful example of how "weaponized" clan's have become. And how that destroys human relations.
I am far left but still like a good many people that do not believe in science , do not believe in climate change ... etc.
All people have faults. To love someone despite their faults brings happiness.
13
Almost from the moment I started contributing to Comments, I have, with the limited real estate given us to work with, made the same arguments about how "social" media is an oxymoron in that it is driving users more to alienation than to stronger relationships.
Example: Go to any restaurant, from a McDonald's to a coat-and-tie-required fine china and crystal venue and you won't wait long to see the classic posture of the texter (usually texters) at a table regardless of the number in the party. They are engrossed in the tiny screen rather than engaged with one another in real conversation. As often as not, the closest approximation to personal interaction is to hand over their smart(?) phone to be read by another at the table.
The logical result of this form of shallow relationship development is now sitting in the highest seat of American government. Until mankind (especially but not just Americans) rediscover the strength of true relationships, civilization will continue its downward trajectory into anarchy, chaos until, finally, a world-ruling despot takes power.
19
I think Brooks may be suffering from the blindness of social wealth himself. No doubt social media is a problem and breeds loneliness for some people, but for others I think it is a lifeline: many people now are overworked; expectations in many jobs have doubled from past generations; there is less job security. People are forced to work very long hours, at odd hours, and show little vulnerability in their jobs. I think this is at least as much a source of loneliness than social media, and that more of a few us check Facebook so frequently to try to escape from it.
PS Mr. Brooks, are you so sure that the analysts and politicians you mention are really not lonely? Trump is surrounded by an army of sycophants and I wouldn't be surprised if he is the loneliest of all of us.
26
David is blind in his own way. He often talks up the gig economy, not realizing how the long, irregular hours make social life impossible. Even traditional professiona are having this problem (just ask Japan) as employers who hold all the bargaining chips expect ever more from workers. I work 12 hour days during much of the school year, who has time for relationships?
And the truth is, I dislike Americans (even though I am one). We're a nation of fakes, which is why we're all obsessed with Fakebook where we curate our fake lives. Selfish, conceited, fragile, paranoid, incurious, WILLFULLY ignorant know-it-alls: that's how most of the world sees us, and that's how I see us, too.
If not for my good friends in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Vietnam, etc., whom I play games with at absurd hours, I might well be one of those suicide statistics. Because this country is unbearably dystopian, and any time you point out why, your fellow Americans whine about the "religion and politics" rule, or else bare their vast ignorance of the world around them . Then, of course, they refuse to admit when proven wrong, because "everyone's entitled to their opinion", even in contravention of facts. What's to be expected of a nation built by Puritans upon the wreckage of history's worst genocide, then teaches about how great the Pilgrims got along with Squanto?
Fake country. Fake people. Blessed are the "socially poor", I say.
38
You've been writing so eloquently about the lonely - and to me this article is more about the socially isolated than that social media is or isn't a large cause - I wonder how you've come to see us so well, how you know our pain - because you seem to. As a life-long lonely person, lonely in my family, lonely at school, always trying to make friends, half-succeeding because of some very kind people, I'd love to see you interview some of us, write about us. Speaking for myself, there is something within me that just doesn't connect with people in the normal way. Thanks for sticking with this most unpopular topic. And, yes, the socially adept have no idea.
34
Please tell us, Mr. Brooks, how we can accumulate social capital when parents are spending all their energy keeping a roof over their heads and feeding their family. And if they're roof and food secure, they have the often insurmountable burden of trying to get healthcare. Dental care of course is kind of a luxury.
Not a lot of time to go bowling or organize potluck suppers after hours long commutes and grocery shopping.
No economic capital means no social capital.
Facebook is not a the problem, in fact, like television, it may be the only small respite the non middle class has from their quiet desperation.
To use probably the only notable quote from our president:
SAD!
44
I think income inequality is a bigger problem in social disconnection; high tech social media has simply shown a spotlight on it, so the “have nots” are more aware just how much they have not. I’m not talking envy of private jets or fancy sports cars here. I’m talking basic food/shelter security and access to education and health care. The well off in our society have become mean spirited; no matter how much they have, they want more, and happily take from the poor and waning middle class with a smug judgementalism.
I’d move to a Scandinavian country in a heart beat, even with their 50% taxes. Just imagining the security seems like an impossible dream to most Americans. But we have been sold the ideology that taxes and government are evil, by those who are cracking the whip. This country feels very Dickensian.
37
I have been a nurse for some 38 years now. I see all sorts of people who get very ill. You find out who your 'real' friends are then. For some, it is a rude wake-up call. Some lucky people have a network that includes family, co-workers, congregations, neighbors and friends. Others, luckily, have a spouse or siblings or children. But these connections have dwindled over the decades. I see it every single day. Everyone is "busy" or lives far away. Or simply cannot be bothered. They are connected virtually but have no real connection. Many people do not know their neighbors anymore. They do not belong to a church or group. They may have Facebook friends, but who really wants sad emojis posted on their social media feed when they announce bad news. They want a phone call, or a visit, or a hand-written note. But few receive this. It has gone the way of the dinosaur. This is especially sad at end of life. People are so isolated then. I see so many patients with paid help or hospice taking care of them. Strangers really. This is what is becoming our norm. It is sad and painful to see.
I encourage you to think about who you would call at 2am when you need someone. If you cannot identify anyone, it is time to get off of your screen, out of the house and interact for real. Just one or two people. You can be socially rich with just a couple of real people in your corner. Having someone who cares and shows up makes you the richest person in town.
52
Aloha, David and readers.
Have kept my use of Facebook minimal which means I barely understand its capacities and my kids and grandkids have to tutor and inform me. But my home island has just been through a devastating storm. Facebook has been critical for checking on the status of others, passing the word about damage, hazards, arranging evacuations and transportation. Yes, there have been a few rumors passed, but in this dire instance, Facebook has connected people.
14
On another level, social media can be a godsend for those who lack the ability to have rich social lives due to ability or finances or other barriers. Our daughter with disabilities is connected to the world (she has learned everything about dogs online) and enjoys jokes and games on her computer. (She uses her phone to make calls!) She is also on Facebook, where the social strata of even a small town is broken down and smoothed out quite a bit, and she has many more contacts than she otherwise would.
18
People who are socially poor are such with or without social media. Social media however makes those who are willing to feel less poor.
Being socially poor, for some, is a conscious choice. For acquiring my kind of wealth, normally requires tremendous input and some simply choose not to have that trade-off. (Particularly, social wealth is something one cannot even inherit.)
As much as I personally reject FaceBook and likes, to blame them for any level of socially-poorness is unfounded.
7
One of the sentences in this essay didn't seem to fit: "Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage."
What does that have to do with loneliness and disconnection?
It seems to be of a piece with the author's view on the failings of modern society, but not with this argument.
22
For years, some have argued that human beings never again will evolve physically, because we protect and enable our weakest by laws and by enabling technology, such as glasses (now contacts and surgical operations), which perpetuate the weaknesses in ways that remorseless physical evolution never would. However, we may have shifted that evolutionary emphasis to intellectual and emotional bases. Societies are transforming in ways that are destroying those who can’t cope with new folkways, as David points out.
He obviously argues for retaining older folkways that the mass of humanity has depended on to remain emotionally viable – friendships, relationships generally, complex interdependencies, and socially-binding and culturally-building and maintaining philosophies, such as religious faith. As society evolves, it may be eliminating those who can’t cope with its evolving requirements, thereby selecting in an evolutionary sense for those who can.
Normally, it’s harder to “find Waldo” in a Brooks piece, which inevitably turns out to be this theme of religious boundaries that nurture communities. But this time it’s quite evident.
There are perhaps increasing numbers given the connections to wider interactions that technology provides, all Internet and ubiquitous phone-connection based, that mitigate loneliness and make increasingly obsolete those physical, person-to-person interactions. Such people remain emotionally stable and functional, while others … can’t cope.
1
We’ve been wondering how we can save a human species fast precipitating a planetary heat-death by over-population. Virtual reality, including virtual sex, may be the answer. Indeed, looking out a century, we might not be able to recognize humans as such, other than physically, because they’re just that different from those of us with roots in a less technology-dependent past.
David argues that the apparent future is bad and that the past is better. I’m not sure about that, as I don’t see that anyone is capable of putting geniis back in bottles. One way or another, the real lesson may be that everyone had better get online soon, or risk becoming emotionally obsolete.
1
The need for glasses is not genetic, it is acquired. It's from lack of exposure to sunlight and -- surprise-- not using your long-distance vision. Some 90% of Chinese youth wear glasses today. That's not from natural selection, we're CHOOSING to become Morlocks.
3
Finding little with which I disagree, Richard...nicely said (written?).
Except for your, ahem, addendum, in which we are introduced to "geniis" as plural for "genie." Now, "genii" is the plural of "genius," while, I do believe, a pair or more of bottle-dwellers are "genies."
Cheers.
5
David Brooks, you hit the nerve of our times with this piece. Thank you! Unfortunately, while the diagnosis is spot on, it won‘t change anything, there is currently no cure in sight. US culture allowed and forced us to plunge head over heels into a new age dominated by the digital paradigm. Here we are. What can the way forward look like? Mr. Zuckerbergs vision has been revealed as not suitable to harness the risks.
3
"In the 1980s, 20 percent of Americans said they were often lonely. Now it’s 40 percent. Suicide rates are now at a 30-year high. Depression rates have increased tenfold since 1960, which is not only a result of greater reporting. Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage. There’s been a steady 30-year decline in Americans’ satisfaction with the peer-to-peer relationships at work."
Given this deterioration in our day to day lives, and the 30 year high in suicide rates, it seems reasonable that a person who isn't racist might find a campaign message to make America as good as it had been in the past an appealing message. And yet...
2
It's been a while since I've agreed with a Brooks column, but these points match my lived experience. Last fall, I switched my children from a long commute to a large private school, to a small, faith-based school 5 minutes from home. At the same time, I unilaterally reduced my hours at my "big job," which, luckily does not affect my base pay, just bonus. My spouse and I have spent more time with the kids, and started participating more in local activities, like coaching little league. I've started attending the church affiliated with the kids' school. And, I've gotten to know more people in my neighborhood. It is against this backdrop that I have recently "ghosted" Facebook, as I increasingly started to view it as merely a time-waste. I haven't deleted my account. I still get a notifications for birthdays, and I say "happy birthday" to friends. But I no longer "check" it or casually scroll through my "news feed." It actually (surprisingly?) took some will-power at first. But, it's also been awesome.
15
Keep going. You should be proud, no kidding. Your kids will be psyched.
3
i think you are not considering the differences between introverts and extroverts. America is all about extroverts--people who literally thrive on human contact. Introverts tend to prefer that contact in smaller doses and feel intensely pressured if forced to attend, say, a block party. I think social media probably provides a kind of contact with others in a setting more comfortable for some introverted people.
16
My mother died at 92, a few years ago. She grew up in an Italian enclave on Buffalo's lower west side, and regarded those connections as precious throughout her life. Wherever I was living at the moment, she nagged me about talking to my neighbors--something I didn't much want to do. Her reasoning was "what if you have an emergency?" I barely had the heart to tell her that her notions about neighbors being people you could turn to in an emergency were as current as 39 cent gas and Blue Laws.
13
"The mass migration to online life is not the only force driving these trends, but it is a big one." Based on what evidence David, your "feelings?" Migration to on line life may be an effect rather than a cause of anything, you cannot say either way without a lot of social science research. The only thing we know is that societies evolve just like species evolve. Social structures, values, and beliefs change over time - they always have and they always will. Some people will adapt to these changes better than other people - they always have and they always will.
3
The ability of human beings to connect with each other seems to have greatly diminished since the transition from land lines to cell phones and even more with smart phones. I think face to face socializing is a skill and like any skill if you don't use it you tend to lose it.
8
It seems to me that loneliness is the potential price we pay for independence and freedom. Having been here long enough to appreciate the freedoms this country grants, I felt constrained when I lived in more conventional cultures.
And yet, I recognized the value to having ‘nosy’ neighbors who watched everyone’s comings and goings; or the very extended family that may want to know more about you than you care to share, or tells you how to live your life. But by pushing away those social obligations I also lost those bonds, even if it was as simple as sitting silently within a large family grouping.
Nor is it just a matter of obligations - just as modern romantic notions of marriage make it more difficult to accept anything less, so is the idea of expecting a certain quality in relationships, be they familial or otherwise.
Years ago I was struck by the unconscious expression of this dilemna by an acquaintance, living in Berkeley CA: she found my San Francisco apt ‘cozy’, ie too small, while complaining that their very large house and garden was still too close to their neighbors. Yet she joined a religious groups because she yearned for more community. Physical distance, the American desire to live in your own house and plot of land, increased by the need to drive, reflects this need for separation, yet leading to isolation
10
Money plays a big role in loneliness and social isolation. There aren't many social opportunities if you don't have discretionary income for entertainment, eating out, drinking, putting gas in the car and paying for parking, etc. To join any organization, you have to pay the dues. Churches fill the social gap better than anything else. All are welcome and nobody knows how much you put in the plate.
12
First, I don't disagree that being 'addicted' to a phone/screen is harmful. Clearly positive social interaction is necessary, and preferable to on-line associations.
However, when having this discuss with people a generation (or more) older than I (I'm mid 50s), I am surprised that they don't see how the newspaper or magazine that many had with them all the time is very similar to the phone that young people now carry.
I remember my father always having a newspaper, or at least a section of it, with him. The sports page, the crossword puzzle or the front page were constants and they, too, provided entertainment.
And one other thing, it's not totally unusual to see me and my husband on our phones while having a drink or dinner. Often we are comparing calendars, planning a trip or activity, reading the same article to discuss. We feel that we use our phones to enhance our lives, not replace our lives.
Again, I am not disagreeing that excessive screen time is bad for one's emotional, psychological and physical health when misused; it's just that I think there is a way to incorporate them into daily life in a more positive way.
9
Building social wealth is an investment that takes time and effort. Time and effort that you can't expend if you spend most every waking minute making ends meet.
It's no coincidence that what Robert Putnam calls "social capital" has decreased along with the purchasing power of the average American family's wages.
4
Social isolation is a rather complex problem.
We are getting older on average and older people have more difficulty making new connections.
Society is getting more competitive and one of the effects is that we have a culture of winners who ignore the "losers" - what often means everyone who doesn't fit in.
12
Wim, I disagree , here in America there are many many older people involved in their communities , with retirement there is time for volunteerism , only people with misanthropic tendencies in their younger years become the cranks of old age . They join book clubs , go to the gym , and we have always had winners and so called losers , in the olden times known as plebs .
I'm so lonely now and I used to not be. I don't know how it happened or the cause but the old saying about going broke seems true here too - at first you go bankrupt slowly, than suddenly all at once
12
I think sometimes one change ends up having a profound effect--you leave a job, a close friend dies or moves away, you divorce--and suddenly the one thing that kept you connected is gone.
3
Relationships take work, hard work. Many, if not most Americans, do not work very hard at difficult things that do not involve getting paid. We simply got lazy. Social media’s fault is not killing relationships. The relationships were already in decline. Its fault is constructing a lie that we still had meaningful relationships without doing the work.
As for economics or free market, how could they be the drivers? The Great Depression was so bad that I sometimes think it ludicrous to call the financial downturn in 2008 as the Great Recession. Please! Still, were not social ties stronger in the 30’s than now? If you want rabid, divisive politics, go to the 30’s or the 60’s. Activists of those eras make our current crowd of political wannabes look like wimps. Yet that period almost seems a golden era for social ties. No, the problem is us. Stop blaming the other.
3
I am a college student, set to graduate this May and just recently married. My wife and I are asking a lot of questions about what we want out of our lives and many people that we trust and respect all have the same answers and expectations. Immediately take up a full time job, purchase a house, a car, start a family.
While these are all things we would like to do someday, the amount of overwork and debt that come with these “mandatory” milestones, we just do not see as feasible in the near future.
The job search is miserable, even with my college degree, volunteering and some experience, I have difficulty finding positions that aren’t asking for 3 years work experience. With my student loan payments quickly approaching it looks like I will be taking the line at the back of the rat race. It’s not the phones that have me depressed it’s the damn bills!
5
Don't know what your degree is in but you might consider looking at the trades.
While it may not be intellectually satisfying, that is the fact of life for many.
In a mid-sized city, electricians and plumbers can make $40K or more.
Then with being able to pay the bills, you can still read and travel (economically) and volunteer to do good things on your own.
2
Don’t give up!
1
When anyone's life revolves strictly on social media and allows it to become the driver of their persona , they become desensitized to socialization . Isolating and relying on likes and dislikes , giving a false sense of an ego boost or open to bullying by strangers . I would call this a disease in so many ways , a dis ease among face to face interaction , conversation , amiable discussion , a give and take that is fast becoming passe and not normal . Lemmings rushing to the edge of the cliff .
5
I appreciate this article and think its importance in our society today cannot be overstated.
2
Widespread social isolation, growing loneliness, signify a profound failure of a culture.
But tying this phenomena to a certain technology is a blind leap. What of the failure of leadership institutions, the disappearance of gainful employment among a whole swath of the culture, the growth of an unprecedented wealth gap, the failure of public institutions of policy to even address, much less solve public crises? Elevation of a orange pig to the Oval Office?
The culprit is....cell phones? Really? Cell Phones is it?
Thank you for sharing, David, but nah.
2
I hesitate to state my opinion, because it may seem misanthropic, out of step, or just plain strange, but here it is: I find social media to be BORING.
I use it occasionally to communicate with people I've been out of touch with, & I read things like the NYT online because I want to know what's going on and what thoughtful people have to say about what's going on, but all of these people posting pictures of their weekly adventures and writing their daily thoughts just holds no interest for me.
Don't get me wrong, I like getting a lot of "recommends" when I do get them, and I've felt really good to get an occasional "Times Pick". But the appeal of facebook, & the constant, obsessive watching of smartphones that people seem to engage in all day baffles me. If I want to communicate w/a friend, I can call or even try to meet them, & the same goes for a colleague. But I don't desire to know what everyone is doing everyday, nor do I really want them to know what I'm doing everyday. If that makes me a misanthrope, so be it.
But maybe its just b/c I prefer one-on-one, face-to-face relationships w/real speech you have to listen to, rather than all of these replacements for it. So I keep thinking if all of this isn't that interesting to me, then maybe it'll become less interesting to others, & just be a passing fad. But then I see all of the people buried in their phones & I doubt it. I know its hard to find time for one-on-one communication, but has it actually become obsolete?
143
Bryan, I agree with you to a great extent and hold similar practices to you when it comes to social media. I’ve deleted my facebook and use social media primarily to stay in the loop with a few organizations/thought leaders whose events I wish to know about or updates that are truly important to me - and, I did this hoping to force my daily interactions to occur in real life, or at the very least in an actual exchange of messages or phone calls. In some sense, I’ve felt that these aims have induced actual results.
However, I can’t help but feel that I’ve not managed to actually enrich my conversations and connections because it is a two way ordeal. When the majority of those you interact with do not take your approach of limiting social media use, you’re left twiddling your thumbs as the individuals you’re trying to cultivate true connection with in person continue to consume via their devices…how can we affect a change in social connections from within when the other person needs to share your perspective on social media?
12
I think it’s because we all worship at the altar of work. Our society doesn’t value leisure and our jobs don’t give us the time and space to take time off. Add to that this false sense of connectivity online and via text which occupies the space we formerly filled with in person connection or phone calls.
12
I agree David, that the explosion of "electronic society" is making things worse, and feeding the polarization of our traditional tribes of Republicans and Democrats. And it's certainly accelerating the isolation, even as it ironically makes people feel more connected, albeit in a more shallow, and near-anonymous way. But rather than a cause of these issues, I think it's more like an accelerant acting upon forces already in place. And like a giant forest fire that creates its own weather system, the proliferation of electronic media spawns new and faster spreading variants of these conditions.
For example, gun violence, particularly mass shootings. We've had gun violence forever, but never so many mass murders as now. And what is it about this modern era that would make this happen? Mass media. There is a direct correlation between mass murder and mass media, and yet little or nothing is mentioned when solutions for mass shootings are discussed.
Perhaps it's time, given the growing negative impact of unchecked electronic society - and let's not forget the danger of our elections and financial systems being hacked - that we start looking into applying some limits on that. I don't have any suggestions for what that would look like, but I think it's sensible for these discussions to begin and to find some workable solutions before we allow this fracturing of our society to tear us completely apart.
2
Mr. Brooks:
This is the most important column you have written in a while. I have noticed a growing trend toward isolation among both the youth and the elderly. Children are not taught ow to socialize otside of a school environment. Growing up I was told to go outside and play. By doing so at a young age, I learned how to communicate with kids of all ages within the neighborhood. Now a days kids are given a tablet that distracts them and usually teaches them nothing. The game thinks for them and takes away all inventiveness in play. And they are alone with their tablets or smart phones. Isolated and alone. Parents, if they are lucky to have enough money, organize everything. The child becomes the victim of everyone else and their electronics. Working parents with two jobs abandon their children to day care and other structured events, isolating them further from family, love and creativity.
It's a complex model that exists today. Changing this pattern will take great wisdom and the courage to change society. A task greater than I can accomplish.
Alan
10
Another factor in this is the fear of one another that is perpetuated by the media. Parents are afraid to let their children go out and play. I live in a safe walkable community neighborhood. Yet everyday parents line up to take their children home from school. Being afraid of each other is a terrible divisive message to give our kids. And it is reflected in our politics.
11
"Socially wealthy" is a nice phrase; "socially poor" is not. The pair of them allow you to make a ton of judgements about individual (not societal) choices.
One judgement particularly irks me: in your fourth graph, you use statistics to argue that our relational worlds are deteriorating, including this one, which sticks out among the others: "Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage."
There are a dozen ways you might have chosen to discuss women, men, and children negotiating the changing role of marriage in our society-- yet you settle on the one that centers undue judgement on women raising children, presumably in the absence of second parent or "clan".
I wish this column interrogated your judgements (as a socially wealthy person) a little more carefully. And I wish that the term "socially wealthy" didn't work so often as an excuse for judging the "socially poor" and the disadvantages they experience in a society that seems bent on either blaming or ignoring them.
A better judgement might be: "check one's privilege."
17
Perfectly said, thanks!
3
No David. It's wealth. You see you can see your children and hangout with others when you're not working 2 or 3 low-wage jobs. Take it from this former latchkey kid
7
Hillary Clinton said, “It takes a village [to raise a child well.] Republicans laughed. You should have agreed with her then, David.
20
It is an interesting prospect but one that has little beyond it "truthiness" (to borrow Stephen Colbert's term). Like the alleged correlation between violence in media (especially immersive video games) and real life violent tendencies, this one is more chimeric than real.
Correlation is not causation and the breakdown of community has been a constant in American society for half a century. Mr. Brooks and I are both old enough to remeber when that was blamed, in part on another immersive screen -- television.
Social media may be a poor substitute for real, personal connections but they cn also serve as a lifeline to the most isolated among us.
Facebook, from the user's side, is a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, it can be a weapon or a life-saver when you really need it.
5
I would leave a comment, but nobody really cares about my opinion. [sigh]
8
It's all about effective parenting stupid!
AND most americans are completely incapable of mentoring children let alone themselves.
"I want more..."
Those three little words driving our culture today
2
And now - another chapter in: “The World According to Mr. Brooks.”
Brooks condemns Facebook but fails to note that FB is only doing what comes naturally in an unfettered free-market system – seeking profit in any way possible, damn the social consequences. But, Brooks doesn’t mention capitalism’s refusal to honor the social contract as one of the subjects that didn’t come up in the Zuckerberg hearings. He doesn’t want to go there because it would undermine his support of rugged individualism and the free market.
It’s not capitalism’s fault that we have vast income inequality that drives us apart and creates a decline in the quality of our relationships. Nope – no need to worry about that. Let’s focus instead on a symptom – the abandonment of the clan-village-tribe social paradigm – a paradigm that apparently could MAGICALLY survive capitalism’s rapacious onslaught and disdain for social profit.
It’s what Mr. Brooks leaves out that thunders above his conservative flight of fancy. The social dynamic that he ignores is class struggle – the economic dominance of one class over another. That conflict always been there, and to suggest that in the past we lived in anthropological, religious, shared-narrative harmony is a lie.
Today’s lesson: stories make us feel better than reality. The complete picture and all the facts about our social disconnect don’t matter. Just make up a story!
So put on a Mr. Brooks happy face! And have another glass of Mr. Brooks’ Kool Aide!
13
Well said.
2
1. What happened to the ranch and the family? Sucked me in, then left me like a cheap-news show.
2. Having spent the first half of my life, (50+now) being social all the time. Work social, friends social, clubs social, leisure time social, not so much community(place I live) social - Im now very much the opposite. Not anti-social, just more and more not willing to go out and be social. Not willing to go to the incessant (too often themed) dinner party, the never ending calendrical celebrations of silly markers in time. (b'days, anniversaries, religious rituals, etc)
I'm exhausted by all those years of being a willing investor in my social wealth. Especially since in adulthood, it can be very difficult for us to cash-in. To withdraw on the investment, because everyone is so over-the-top busy. Real or not. Getting a lift to/from a repair shop can be like finding a flight to "Bumblecluk" that doesn't involve 3+ carriers, and extended layovers. So I dont bother, or offer.
I use my devices for emails, checking on my "stuff", news of many types, music. No social media. I'm not having any of it, as I'm not that interested in all the inane, excruciatingly boring details of peoples lives. I enjoy the one on one, the funny anecdotes, etc. But not this social media driven stuff. Where its a barrage of the mundane. And absurd "re-tweets".
I'm not in ready contact, because this new paradigm is too much contact! I began my withdrawal about when Social media exploded. Very happy.
5
Brooks' contention, that loneliness is on the rise, is accurate.
However, since Brooks is very much enthrall to our hyper-capitalistic era of atomistic yuppies going gaga over dollars, I don't think he realizes that the very capitalism he adores is often the culprit.
America values individuality, autonomy and competitiveness. However, a society should have other values as well, such as love, brotherhood and community.
The degradation and belittling of values like community and love (It first became apparent to me in a song, by Elvis Costello, with the plaintive refrain, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding") have severed us from our brothers and sisters.
Also, feminism is partly to blame. Women were exhorted to realize themselves, to pursue their careers and to scrap the sappy sentimentality of Motherhood. Somehow, a women litigator, who perhaps defended the right of a corporation to pollute a river, was deemed "better" than a mother who taught a child right from wrong and the wonder of love. And now many of these women litigators, writing briefs at 8 PM, would love to kick Gloria Steinam et al in the rear.
8
The Scandinavians are the happiest I wonder why? Hmm
2
Thank you for this. FYI, an unlikely place this is being discussed is in Netflix's reboot of Queer Eye for the Straight guy. They specifically address loneliness in the first two episodes.
2
I value these forums. So many interesting views on topics from readers everywhere! Never before could we have shared them so widely. But this contact doesn’t foster wellbeing if overdone - even NY Times forum comments need to be taken in healthy, measured doses.
Social media on smartphones are only the unfortunate latest symptoms of long standing human problem - used to be the need for belonging, for meaning was fulfilled by religion
- since religion has fallen apart - unmourned in most quarters - the smartphone has taken its place as the idol of worship.
Do you think that our employers truly give a darn about our quality of life. It's all lip service. Tech companies are the worst abusers of their employees. Society is manipulated by those with the money. Those of us who want a higher quality of life truly do not have a say.
7
Is it any wonder that Zuckerberg created Facebook. He is shy and introverted! He invented a platform where connections are made with no face-to-face interaction.
Understanding and empathy are on the decline.
The truth was stated by Aristotle mid-300 BC Aristotle:
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”
― Aristotle, Politics
1
The real Mark Zuckerberg is NOTHING like the fictional character in the film "The Social Network" portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg -- it is fascinating how many people saw this, and think it is literally true and that Zuckerberg was an unpopular nerd to started Facebook to get even with an ex-girlfriend.
Wow, as much as David Brooks makes me roll my eyes (here and on the UChicago board), I must conclude he must be smarter than all of us. How else would he be paid what I can only assume is an inordinate sun for such plagiarized, B- handwringing?
If you’re truly concerned, visit your family, your neighbors, your Temple. Volunteer at a nursing home or after school program. Advocate for policies that free up people to think about more than bare survival like equal pay, paid sick leave, universal health care and compassionate immigration reform. And stop defending the FIRE campus free speech party line at UChicago. Nothing makes people feel lonelier than constantly being told (by old straight white guys of all political stripes) that being harassed on campus in the name of “both sides” discourse is more important than their educations, their perspectives, their pain, and the truth.
4
Don't leave out the one-way communication of TV.
How many of the lonely are poor Christians who dress up and go to church on Sunday. Smiles all around. Get the gospel delivered to them. Say a few words and go home to spend the rest of the week alone?
One of the problems with established Christianity is that it doesn't require a lot of practice time. What a lot of friends? Become and alcoholic and go to AA. When you realize you need it every day until you get it then you are on the road to recovery. Thank the friends you made along the way.
Otherwise, recognize we are in a money-changer society, where even our doctors can't be trusted because they are also business men.
2
America is not an economically safe place for far too many Americans, and it is becoming less so all the time.
It was Ronald Reagan who worked tirelessly to convince the American people that we aren’t a government of, by, and for “We the People” working together to form a “more perfect union”, and “provide for the general Welfare”.
While one might argue that this was the intention of the founding fathers, Reagan wanted us to believe that government was “them” who wanted to control us.
He convinced too many that we are “rugged individuals” who need to compete with each other to survive.
Competition over cooperation.
No wonder people feel insecure.
Community can’t exist if everyone is out trying to take advantage of each other.
To a great extent, Ronald Reagan was successful in his con of the American people, and the Republican Party has been fleecing the country ever since.
The Robber Barons are in charge, and while Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan continue to give themselves raises constantly, they vote against reasonable pay for working people.
Working people are constantly demonized as lazy. Only CEO’s are worthy in Republican America.
Since Reagan, too many family and friends have found life a whole lot more difficult, while the richest 1% have prospered beyond imagination.
Our government has become “management of the people, by the 1%, and for the 1%.
People can not feel community oriented until we return to government of, by, and for ALL of the people.
11
Reagan's been dead for 14 years and out of office for 30 years -- get over it.
It’s strange to me that Brooks ignores Zuckerberg’s emphasis on the ability of Facebook to connect people. He’s refuting that claim without addressing it.
There is an uncanny correlation between the advent of social media and the booming amounts of money spent on dogs. Harry Truman's statement - "If you want a friend, get a dog" - is more true today than ever before. And, for a lot of people, dogs are much better friends than people.
"Weak social connections have health effects similar to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and a greater negative effect than obesity, he said."
I'm an introvert. Too much social connecting exhausts me and leads me suffer to chronic inflammation. This opinionated MD you're quoting ought to know that my blood pressure is 110/70, I am slim and very fit, and there is absolutely nothing about me or my blood work that your friend would associate with obesity or smoking 15 ciggies a day. And shame on him for making such a claim. Let's see the actual science here he claims to be citing.
2
David Brooks, always managing to take a decent set of observations and render them useless with patronizing comments like: "That is, some highly educated families have helicopter parents while less fortunate families have absent parents." While many highly educated parents work early mornings, late nights, on business trips or personal travel, less fortunate parents are making their home and neighborhoods the very best they can be 365 days a year.
3
A lot of the less fortunate parents have to work two jobs. Please don't sugarcoat poverty. Less fortunate people have to work pretty long hours these days to get by. They are not out improving their neighborhoods. They're doing whatever jobs they can find to keep up with the rent.
4
I couldn't articulate better than did so many of the top-reader picks. But I will chime in because clearly our little voices are getting drowned out still.
Please don't act so baffled, DB. The social capital has been hoarded by the wealthiest corporations and their top shareholders/execs. With Citizen's United they pit the heft of companies against the common people, and in so doing has rendered the average person both hopeless and powerless in their pursuit of happiness.
I will call happiness the ability to reap fruit from our efforts. The average person has been cast into uncertainty as bills balloon and job security winnows away thru corporation's greed and abandonment of the wage-earner in the social contract that once was. Furthermore in this modern age in America most working families cannot keep their extended family (tribe) together, being demanded to relocate to far flung job markets. Social bonds are ripped apart by these modern forces. Only the wealthiest among us can afford to enjoy the life-long relationships by staying close to the original place of the family. The people I know from wealthy families have all managed to buy homes where they most desire--and this usually means near the patriarch of the family. And if not, they can visit on a regular basis, affording the plane tickets and the vacation time.
We are uprooted, they are not. And increasingly they retreat to their enclaves, thus shielding their eyes from this tragic reality.
14
Perhaps I am among the "socially wealthy," but as someone who has recently relocated, and even more recently begun working out of town for several months, I am finding that Facebook has been easing my isolation greatly. I have connected with friends from high school, and keep touch with friends from my old community, while strengthening the bonds with people I have met in my new home. I do not believe that Facebook (and similar social media constructs) are bad or good. They are simply tools.
8
Let us save lives and build community by requiring that one stand still to answer our phone or look at it. Including GPS instructions.
Not only would it greatly reduce the epidemic of pedestrian fatalities and walking into light poles and tripping over cracks in the sidewalk. It would also allow for meeting your neighborhood walkers and shoppers and rebuilding community and neighborhood.
Nice thought, but why stop at identifying the problem and start moving on to solutions. Journalists and comedians thrive when there are a huge number of problems that defy easy solution.
What we lack are common objectives. Take an easy one - keeping everyone happy and healthy. Loneliness is the absence of both.
How to achieve that? Talking in respectful dialogue. In our current political climate, that is a bridge too far. But at the level of the family or neighborhood, win-win solutions happen if people try.
First, make space for the family dinner and celebrations. Second, get out of your house and car, walk your neighborhood and say hi, being willing to talk to someone you don’t know.
This just involves taking a little personal initiative and not being afraid of your shadow. If we make this habitual and feel the rewards for everyone, then stick your neck out and risk doing the same in your school, workplace or areas of civic involvement. You will see that things are not as dark as some would make us think.
3
Social fragmentation is real, but without any mention of the economic conditions on which many people find themselves adrift (and why) this commentary is hollow. Sure, blame Facebook, because otherwise you’d have to consider the problem with America’s worship of the free market. Even the example... Bob Hall died (probably had inadequate healthcare) and his family was isolated and desperate because of an economic depression - caused by a collapse of the stock market - precipitated by income inequality, overconsumption, and financial speculation. I’m not worried about privacy because I’m socially rich, I’m worried about it because corporations are people now.
3
I think there’s merit for connecting with groups on social media, especially for those of us who live in less diverse places. But I agree that we’re the poorer for not having lively real-life connections, whether the ones that you reference are fulfilling (or not).
1
The writer needed to expound much more on this article. I felt it was half done. However, I do agree with what he wrote. People are becoming lonelier. Time Magazine had an excellent article about loneliness in the U.S.
1
Why do we need to frame so many issues as "us against them ? " The socially wealthy versus the socially isolated. It's a choice to smile and connect with your neighbor or sit at home with your Facebook. A choice to move beyond the superficial to engaged conversations and interactions with your colleagues, friends, family and neighbors. If you are lonely take a chance and talk to the check out person in the grocery store or take a stroll around your neighborhood and say hi to someone, anyone. If you are socially wealthy invite a social isolate out for coffee or tea. We gotta start somewhere, right?
7
Try to understand the allures of Facebook through the prism of Narcissism, especially in its appeal to the young. Self doubt is part of our development and with it comes into play our troubling sense of worth increasing our sense of loneliness. Facebook is the great seducer promising popularity, renown, even fame. This intrusion promoted by Facebook is aided by TV's 24 hours of hysterical examples of disposable fame embodied by disposable actors. It is a real horror story which must be addressed as described by David Brooks.
Mr. Brooks, why not open your mind to the possibility that red and blue people don't want to live with each other? Your presupposition that the united failed states must exist at any cost and therefore we have to force these different people together into a single country is unbecoming of your intellect. There isn't a single good reason why they should have to live together; certainly your nostalgic view of america that never was is not a good reason.
#calexit
4
"In America today you would say that the clans have polarized, the villages have been decimated and the tribes have become weaponized." Uh, David, why the passive construction? Your writing has contributed to the current state of affairs. Own it.
5
Only David Brooks could write an essay about the surge of loneliness and societal fragmentation in the USA without mention of the role that free-market fundamentalism has played in those trends.
7
"Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage." Huh? How is this fact connected to loneliness or a lack of social capital? That said, Brooks' concerns about an increase in "loneliness" and the lack of connection in American society, and thus a decline in social capital and its impact on our abilities to survive as individuals and communities are valid. I would suggest that social media, the internet, are not to blame necessarily but a so-called "free market" capitalistic society where consumption is celebrated and necessary to feed the beast. Thus we have our own home theaters instead of joining others at the public theater. We order books online instead of going to the public library and sharing books. One or two people live in McMansions instead of multi-generational homes. We drive in our separate cars and starve public transit. And, in order to fund all that we all have to work long hours and commute long distances. With the cost to family and civic life. So America's much touted individualism and its religious exaltation of capitalism is costing (sic) us much.
12
Parents of children with autism have connected with social media.
Their children, too, can get connected with friends who are otherwise far away, across town, or across the country.
But how do they get the “real” contacts that Brooks refers to?
It seems that the social media tools may be an addictive crutch, keeping their users increasingly dependent on it, but never solving the more fundamental issue.
But autism is not only an individual condition: it is a 2-way dysfunction. Individuals with autism may be less proficient in being able to recognize and use “in person” social cues — but the non-autistic population, perhaps Brooks’ “social wealthy” also needs to be more patient, more tolerant, more sympathetic to the autistic person who is not as socially adept as they are.
Everyone needs to step out of their comfort zones.
3
Is it economics? I’m part of the older generation. I do Facebook and email. Yet I still get together with my friends for Tuesday golf breakfast and a round of golf. Friday racquetball games and lunch; and Wednesday night poker. But if you can’t even afford bowling one night a week; all you have is Facebook for friends.
5
I treasure my friends, a few go back over 40 years. Several close family member have died very young so I am even more thankful to have them. The last job I had before retirement gave me several wonderful new friends, and I plan to keep them as close as I can. You have to get out of your cocoon to make friends however, and social media does not help this deep down. Reach out, turn off your phone, volunteer , give of yourself.
2
Not often do I agree with Mr. Brooks but here he has hit the mark. this is something I see in many of my work friends and even my close friends, we are not a happy lot. Let's put the phones down please?
Quite smartly put!
It so annoys me when someone says another person is his/her Facebook friend. My stock response is “Then that’s not your friend.” I refuse to join Facebook and have never had any desire to do so, even given multiple friends’ exhortations about how I could “see what’s happening” with other people. There’s an element of insincerity, voyeurism, and sometimes jealousy to Facebook and all those social media sites. I want no part of them! Besides, if I want to know what’s happening with my actual friends, I’ll give them a call, write them a letter, or drop by to say hello. You know, like humans have always done.
5
People can endure a life of suffering if it is not pointless. But if one’s life is pointless, then even a little pain is too much.
3
Progressives have been on the rise for the past 30 years. Suicide rates have been steadily increasing for the past 30 years. Coincidence?
2
Correlation is not causation.
2
It's never a coincidence when one person puts two fake statistics together to make a false argument.
4
Really stretching there, Sparky.
Since Reagan, who made us all want to kill ourselves, the correlation is a better fit with him and his GOP project to destroy government and move all the wealth to their already-wealthy donors, creating a permanent underclass of workers who can never get ahead, see no future for themselves or their kids, and so find relief where they can. Not to mention all the millions of war vets who were traumatized for life (if they survived) and their many suicides.
And throw in millions of guns, easily acquired and what do you get?
7
Two thoughts on this - first, maybe this explains why many young people, including my own kids, are flocking to urban areas. Second, social media didn’t start this problem- but maybe people turn to it because of loneliness. Maybe social media has a benefit - even for those of us with small social networks.
2
In general I agree with this article. I tell my sixteen year old daughter that authentic, caring relationships with other people are essential to a happy life, and face to face will always trump online. That said, don't assume that staring at a phone in public is a sign of social isolation. I have lots of close friends I love dearly, and I am often walking around looking at my phone. I love to read, and I will read anywhere, anytime. I read this article standing in line waiting for lunch.
6
The social pain of loneliness is as real a sensation as the physical pain of suffering from a medical illness and yet it carries with it a certain degree of shame and self pity to share the very admittance of it with another as one would do with a medical doctor.
2
The thing we need to remember is that technology is a tool, best used to enhance, not replace, existing relationships. My roommate and I often play video games with people from our hometowns, allowing us to maintain those connections, and build them with the others friends, without physical proximity. That's very different than playing a game alone, which is in the mold of reading a book.
3
One obvious problem is that so many of us live far from our jobs (most of us are not farmers or ranchers). When I retired from teaching at an urban university, I thought I would see my colleagues at least occasionally. But their home locations stretch over at least 100 miles--visiting would involve a major drive. Why not socialize with the people on my street? They're preoccupied with family and work concerns. I realize I need to find activities and new friends, and I'm sure I will eventually, but in the meanwhile, for the first time in my life, I do feel somewhat isolated.
16
It's not just the lack of "social wealth" that is "the problem that undergird many of our other problems". Just plain poverty is the problem if you read "Strangers in Their Own Land" by Arlee Hochschild. There, in Louisiana where the author did her research, they have all the social wealth that anyone could want -- close family, neighbors, churches -- and yet they are in favor of Trump and dismantling the government. Th choice they face there in their perception is between industry (jobs) and pollution, in a place that is one of the most polluted places in the country. Yet they choose industry and less regulation. Again, that's not because of loneliness and yet they are dying young from all the pollution.
5
There is no good substitute for human interaction. If you are disconnected and lonely, you've created that situation by placing limitations on yourself that excluded you from the community.
Turn off the screens; that's mostly wasted time. Take a class at community college to learn about a new subject and meet some people interested in it. Join a martial arts school, where people work closely together to perfect their techniques. Take the group exercise classes at your gym and talk to people. Join a political issues group that meets monthly to discuss a subject of interest. Soon, you'll be connected on subjects of interest and life will turn for the better.
P.S. Kudos to Mr. Brooks for a spectacular paragraph: "The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar observes that human societies exist on three levels: the clan (your family and close friends), the village (your local community) and the tribe (your larger group). In America today you would say that the clans have polarized, the villages have been decimated and the tribes have become weaponized."
3
David Brooks, you are not entirely wrong but you are wrong about young people. They are in school a great percentage of the day. Teachers will tell you they have a difficult time keeping their students from socializing! It is true that children aren't as free to roam as they were in the past but they do have play dates and participate in organized sports. Once adults are past college age it is more difficult to make friends but most can establish relationships through work and community organizations. Most of my friends are long-term friends that I encountered through work. Others I encountered in my neighborhood. Community is important and I think it is thriving out in the hinterlands -- maybe not so much in New York City and Washington, DC.
1
Conservatives believe the economic plight of the poor would be better handled by private charity than tax payer funded government programs.
Brooks's column is the social extension of that conservative belief.
I always told my employer I did not own a cell phone, a ubiquitous device today. People at work thought I was nuts. I asked why I needed a cell phone at work since the company pays for a land line with voice mail for my use. No answer. But, while my co-workers were being awakened by incompetent mangers at home at 7AM on Saturday morning, I slept like a babe.
Brooks should try working for 45-50 years in an industry where people are clawing at you every minute of the day and you would kill for ten minutes of quiet time.
Now, in retirement I am alone, but NEVER lonely. In fact, to paraphrase Johnathan Swift, a great man is never less alone than when he is alone.
Cicero said the only two things a person needs for a full life is a garden and a library. I have both of those, also.
Sorry, David, but the great thinkers have it right when it comes to solitude. Blessed solitude.
10
Yes, a garden, a library, and the comments from the NY Times.
1
For me, an interesting corollary is the interplay between cultivating a tight social network and the benefits that come along with it by "going away" to college. There has been much criticism recently about the cost of higher education and the actual value that a four-year degree carries. "Isn't college really just about partying these days?" "What can you really do with a liberal arts degree?" I would argue that by going the traditional route and attending college, you are cultivating a network that has the potential to substantially benefit you economically, socially, mentally and emotionally long after graduation. That seems to get ignored (and not adequately quantified) more and more as the years go by.
11
A liberal arts degree is also food for the soul or the inner you for the rest of your life.
2
A very insightful and important article that has garnered on a societal malady that in years to come may be seen as one of the greatest health crisis' of the 21st Century.
The symptoms are becoming clearer as they become deadlier in the rise in Suicides, Shootings, Opioid Victims and even in how political divisions are becoming increasingly toxic on both sides.
For these and the very many other barometers of life and existence that are rising across the board in so many negative and harmful ways they all, to some or greater extent have their origins in the weakening social umbrella of people and the society they live in and which is more and more becoming a less personal, personable and grouping of people known, interacting,sharing and being with, of and together.
And the greatest and most common dangerous vector that comes from all thus is LONELINESS.
A great Enemy throughout time but now fast becoming The Scourge of the 21st Century in ways and at levels never seen before.
1
I am 70 years old and live alone in a city and state I do not care for. I am here because my only child lives literally right around the corner yet I barely see her or my grandchildren because their lives are so busy. I have friends and family in other parts of the country, but none here. An entire week will go by and I will not have spoken to a single person. I am very unhappy and worried about how all this is affecting my health. I never expected my life to end this way.
11
Gloria - I don’t have any solutions or words of wisdom to share, but I couldn’t scroll by without acknowledging your post and letting you know that I hear and empathize with you. I think many parents of adult children and grandchildren are in the very same situation today as life grows ever busier and yet we all seem to have become less connected. I’ll be keeping your situation in my thoughts!
9
Dear Mr. Brooks-thank you for shining a light on this social phenomenon. It seems happiness is inversely related to the number of hours spent voyeuring into people's private lives via Facebook and other invasive social media avenues. Psychologists make serious scientific revelations about this and soon there will be other social media creating havoc on society. It has its good and it has its bad. Can society live reasonably with both aspects? This is where education must be paramount, front and center. The health of our society depends on it.
1
I get great connection from being part of the New York Times comment community. I know I will find lucidity, compassion and vision here. We need more communities like it. Platforms like Facebook need to find ways to create and encourage such communities - and to breakdown walls.
3
I'm afraid I'm confused. Social wealth and social poverty are terms relative to the individual. An introvert, I value and create social connections very differently from others. This column does not seem to consider that notion. For instance, I am not on Facebook. When people who are on Facebook find out I am not, they assume I must feel left out. I don't, because I don't value that kind of social connection. I have witnessed people actually attempting to make me feel left out, but to no avail. It just doesn't matter. Mr. Brooks might consider that individual personalities, preferences and values are difficult to capture in blanket statements and generalizations, thus watering down his argument.
9
Michelle--Sadly, Brooks is a tRump-style know-nothing, but talks as if he knows everything. As we can easily see, this is how he makes his living.
Our country suffers from monetary anxiety, increasing inequity, increasing racial discrimination, gun violence not known in any developed country, inadequate healthcare for many, decaying infrastructure, retirement insecurity, wage stagnation, governmental corruption, etc. It's not about Facebook. It's about what right-wing politicians have done over the past 35 years.
14
Our villages are broken due to the policies of conservatives. Iowa cannot even pay it's income tax refunds due to lack of funds while conservatives run the government. Inequality is growing and it's economic wealth we need to upgrade. Brooks never addresses the issue.
23
Thanks, David, for adding new concepts and the life perceptions they bring. Problems hanging around the neck of the Socially Poor are easily seen. As a former teacher I remember the good old days of Social Studies. Instead of teaching about foreign cultures we should reactivate SS by examining the kind of studies you shared. I hope that today’s Teens would be fascinated with class conversations about this important issue.
2
How are we going navigate being connected and entertained all the time? Curiously, though we evolved to be engaged with other humans constantly, we are inexorably drawn to seductive screens. The results include increased loneliness.
I think rising wealth had a hand in this, too. Greater wealth signifies greater autonomy, for better and for worse.
I remember "going out to play" as a kid and when my kids were born no one did that any more. Too much change, too fast!
1
Thank you! The topic or should I say, "Problem" of how social media is taking the place of social interactions among people, especially adolescents and teens needs to be addressed and discussed more frequently. After reading Jean Twenge's article, "Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation," last year I was thrilled to see that someone was paying attention to this. I was somewhat relieved, but also concerned that my 14 and 11 year old children weren't the only kids who seem to communicate predominantly on social media. Ex.) Snapchat & Instagram. It seems that outside of school, organized sports, and clubs today's children spend very little time interacting personally with one another.
3
Screens and phones and tablets, oh my! I agree with Mr. Brooks about some of the excessive use of these devices, but he doesn’t mention another cause of social poverty: we are obsessed with work. Longer and longer hours at the office, postponed gatherings with friends, and the work-comes-first nature of many jobs make social development nearly impossible. And it is not just high level jobs that make these demands of employees. Too many businesses require their workers to make up layoffs and downsizing by putting in more and more effort. Reducing screen time will not alleviate the isolation that results from our work obsession.
12
Brooks is always good with the symptoms but rarely spots the disease. Could it that massive wealth disparities and joblessness have more to do with social breakdown than Facebook?
17
No. Because we would have been far worse off than at nearly any other time in the past if the problem was mostly economic in nature.
1
Social media is a tool. It can be used wisely or foolishly, just like all tools.
3
It interests me that many people cannot stand their own company for any length of time, let alone amuse themselves. I caution against the intrinsic judgment that arises from the use of such labels: one person's social poverty is another person's welcome respite. And one person's social wealth is another person's circle of Hell. See Stranger in the Woods for the extreme example.
Where the "poverty" is not chosen, perhaps the question to be asked is whether one has made one's own bed, only to lie in it. You don't have friends unless you are a friend. Start, then, by being friendly, and see what happens. You are not Rapunzel, and no one is coming to rescue you. Stand up on your hind legs and smile and get out there.
Finally, don't shortchange technology. Facebook can offer you connections, but only if you get up off your couch and make a date for tea and sympathy after you "friend" one another. The good news: if everyone has a phone, then they can both make and receive phone calls. That is how my extroverted aunt maintained her social connections well into her 90s, long after she was able to visit, let alone travel: the phone.
As for me, I like the idea of not answering the phone every time it rings. Yeesh already. You'll find someone else to play with today.
7
When are you going to write an original column instead of the derivative junk you consistently write about. David, you are becoming irrelevant.
2
A good article, David. This is living proof you should stick to social issues and give up politics.
I have always been a big fan of David Brooks and have had so much about life enriched by the thoughts in his columns through the years. Without realizing it, I would have a tendency to believe most of what he said as absolute truth. A blessing has been to begin reading the comments that are posted by other readers about the thoughts and ideas brought up by Brooks. We all tend to believe that how we see things is the only truth. As I go down the list of comments I get to see how many different points of view and beliefs on the subject in question there are and I am so enriched by the way others see the same subject. I guess I am just thankful that there are columnists, reporters and other writers who when they put their thoughts into print, it stirs each of us search our hearts and minds to see how we feel about what was said. Thank you Mr. Brooks for saying how you see things even though you surely know that there are hundreds of us that see things differently. Isn't freedom of both the press and speech wonderful? Never mentioned is the freedom to think.
4
I agree. Mr. Brooks is a brilliant writer and has good observations to offer. But his ideas are burnished by the commenters, making a more interesting overall presentation.
can't you do something more uplifting? isn't it bad enough we have to read about Trump every day?
OK, David, I read your whole plea article. And I have decided to accept your facebook 'friend' request after all. ... on a trial basis ... for a few weeks ... but only if you stop posting those obnoxious pictures form your free first class charter jet trip around the world
3
A weird title and disjointed summary; of a weird title.
1
Bingo. A Brooks piece finally worth reading.
Social wealth begins inside each of us. Pull back from social media, from comparing yourself to others, and from constant analysis of where you are and where you think you should be at your age. Get over it. That's just the way it is. The world is a mess, but so what? It's always been a mess. Perfection is highly overrated. Get a sense of humor, and feel free to make mistakes. Actually, make lots of mistakes - whatever those are. Don't give in to fear. Don't give into despair. Don't expect everyone to listen to you and do what you think they should do. It ain't gonna happen. Take care of yourself first. That's not being selfish. It's offering the best person you can be as a gift. Find something you love to do and go do it. If it's hard to do, then work at it until you master it. Smile more. Get off social media. Get exercise. Eat better. Go to the library. Read books. Avoid people who act like jerks. Don't be a jerk yourself. Stand up for yourself. Say "no" when you don't want to do something. Ignore everyone else when you find something you do want to do and go ahead and do it. Stop expecting others to solve your problems. They have their own to deal with and that's the way it is. Face it - you're going to die at some point. It could be today or tomorrow or decades from now, but it's going to happen. Deal with it, get it into your head that you have this one moment to live life on your terms. Don't wait for the right moment. It doesn't exist. Get out now and live your life.
6
NY Times readers are so caught up in adult politics, that the most popular comments are focused on "hierarchy of needs" and the like, which are not concerns to our kids with iPhones and social media. My eighth grader is stuck in her room most of the time on social media, and doesn't really know what else to do. The corporate social media world and iPhones have indeed sucked the life out of a generation and are responsible for increasing depression and isolation. I'd like to take the iPhone and laptop away from her but she'd have a fit and my wife would disagree. What to do against this addictive, destructive social media monster?
4
The hollowing out of the economy drove these trends. "Middle class"? I've heard of it, like I've heard of DeSotos and smoking sections.
6
The article assumes solitude as a negative trait..it is not. Some of us prefer being lonely and in our own solitude over putting on a facade of cherry happiness just so we can be surrounded by people. As we get older, do what works for us, not what society expects of you.
3
I agree with you Mr. Brooks. My parents loved to relate how much fun they had as young people. (My mother will soon be 86, my Dad passed away just shy of 90). Although living in a rural area and growng up in the Depression they were short of cash, they were rich in relationships. My mother recalls fondly the Grange meeting, plays they would put on, socials ans suppers. She remembers her mother and neighbors deciding to throw together a potluck supper on a couple of hours notice. I even recall in my early years the annual community events that no longer exist. If someone had a baby or got married, we just had a "community shower". Community potlucks were common. Organizations like the Odd Fellows (my Dad was a devoted member for years), Grange, Elks, Mason, and so on are either dead or hanging by a thread. People sit at home, watch Netflix or stare at their phone. I moved back to the farm to take of Mom. It's difficult to reconnect as they opportunities are limited. I no longer know most of the people that live here. While we may be richer monetarily as a society, we are poorer indeed due to our lack of real relationships. Give me the Ladies Aid Christmas Bazaar any day over Facebook "friends".
6
Sharing is socialism.
1
Only when that sharing is compelled by law and government.
bill--Yeah, it's great, isn't it?
1
David Brooks, I completely 100% agree with you for once!
What a stunningly myopic piece, written as it is by one who has spent a lifetime advocating against those who advocate a sense of community.
Brutally honest.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
After therefore because of -
I'll offer another alternative -
When one half of all babies being born have their births paid for with some form of welfare -
it stands to reason that greater loneliness will be but one of many social consequences
2
David Brooks' one-sided and misleading column today fails to mention all the new, powerful and life-changing relationships that online interaction enables.To wit #MeToo, #MarchForOurLives, #Women'sMarch, #PowertToThePolls and many others.
No solutions, only problems....
Who is the 'our whose relationships are on the decline' in America?
America's white majority is rapidly aging and shrinking with a below replacement level birthrate. And the white American majority also has a decreasing life expectancy due to alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and suicide.
While blacks are disproportionately poorer and less well educated than whites a majority of the poor and uneducated in America were and are white because there are 5x as many whites and blacks. The blindness to this social color aka race disparity lies at the root of both Donald Trump's and Mark Zuckerberg's appeal to a certain mass of Americans.
totally wrong. social media (and the internet in general) has been a boon to shut-ins around the world. it allows for a modicum of connection to others and opens up a world of knowledge and belonging. brooks is so entranced with the old days of 70 years ago but there was much more lonliness back then. now you can travel the world from your computer, good enough for the people just can't literally travel the world.
I agree that the ability to connect with others via the internet has been a positive development for many people. Not everyone in the past was out going to social events - especially those who lived in rural areas. Most schools still have activities kids can participate in if they choose to do so, but someone has to drive them there. However, social
media can be very addictive and, perhaps because it is so easy to go online, it's importance in our lives continues to increase.
"People try to compensate for the lack of intimate connection by placing their moral and emotional longings on their political, ethnic and other tribes, turning them viciously on each other." Huh? I couldn't make sense of this sentence.
2
I am so glad you said this so I didn't have to say it. Thanks. Maybe someone will explain this? Mr. Brooks?
Social media has destroyed human interaction, voice, language, tone, eye contact and listening are gone.
What good are thousands of “friends”, if no one knows your name?
1
Brooks, how arrogant to state the socially poor don't care about the privacy issues with social media! Just because a person is lonely doesn't mean they're so consumed with that state of being that their brain has stopped functioning!
Just because a person is isolated doesn't mean they are lonely! Some people are loners and are quite happy that way. Your one-size-fits-all description of isolation and loneliness doesn't take into account differences of generations, gender, culture, sexual orientation or race. In fact, you entire column seems to arise from your white middle class perspective.
Every time I read one of your columns, I think of Pollyanna. Her simpleness. Perhaps good hearted, well intentioned, even genuine, but totally devoid of an understanding of our complexities.
And the GOP relentlessly supports policies that impoverish the 99%. Fox News foments hatred 24/7. Brooks tries to provide a moral/social undermining for the GOP which is ruining America.
MAWN: Make American Worse Now.
@Javaforce. Just because Trump is ruining America there is no reason not to write about loneliness! The despair of both is overwhelming, and each topic is important. Btw, if you haven't noticed, Much has been said about Trump!!.....
I'd like to see young people form nice social groups like they used to do in the last century, you know, the SDS, Black Panthers, Red Brigades, Yippies, Brown Berets, anti-war groups, etc. make connections and share the love.
Mr. Brooks finally agrees with Hillary Clinton. It does take a village!
Mr. Brooks starts with yet another book report.
In one or two sentences would you please explain what exactly you're searching for?
This piece contains not a word from Mr. Brooks about the over 40-years-long assault on families and communities by his conservative movement: how it has lead the way to weaponizing his "clans" and "villages" on social issues, how it destroyed unions, jobs, and the wages that supported broad-based prosperity and upperward mobility, how it drives politics with fear, hatred and division, and how it has brought about history's largest redistribution of wealth with all the gains going to the top, leaving decimated working and middle classes and vast numbers in grinding poverty.
None of this concerns David Brooks.
As shown by one of his recent columns, which he filled with drivel about some imagined conservative "Renaissance" among the latest, young conservative writers simply rehashing Locke, Burke and Rousseau without once addressing the dominant filth spewing from conservatives on Fox News, talk radio and the sewers of the Internet, David Brooks sees his role as being the Great Deflector for conservatives. He finds a facet of a social ill about which he can wax all public intellectual. He makes just enough valid points to be coherent, pointing out some limited, ideologically acceptable (to him) factors while ignoring the big ones. He makes sure to obscure any link to conservative ideas and the policies they have produced for decades. And, he does so while simultaneously managing to feed his pervasive need to be seen as oh-so high-minded.
Mr. Brooks insults our intelligence.
He is right. Zuckerburg did his virtue signaling at a so-called hearing where he wasn't even under oath. How did he signal his virtue? He said facebook had a "responsibility to make the connections between people positive." Forgetting how controlling that sounds, and a scary omen for our actual civil liberties, that is almost an admission that he knows Facebook has been maybe the number one driver towards downward social interactions. And he's made billions off of it!!! It's enough t make you triple take. But people actually think he should run for office. As usual David Brooks is the voice of reason on the roster of NYT editors who are proudly marching towards progressive utopia as seen by narcissists. I don't think I can take any more Trump hatred coming from a respected publication. Thankfully you allow comments.
1
Are you saying that poor people are lonlier than richer people?
Go ahead and blame social media. How about celebrity adoration? How about professional sports? How about dehumanizing advertisement? How about horrible politicians? How about lying brokers and lawyers? How about so many idiocies of daily life?
4
Facebook was NEVER EVER going to be the kind vision that many promoted. Facebook was and is set up for the business of betrayal. In FACT almost all of our tech companies are in the business of betrayal and we the stupid STILL give them all of our information not that it matters we now know they simply steal it from us w/out paying. I say pass a law that requires to compensate ALL the people whose information they use. Of course that won't work but it will force them to finally and forever get rid of those awful "permissions" and make even asking for them a sever federal crime. And since companies are now people then Uncle Sam should instead of levying small fixed fines which are meaningless fine the companies a healthy %30 of their gross income based on the previous year THAT will put a stop to this nonsense.
1
Very good piece.
1
Brooks is always one to go with simplistic anecdotes and shallow thoughts that serve his narrative. Never a mention of his Republican party's role in todays social dysfunction. No apparent ability to understand that correlation is not causation. The increase in suicides, for instance, is largely among white working-class males who have heeded the Republicans decades-long call to remain where they are after losing their job. They don't do what their parents and grandparents did, move where there is a job, learn a new skill. Just stay where you are and demand your old job back. This is what leads to depression, drug use an suicide. And as for a link between depression in teenagers and time spent on social media, Brooks assumes a cause and effect in the direction that suits his story line. Maybe depressed teens spend more time on social media to alleviate their symptoms. But Brooks only cherry-picks facts and presents what can be used to advance his narrative. I guess he assumes his readers on the right have no critical thinking skills.
Mr. Brooks says, "People try to compensate for the lack of intimate connection by placing their moral and emotional longings on their political, ethnic and other tribes, turning them viciously on each other." He gives no evidence for this statement, which smacks of what we used to call psychobabble. Btw, Putnam's "Bowling Alone" — on this same theme of low social capital — came out almosts 20 years ago.
1
Well, Mr. Brooks inexorable shift to the left is nearly complete. We can thank all the problems he writes about for giving him the impetus to care for others in a way only liberals can. Mr. Brooks, you are a good man, you always have been, and now your good is becoming a force of nature.
1
I've been a media critic since the early 60's. I recognied their power to control thoughts. That was just the beginning of media saturation in peoples lives. Now with the proliferation of media sources we see the results. An unstable lonely population
1
While I don't disagree with the premise of social media lending to isolation in teens, digital social platforms are not entirely to blame. After all, look at how fb/youtube allowed the Arab Spring to happen. It worked to do the opposite of what Mr. Dowd laments. It brought out people who cared about their fellow beings. There is some other rot that has set in. One that was set in motion decades ago and now given more fuel by social media.
This article is a good beginning. But it needs follow up. Why is there more isolation today? Is it the effects of social media? Television as an isolating phenomenon? Cars? Breakdown of social networks like churches and social gathering places? The desperation of many in making a living in a society that doesn't value the individual but values the "schedule". One parent families? Drugs? A sense of meaninglessness? All of the above? Where I live, there is a real community. Where others live, less so. Why? Then: What can be done to alleviate the problem? Can government play a role? Are there innovative programs designed to help build networks and genuine communities? If yes, what are they? What do they do? David Brooks generally has "one-off"columns, but this one needs a series.
I quit facebook in 2013 because it made me miserable. For the last 5 years, I enjoyed expressing myself on twitter, until I finally realized it gave me no satisfying connection to people. I have felt empty and missed it, but after a month I'm getting over it. Life without social media is better.
Indeed loneliness, isolation and unemployment are the devil's workshop. How do we rebuild our villages?
Are you saying the socially wealthy are wealthy and highly educated and therefor not lonely. I would suggest that they are are also lonely and socially poor. Their connections usually are not their neighbors or family.
I spend much of my time online (reading the NYT is part of my morning...I teach 100% online). Earlier this morning, I received e-mails from two of my college roommates--in separate states on the west coast. I received news of a high-school classmate's death from a dedicated fellow classmate. I've graded assignments from three classes...and have looked at latest news from friends on FB. Exactly how can this be defined as "loneliness"? In the last 12 hours, I've also had long phone conversations (cell phone) with two of my five children....also enjoyed conversation in a minivan bringing me back from dropping my car off for service earlier this a.m. Where are your data coming from?
1
Maybe we ought to be THOUGHTFULLY listening to 'Only The Lonely', and this is NOT sarcasm. Songs tell depp truths and this seems to be one we need to pay more attention to.
Roy Orbison, where are you now that we need you? Seriously.
There was a time when acquaintances were encouraged to poach among your friends and family. Those days are long gone with the covered wagon. The socially ineptitude of many and just plain criminality of the few is not worth the risk anymore.
1
This is a rather insightful and knowledgeable piece, but I sense that, lurking behind the analysis is a Rousseauian notion of pre-modern life as somehow noble and wonderfully in tune with nature. It tweren’t and it ain’t. But—community and a healthy social life are good things, by almost any social scientific standard. How can such values be realized in an age when communication between individuals has itself been commodified and regulated becomes a major question of the age? Mr. Brooks is right to raise it. Regulated? Yes, that’s what social media does. It provides the form in which people use it. That form is regulation pure and simple, like all forms. Newspapers have a form, so do TV, radio, and all other forms of electronic communication. Newspapers are regulated at the same time we give them (and other news sources) the sobriquet “free press.” The question becomes how can social media be regulated better to encourage the realization of values such as community and a healthy social life? Right now they’re doing a lousy job of it, as Mr. Brooks demonstrates.
1
What does that one sentence about children being born to women younger than 30 are often born to single mothers? I didn’t see any reason for that. What did I miss?
1
If you are lonely when you're alone, you are in bad company. - Jean-Paul Sartre
Many of us are entirely capable of living the good life without the "benefit" of a wide circle of friends. Many of us do not enjoy socializing and prefer our own company. We are not lonely, not by a long shot.
David Brooks and the powers that be are very fond of reviling us and citing the "loneliness kills" statistics, but they never mention those of us who thrive in solitude. I call theses type of people "socialists" - not as a political ideology, but a social one. It is just another idea that allows you to look down on other people, and castigate them. Perhaps it makes them feel better, who knows? But it is an epidemic in modern life. Everywhere we turn people are telling us, "You must socialize or you are being irresponsible to your neighbors, would-be friends, your tribe and your country!"
Yeah well, guess what? We are not listening because we know better. You are the ones grasping at Facebook straws, blindly and impulsively to foster "connections" with as many people as possible to keep yourself occupied ina vain attempt to avoid loneliness. Yes, it is the Facebook crowd that is suffering and all the social media drugs on earth will not get you back in touch with the only sure, tried and true friend you'll ever have: Yourself.
Please leave us alone.
1
I am 87 years old and remember (year?)two scenes when smartphones were new: a young man in a restaurant trying to impress his utterly annoyed date by using before her his smartphone; in a public park, four girls sitting on a bench, no words exchanged, each staring on her tablet. Not for me.(Telephones, also abroad, have become so cheap!)
Americans have overvalued the idea of rugged individualism. We must be independent and able to take care of ourselves. We don’t want our kids living with us when they’re 18 and they don’t want us living with them with we’re 80. If we’re unmarried the “ideal” arrangement is to live alone with no one but the four walls and a cat to talk to and we should be happy in these circumstances, else we are a failure (yes, some do thrive in solitude, but most of us need connection). We let daycare raise Junior and we let Grandma live alone with a gadget around her neck.
No wonder many aren’t doing well.
1
Thank you David. and congratulations for giving up snark. I appreciate this piece, we need it.
1
Sure would love to read your memoirs instead of your opinions. People come together by sharing their stories. They can focus on the universal instead of the divisive. I'd like to see you use your considerable talent sharing instead of paraphrasing. Could you honor your readers with such an endeavor?
1
At the water-cooler, causal arrows go backwards. That's because there's no time--gulp by gulp-- to set things right. Therefore, here's yet another shining exemplar of our author's 'water-cooler philosophy'...
Today, people form ad hoc communities by reaching out to each other with impersonal, social-media gizmos. These, ostensibly, replace the organic social networks and bonds called 'family, 'community', and 'polis' which no longer exist.
So what we have, in reality, are markets. For example, adultish children no longer work for or with their parents; rather, they must sell their labor to strangers. In other words, there is no economic tie-in to familial or communal bonds.
Now beyond the water-cooler, this is important.. As intrinsic relational ties are loosened, people seek out the extrinsic. Yet in the wider world, the individual encounters him/her self as a commodity. It's not for nothing that young people are told to 'sell yourself'.
Another good example is the selection of a mate. Whereas before it was accomplished within an extended village of strong recommendation and advice (if not altogether arranged), today it's the office, the grocery store, the bar.
Another dimension of social media involves the seeking out of likenesses by those who are dissatisfied with their immediate web of contacts. Presumably, then, our author insists that gays, blacks, and females should happily accept their minority status within communities dominated by rednecks?
1
To sum it up, wealth inequality, the goal of the Republican Party, is destroying us, and the wealthy are always looking for new ways to blame the lazy, irresponsible, antisocial, middle class (or what's left of it,) and chide them with tales about cancer stricken farmers who win the respect of their miserly neighbors, pull themselves up by the bootstraps, invent Facebook in their dorm room, etc, etc.
P.s. Facebook, probably even to Zuckerberg's surprise, turns out to make everyone feel even more isolated. And that's besides becoming a tool of evil propagandists.
1
The opposite of connected is not disconnected but ostracized, which is how a lot of people feel in their schools, work places and even in their families. And those without consolation or hope can rarely give either.
1
I agree with the problems this article identifies, but don't agree with the causes it proposes... I contend that the socially poor have always been poor and getting poorer, and that's because of the reality of social capitalism, and that social capitalists can be just as ruthless as financial capitalists. Obviously this problem intensifies with population density and the prevalence cliques, which necessitate the individual to concede to the group, or be starved of personal resources. The technology only reports this more clearly to everyone, so this article I feel shoots the messenger.
I feel smug. There ARE those of us - many of us, in fact - who never fell into the traps set by the internet and social media. I use the internet as a tool when I need it, and I rely on the technology of texts and emails to supplement - not replace - my unchanged approach to keeping in touch with those in my life: cards and phone calls and visits when I can. Not all of us are magpies who eagerly grabbed hold of the shiny baubles thrown before us by Zuck et al.
Not sure where you're going with this but I do know you neatly avoided ascribing the origins of all that loneliness, depression, and isolation to it's real sources - economic deterioration, social support collapse, and an increasingly toothless education system. A fast-moving world built for the quick-moving is a daunting place to those who have been given little or no ammunition.
9
"It’s that heavy internet users are much less likely to have contact with their proximate neighbors to exchange favors and extend care. There’s something big happening to the social structure of neighborhoods." Good observation...however, didn't this happen, in some fashion, with the telephone, the transcontinental railroad, air mail, etc.? Only today, the rate of technological change is increasing faster than we can adapt to that change.
2
True: "The mass migration to online life is not the only force driving these trends, but it is a big one."
It is definitely worth mentioning the others, because they may have laid the foundation. My father named television as the major force driving these trends a generation ago. Another factor is women working. Thirty years ago, the stay-at-home-mom was the glue that held the neighborhood together. Now there is no-one home during the day. The kids are all in day care or after-school programs. Another factor is the relocations of big business. Neighborhoods with three generations of family are gone. The post-war generation had to move to find employment. Underlying the last two factors was employment, the economy. More generally, it is the industrial revolution that has uprooted traditional communities.
4
People who are viewed as "socially wealthy" may in fact very if their connections are commercial.
The truth is that relationships change, what you are describing is not the end of society but a social revolution. At the end we will have gained and lost together, evolved in hope of a better America. Although never perfect.
There is a lot of emphasis on number of connections in this piece but research has shown that it the depth of connection that matters for health and longevity. So you are OK if you have one or two close friends you can share everything with but not OK if you have thousands of followers but no one to confide in. Socially "wealthy" individuals run into the same types of mental problems as the "other half" so it is ultimately how the individual interprets the world that counts. It just may be that the individual out on Walden's pond is richer than the author seems to think.
5
Clan, Village, and Tribe started to decline (even as a concept) in the 50s with the mobility & communication (both real & virtual) provided by highways, suburbs, telephone & tv.
1
This is something I know a lot about; it's a solvable problem, but requires effort and bravery. I'm an only child of divorced, dead parents. I was single and childless until my mid-40s, plus I have no extended family on father's side. AND as an only child, my socialization skills were poor. But out of necessity I have built an amazing network of friends who are like family to me.
• It takes time. To build real relationships with people, you need to log hours of conversation and shared experiences. Start now! Pick up the phone today!
• It takes realism & compromise. I was able to forge friendships with peers who had kids by accommodating their schedules and taking an interest in their great kids. Now I'm not just friends with my friends, but with a fleet of cool, interesting college students!
• It takes effort & bravery. You have to put yourself out there & risk rejection. Reach out, find something to do, initiate plans, invite people over.
• Self-awareness. Would you want to be friends with you? How do you get in your way? Do you need therapy etc.
• Phone! A lot of millennial don't talk on the phone, but the phone is amazing. It can forge intimacy even more than meeting in person b/c people are relaxed and uninhibited on the phone, yet it asks less of someone. Especially for people in car cultures (safely of course)–phone is great resource.
Just admitting you're lonely takes bravery. Solving it requires action–actions anyone can take.
9
Great suggestions to lay out an anti-loneliness plan. I worked in geriatrics for years and found that many people stop making friends as they get older
or only make friends with people their own age. Their pool of friends shrank and they became increasingly isolated.
3
I have similarly found that "effort & bravery" is indeed the key to forging friendships in an unfriendly world. It also requires what I call "aggressive friendliness."
For example, "Meetup" and similar groups meet too infrequently, and members attend too inconsistently, to provide opportunities for friendship by themselves. So before a meeting ends and everyone scatters to the four winds, I announce that I'm going to a particular restaurant for whatever meal is appropriate to that time of day. Then I invite everyone to join me.
Usually, nobody accepts my invitation. As that's normal, I don't take it personally as "rejection." But occasionally someone does join me. That's an opportunity to determine if this person offers a friendship worth taking ownership of. "Ownership" means I assume all the responsibility for "reach[ing] out, find[ing] something to do, initiat[ing] plans, and invit[ing] them over."
These friends never call me or initiate anything, but they're clearly happy to talk to me when I call, and to accept my invitations. And as long as I continue to take all the initiative, I've got a friend..... until they either get meet a romantic partner, move away for a new job, or I slack off in my ownership responsibilities.
Yes, such "friendships" are definitely one-sided, which is why I eventually get tired of owning them. But this seems to be the only available option. One-sided is better than zero-sided, I suppose. And probably better than Facebook.
3
My borrowed grandchild, a 9 year old girl, was given a smartphone for her birthday. Her younger brother longs for the day he can have his own, and feels deprived with only a tablet in his hands.
It reminds me of what learning to drive meant to my generation- freedom to join the world at large.
I might argue that getting into our own cars isolated me and my friends- we were so intoxicated with our mobility all we wanted to do was cruise around.
Its not black and white- as a nerdy introvert I’ve deeply enjoyed online relationships since the 90s, having a good number become RL (Real-life) friends.
But I do see neighborhood and village diminishing from our polarization, and our grueling commutes. I’m alone in my car, just like you’d expect of a motor city girl. But I have my cellphone for company now.
What Mr. Brooks writes here is true in my opinion. My personal experience though is that several things happened in society long before smartphones and Facebook showed up. In my youth married women did not work. The fact that they were in the home all day created a chance for social interactions and a feeling of safety and belonging that knit both the women and kids and even the men into a tight network. As kids, we wandered in and out of each other yards and houses even though I was raised in the city. My neighborhood has now retreated behind locked doors and empty houses during the day. Women work, have fewer than the four to nine kids they had back then. Instead of women socializing on front porches while sometimes ten or more kids played touch football there is an eerie quiet. You often see no human until six or seven p.m. I am not saying that this was a great, untroubled time. The men in my neighborhood were very disdainful of their wives who didn't work out in "the real world" as one said to his wife in my hearing and my takeaway from my childhood about husbands was that they tended to be verbally abusive. When the women gathered on front porches some of them were often not quite drunk but not quite sober either. The clan gave us as kids a great sense of freedom, safety and belonging. We all paid a price. Many women in the area are now single and likely to stay that way. When socializing happens it is among the kids on weekends and in back yards unseen.
2
Like everything else, there are good sides and bad sides to social media. Older people like Brooks like to romanticize the past without acknowledging the positive aspects of progress. My teenaged daughter went to a summer camp in Europe and social media has enabled her to keep the friendships she made there in a way that would not have been possible when I was her age. Social media enabled the Women's March to come to fruition and continues to enable political movements, including the teen-driven anti-gun violence movement. Yes, there are some negative effects to social media, but there were plenty of negative aspects to the '50s, '60s and '70s, along with the positive aspects created by smaller, less mobile communities. Rather than condemn social media, work with people to use it to its best effect.
4
Today for many there is no such thing as indicated in this opinion. Sure some have connections but more through their jobs, or churches. Few if any are going to co-sign for loans even for their relatives, they usually end badly.
Nothing wrong with pointing out the benefits of strong social support networks. However, the intangible and/or spiritual connections upon which Brooks so often focuses (under the general label of "social wealth") are no substitute for responsible governance.
The farmer in this article did NOT die of "loneliness." He died of cancer, the treatment of which can still bankrupt even the most fiscally responsible person. Cancer treatments have advanced greatly since 1932, but Brooks's anecdote would be largely unchanged for a farmer in 2018. The only difference is that the farmer (as he lay dying) would have the opportunity to watch conservative lawmakers boast about all the freedom they were bestowing upon the nation by attacking Obamacare. Perhaps if he survived long enough, he would hear the beginnings of Congress sniffing around the edges of medicare too. At the same time, the farmer's government would be fighting hard to give the kind of banks dropping the hammer on his family tax "relief" and deregulation gifts.
About a year after the farmer's death, his family would be introduced to FDR and the "New Deal," establishing the social safety nets that would become vital to them and many other families. In 2018, the farmer would be forced to trust his family to the honor and competence of Donald J. Trump.
So it's all well and good to talk about private charity, but it'd be better if the government fulfilled its responsibilities to provide for the general welfare.
9
In any time of our human history, there will always be the rich and the poor. But I think it is fair to say the poverty of relationship is worse now than ever and that in part is due to technological advances and industrialization of our society. Loneliness, aloneness is not intentional but an unfortunate by product.
It is why philosophers are always important people in any time. They are people who reflect, who strive for the long term and in depth, they don't just react, they question.
We need to wiser in using the conveniences and advantages provided us from science and technologies. We need to grow inwardly as well as technologically.
I just picked up the phone to invite a friend for lunch.
1
As a teacher, I can confirm how right Brooks is, how dire the situation is, and how real the potential for social collapse grows.
I've been banging this drum from the day the internet took over because the potential to become "together alone” was apparent almost immediately. Once schools –with virtually no research --jumped on the bandwagon and demanded that all work be done on computers, it was all over but the stomping.
I used to walk down halls and hear students laughing and working together. Now I walk down silent corridors where they sit moored, an island of one, as their fingers madly text...often to the girl sitting silently next to them.
There is even accruing evidence that language acquisition in babies is being compromised. Parents are too busy texting to talk to their own children, thus impairing their ability to learn language and become fully human. A leading neurologist and the author of “Endangered Minds” just spoke to us about this phenomenon. Since she pointed it out, I’ve seen evidence of it everywhere.
Brooks is right. The evidence of harm is overwhelming. Yet nothing is done because so many adults have been seduced into thinking it’s cool to be addicted to an object, a toy. That we’ve been so complicit in harming the intellectual, spiritual and emotional lives of our own children is equal parts wrong and unforgivable.
It's time to limit time on technology and tune into each other. The internet is a useful tool; too many make it their lives.
5
Get a bike, visit a bike shop, go on a group ride, make friends.
Amazon isn't a bike shop or a gym or a church or anything one needs.
Many issues contribute to loneliness, including the geographic structure of our communities, economic poverty, and workplace instability. Too many of our neighborhoods are not walkable and have no centers to anchor communities. That means people get out into their cars and go somewhere where they are unlikely to encounter anyone they know and then they come home. Sometimes the online community is the only one they have because they don’t have a physical community.
We need to look beyond individual actions such as getting online to the ways in which planning and building assume the American ideal of individualism. We need to look to our politics in which being impoverished almost guarantees one doesn’t have time between the three jobs that put food on the table to meet the neighbors, and the way in which people want or need to change jobs frequently or crazy scheduling disrupts workplace connections.
A repetitive theme of Mr. Brooks is to blame individual choices for social ills. It is harder and more complex and realistic to look at the systemic, political factors that push people towards the choices they make by narrowing their options.
5
When gold was discovered in South Africa, the government taxed the farms to drive workers to the mines. The same thing happened in England during the industrial revolution -- they needed human fodder for the factories and engineered a solution through taxation. Today, America's small towns have been emptied as younger people migrate to the cities, to good jobs, to out-of-sight property costs, and to 3-hour commutes. This is insanity, but it benefits the employers at the expense of their human "resources." In my own SF Bay Area it can take three hours to travel 30 miles during rush hour. Our leaders' answer to this is to build yet another bridge across the bay, so even more poor souls can commute to Silicon Valley. Fully 70% of households in Tracy, CA send a member to the Bay Area and back every day. Their time away from home every day stretches from 15 to 18 hours. Who has time to make friends and establish community under this punishing system? It's past time to move employment to less-populous regions and stop wasting our human lives on our roadways. Maybe then we'd have a little time to get to know our next-door neighbors.
12
This is exacerbated in Denver by a school board that has done everything it can to eliminate neighbor schools-- the very connections that keep the village intact.
4
what is social wealth? Brooks you are getting tiresome because you try to hard to be philosophical and end up being a snob.
3
When the wealthy are relieved of all responsibility to support those who are much worse off, the social contract has been broken. Facebook merely accelerates the existing social breakdown. But it's easy to see why politicians (and conservative pundits) would seek to shift the blame.
5
The deterioration in the quality of workplace relationships has been catalyzed by the rank-and-yank philosophy of corporate management originally championed by GE's Jack Welch. You cannot really be friends with your colleague in the next cube in an environment where his success means your failure.
More generally, high levels of inequality, competition, and economic striving have corroded the bonds of social cohesion.
12
What is the cause of this? Late 20th-early 21st global capitalism. Economic pressures on individuals, family, community and larger aggregations have pushed each level to focus more and more on the lower level.
The solution: love. Love yourself, love each other as individuals, love your community, love the world.
6
Being socially impoverished, I think I have insight unavailable to the wealthy Mr Brooks.
As a young adult, I lived in an apartment building for 12 years. I knew none of my proximate neighbors, who seemed to prefer a minimum of interaction with each other.
When I moved to another apartment building in the same city, I decided to fix that problem. I would start by knocking on every door in the building and introducing myself.
If a neighbor answered the door at all, they greeted me with skepticism, puzzlement, and fear. As no neighbor had ever knocked on their door to introduce themselves, I must have some other agenda. Was I selling something? Was I looking for valuables to steal or children to molest? Despite my sincere assertion that really did just want to meet all my neighbors, I was not welcomed warmly.
I also found that people at clubs and other organizations were only looking for leads to sales, jobs, or other ways to advance their businesses or careers. They had no interest in (or time for) purely social connections.
This all happened before social media existed.
While it's easy for socially wealthy people (even those willing to admit "they don't really know how the other half lives") to blame Facebook, social poverty is a pervasive "structural" problem inherent to the two defining characteristics of American society: Cutthroat Capitalism and Fear. As with economic poverty, many of the wealthy benefit from inequality, and even consider it desirable.
24
My friends got jobs and moved away, and my neighbors go into my car and look for valuable items to steal if I forget to lock it. My coworkers are petty. I'm very grateful to have social media so I can stay in contact with people who care about me when my day-to-day life wears me down.
10
Like everything else in life, moderation is the key. I feel that social media can have an affect on mental health, both positive and negative. It is the way you handle yourself. Know your limitations. If you suffer from the Grass is greener syndrome, maybe it isn't the most positive way to spend your free time. Face to face interaction and relationships will probably have a more positive affect on your mental health. Conversely, if circumstances prevent you from that, being able to connect via social media with friends and family who are far away can be help the soul. For my children, the overall experience has been a positive...staying in touch with friends, playing games online...virtual play dates are the norm and the conversations they are having are developing strong friendships of value.
How do you explain the "Go Fund Me" phenomenon if we are isolated and no longer have a way to make connections. I think Mr.Brooks is basically correct in his conclusion, but is also not looking at new ways to network and find support. The same social media that isolates us allows us to find those with similar views and energize them to action.
In my opinion, based on observation as a social worker and mental health counselor, we have more loneliness because we have less connectedness.
In their desire to own more "things," people spend more time working and less time with family and friends. We have far more divorce than we did five decades ago. Our expectations have exceeded our ability to deliver on them, both materially and emotionally.
We also live farther apart. Though I moved back after retirement to the area where I grew up, one old friend lives 30 miles in one direction and the other 35 in the other direction. A third friend is an alcoholic and chain smoker. I have asthma, so I cannot enter her home.
I suspect most people have similar stories. Slowly I am building new relationships with neighbors and others who share my life view. It takes time. Some is done online; some in person. All are enriching.
4
It seems fashionable to depict social media as causing social isolation. But for many, social media can be a tool for social connection that does not exist in real life.
I have Asperger's and thus experience frequent social rejection. Facebook has been a lifeline for me. I've joined a number of FB support groups for Aspies. In them, I've developed connections to a number of people who share similar life situations and who understand my circumstances. I've even developed an on-line friendship with an Australian woman who has Asperger's, and we've done video chats together.
So I would not jump to the conclusion that social media are bad for everyone. Rather, my biggest concern about using Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg's demonstrated lack of ethics (e.g., Cambridge Analytica). But I need Facebook enough that I'll overlook that.
6
Your sentiments are appreciated. Unfortunately this topic is a bit too complex for the amount of time/room allotted you.
The perception differences between the social wealthy and the socially poor is a very good point you made. It appears that each new technological platform seems to have created more and more opportunities for both good and bad to occur.
I am convinced that the level of reading comprehension remains the primary ill of our species. With all these muted tentative thoughts and little ability to communicate them effectively, we have a constant prescription for trouble brewing. Of course this is my point of view, I am certain there are others without much of a good conscience who relish our ignorance.
I do not take for granted the power of reading aloud to children - along with allowing them to read aloud. Please do not be ashamed to research words in the dictionary in front of them. Do not be ashamed to be a decent humble fallible human creature. After all, we all understand that every great woman and man will find themselves bested at some point.
My contributions are small. At least I'm still making an effort. Current times have proven difficult for me to feel positive about much of anything.
Thanks for allowing my thoughts to go forward.
5
Thought-provoking piece. I guess I see it the opposite way: Facebook doesn't so much cause more loneliness; instead, IMHO, Facebook is a symptom of ever greater loneliness.
And I think that loneliness is about the way we live in the modern age.
My dad died at 84 back in 2010. As he was dying, I recorded some video interviews with him. The questions that interested me most concerned his childhood in a village in the Balkans in the 1930s.
Water source ... a communal well in the village
Home heating ... in the winter, the men and boys of the village would go up into the mountains, fell a large tree, haul it back to the village on a sleigh, chop it up as a team, and distribute the firewood among the village
Winter food ... fermented cabbage and other foods, shared widely in the village
Think about the life-long strong social bonds forged during these basic functions of life.
Now think about how you get your water, your home heating, and your winter food, and consider how much "social bank" you earn collecting these.
My dad's village was "poor" in the conventional sense. But methinks our "rich" lives today are truly impoverished.
14
David,
While I agree with many of your concerns and have similarly been following the debate over social media's impact on social relationships; it is not at all clear to me whether this is a mere correlation, or causal. And, if it is causal, I am not sure which drives which.
I think the basic premise, that people are increasingly lonely and disconnected, is quite likely true and something most of us have anecdotally observed.
I am less clear on whether this because of social media's use, or whether social media may actually be staving off a far worse wave of loneliness by acting as a surrogate for personal connection. We can debate what is a more legitimate experience, in person connections versus virtual connections; but at the end of the day we need to recognize that virtual connection has some legitimacy in and of itself despite our qualitative preference for in person contact.
I think where the discussion goes off track is in failing to ask why people are more lonely and why so many are willing to accept virtual connection as the surrogate. My sense is social media use is a symptom, and may even reach addictive levels for some; but that it was not the first cause of the problem.
I'm afraid I'm guilty of this myself and increasingly find fewer in person connections. I have always seen this as more indicative of personal failings than the fault of technology.
4
I agree with a lot of this, although I don't think this started with social media. I remember when my kids were little and everyone was starting to get "media centers" in their cars. That way, the kids could be "entertained" while driving, neither interacting with other passengers nor with the environment. I found that a troubling development - what ever happened to looking at the landscape, enjoying nature, playing observational "car games" (e.g., license plates, I spy, etc.) I agree with most of what you say, David, but I think it started with the isolation of wall to wall television.
5
I would add to all this that families are ALOT smaller these days...siblings are the most important people in our lives generally, because they are around mostly our whole lives, and they're just there, you don't have to make them like you have to make friends...
When I had a job I too used to bake cookies and cakes and bring some in to work to share. I also shared home made salsa and guacamole with my coworkers. It didn't stop the unkind remarks or induce any of them to be nicer of kinder to me or to anyone else in the company. Being kind in America has become a waste of time. Holding the door for a person whose hands are full sometimes elicits a polite nod. More often every person behind that person crowds in around them and comes out too.
The blindness in America isn't that of social wealth. It's blindness of selfishness, of I've got to have what's coming to me. You could, in today's America and the one of 20 years ago without cell phones, walk down the street crying and no one would notice or care or stop to help. I fell off my bike several years ago and was unconscious for a few seconds. I got up slowly. I was bleeding. Not one biker stopped to see if I was okay or if I needed help. Not one.
5
It always amazes me when these right wing folks talk of relationships and community, considering that it is in the practice of their free market political/economic theories that relationships and community are overlooked, if not positively destroyed. Try to find even the idea of "community" in your Econ 101 text--Adam Smith, himself, wrote a whole book about these "moral sentiments."
5
You just proved One of Brooks’ points: tribes turn on each other viciously ( in this case, Left vs Right)
I must be doing it wrong; I have a wide ranging circle of friends on social media, many of whom are too distant to visit regularly. I cherish them as much as those I see face to face and their loss would diminish my social wealth. For those dismayed by the family members across the table focused only online I have a suggestion. Join them there! You might enjoy yourself and find that they are not as isolated as you think.
1
(For the majority of Facebook users, it is their only connection to the outside world. US is not the primary user.) But the fact is that when people began to abandon the front porch and gossip over the fence to watch a box called television, this trend began. It has jumped exponentially to the web, but it has been in process for many years.
3
Social media may well have contributed to this problem but its roots go far beyond that recent innovation. Looking at the problem from the basis of home architecture, for example, reveals many trends going back to the 50's at least.
Most homes used to be built with a large front porch, where one could sit and interact with people as they went by. Now, they have patios in the back, isolating one from the neighborhood. More subtle, but equally telling, front sidewalks used to go out to the community sidewalk. Now, the go to one's private driveway more often than not.
I am not certain what the cause of the post-war social isolationism is, and these are certainly symptoms and not causes, but social media is much too late to the party to be the root.
4
Mr. Brooks, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue, but I must suggest that social media can also save some of us who are isolated by our situations. As a widow, who cared for 20 years for my husband with dementia, I was sustained and my stress lightened by interactions on Facebook. Strangers in support groups became friends, and we keep in touch even after we've become widows and widowers, cheering one another on in this new stage of life. So, there are some very good aspects to social media too. Take care, Kathleen
Again a binary sort, the usual "there are two kinds of people" analysis. It gets old; if we were to list all the "two kinds" that Mr. B has identified over the the last several years we'd have a long, long list. To make sense of all the bifurcations would be a life's work.
It's a serious and wonderful thing to seek to find the truths behind our human existence, and Mr. B obviously has that as his essential motivation. I wish he would go deeper, rather than surfing the social science waves each week, seldom remembering anything at all about the last wave he touched, as if every wave was not a movement of the ocean they arise from.
Someday I hope and expect Mr. B will stumble, or fall, into that ocean and bring back some deeper, more fundamental insights than those many, practically disposable, that he weekly surfs.
It would be foolish to dispute the impact of social media for some of these problems. But there is a blindness of the socially wealthy here, too. Walmart - not Facebook - decimated the downtowns. In our 'liberal' form of society and political economy, the idea of the cities and states working together to preserve rich social opportunities for everyone is a non-starter. You want to meet someone for a conversation - try the McDonalds at the Hi-way exist ramp. The problem, in short, is not merely social media but, more significantly, the capitalist's destruction of the commons.
I recently read Paul Theroux's magisterial Deep South. Thoroux documents the take over of agriculture by huge factory farms and of commerce by Walmart. Downtowns die. Jobs do not exist. The entire local economy disappears. Walmart leaves because there is no effective economic demand - everyone is dead broke. When the Subway at Walmart is no longer available, it is impossible to get together with a friend or neighbor in a public place for a coke.
These are problems that can be addressed by creative public private partnerships. But it is much easier to blind ourselves to them and blame Facebook.
1
I'm not sure if my comments belong here, but I certainly fall under the "lonliness" category as Mr. Brooks defines it here. I have great respect for Mr. Brooks, read his columns, and look forward to hearing his comments weekly on Friday's PBS News Hour.
I am not lonely, but I have only one person I would call a friend and he is 23 years my junior and married with a family. I speak with him infrequently and visit with him on average about once a month, usually to share a meal.
I am a happy person. I have a great love and appreciation for being alive. I am thankful for my good health and my "family" of three dogs. I hike for an hour and a half almost daily in the forest a few blocks from my home. The forest, as an example, is my church. I feel I am with God when I am there. I am filled with a joi de vivre that is difficult to explain in words but fills my life with fullness, happiness, and a great appreciation for being present on this Earth.
With 40% of us supporting the job our president is doing there is definitely something very wrong with our society. Perhaps it has more to do with a lack of appreciation for all that we have. I consider it a lack of spirituality. I'm not certain what it is, but in my case, it is not a lack of interaction with other people.
5
There needs to be a calculation that measures how different types of social injustice contribute to social poverty. It seems to me Brooks is putting the cart before the horse.
1
An excellent article. Extending this, I would say that single motherhood is part of social poverty. I'm not sue what anyone can do about this, though, given the advancement of technology.
And which side of the national discourse pushes phrases like 'pick yourself up by the bootstraps' & 'why should I pay for your healthcare'? What kind of community building has that language espoused? For the past 40 years conservatives have been waxing poetic about 'frontier spirit' and 'rugged individualism' and now, that your base is old and lonely and in need of care - now it suddenly 'Takes A Village'. Here's another conservative trope I've been hearing for decades: Personal Responsibility. Now that were all sitting atop this wreckage, some humility and self-reflection from those most responsible would be in order.
6
To me, the biggest issue surrounding Facebook *is* loss of privacy.
Americans have voluntarily given up their privacy, and had it stripped from them by courts, the government and corporations involuntarily. Only now are many beginning to see how devastating the consequences of throwing away our 4th Amendment/privacy rights has become.
That said, Mr. Brooks is right about the social isolation promoted by intense use of social media. Humans are social beings - we need face to face interactions and relationships - we need the human touch. And social media cannot give us that.
*That* said, social media has allowed people with no voice to make their voices heard. This is a double edged sword; when you post, you get replies. And the replies can be ego affirming or the opposite. They can expose you to verbal assaults and prompt you to say things that can devastate others.
Politically, people would not be drawn so much to social media to take a stand or express their views, if they felt that they were able to do so through traditional channels. I have been trying to speak out against the loss of privacy for decades, with no indication that anybody heard or cared. Finally, I resorted to expressing my views on social media, just to know that someone, anyone, heard.
If we want to reduce the ill effects of social media on our political discourse, our political institutions and public servants should do a better job at responding to and reflecting the concerns of the electorate.
As always, a worthwhile, provocative piece from David Brooks.
As a liberal, I believe in liberty. This includes even the liberty to destroy one's life by addiction to cigarettes, alcohol, or these little screens that in less than a generation have transformed our society into an army of zombies, walking around oblivious to each other.
I work on a college campus, and even on a nice day, when there are trees and lawns and the sky and birds and other people and nice architecture to look at, NO ONE sees these things. Instead, their faces are all glued to their little screens as they almost walk into each other.
I try to do my part to hold back the tide, by banning any screens in my classes. I tell students we are going to do something that humans used to do - talk to and listen to each other, face to face, without the distraction of the little screens. I think many of them appreciate it, at least in theory, but by the end of class I see the withdrawal symptoms. As soon as I say "nice work everyone, see you next time," the little screens, our sovereign masters, appear en masse.
God help us.
5
Ok, I agree and I think about it constantly! Any suggestions, it is so hard to make friends as it seems everybody is competing, everything is a competition and people tend to have stereotypes about everything. What suggestions are there in how to make friends in this society?
1
I don't know, Mr. Brooks. The people I know who are not lonely are the ones who chose family and social connections over career and material success. They did not go off to college or accept job transfers- they stayed put. They have strong community ties, family support to help raise children, and a shoulder to cry on when times get tough. The lonely people are the achievers climbing the career ladder while working 60 hours/week and parenting with no family support. It is sad, but it seems we have engineered our modern American society such that one has to choose between professional success and the ties that bind.
1
As usual, your column made me think about the world. I choose today to be grateful for the social connections I have. The Cairo, Egypt commenter helped me balance my social needs and concerns and my individual privacy needs and concerns. Thanks.
David, I'm glad to see you are continuing to write about the decline of social capital in America. Julienne Holt-Lunstad has cited evidence that loneliness (and social isolation) is an epidemic in the US, the UK, Germany and Australia. I suspect it's an issue in most market democracies around the world as we've become "action addicts" who let tasks crowd out time for relationships and human connection.
Part of the equation is rising stress due to information overload (the 10+ hours the average adult spends in front of a screen each day) and lonely/relentlessly demanding/workplace cultures. With less human connection, we are more vulnerable to the negative effects of stress.
As human beings, we are hardwired to connect and when we don't experience sufficient face-to-face human connection, our bodies go into stress response. Chronic stress response weakens our immune system so that we become vulnerable to sickness and disease. It also weakens our digestive system so that we don't feel well, which, in turn, often leads to self-medication by ingesting substances or engaging n behaviors that are addictive. In 2011, Steve Sussman at UCLA published a paper that estimated 47% of Americans are addicted to one or more of 11 substances or behaviors that have serious negative consequences for emotional and/or physical health.
I explain this in more detail and include links to research sources in this article on the Stress-Connection Gap: https://tinyurl.com/y8glbmmv
1
Finally! A David Brooks column that doesn't distort its valid central concept in the service of a false political equivalency.
Of course, it would be easy to take the next step to argue that Democratic share-the-wealth social justice policies are better for maximizing social wealth than GOP trickle-down individualism, but even with that omission, an absence of inappropriate political mendacity gives you almost full credit for now. 5 stars online review.
1
This opinion piece reads as if it should be the introduction of a much longer article. The real questions are; how our social relationships deteriorated, in what ways did they deteriorate, and (most important) what can be done about it. We need to understand the malaise to prescribe a remedy.
2
Well said, David. Our villages have indeed been "decimated." I am not on Facebook and never have been, but I taught high school for 40 years and saw the social class system up close. The socially poor (or inept or deficient, whatever word you choose to tag them with) are often ignored, belittled, and even bullied. The socially wealthy often could care less as they go about their schedule-filled lives oblivious to those not in their circle. Schools and other communities need to reduce screen time and increase one on one face time. Cannot hurt, could actually help.
5
I've noticed that I now email someone to make a date to have a telephone conversation! When was the last time anyone dropped in on you at home to visit? Or you did the same? I remember that the adults used to do this when I was a kid.
4
This isolation typically grows worse with age. I remember when my grandmother came to live with us for an extended period of time. She blossomed and so did the rest of us. I recall our family gatherings, frequent and large. I recall my neighborhood and my ability to visit friends and neighbors without the necessity of pre-arranged play dates. Or neighbors freely helped on another in many small ways.
Many of us now work extended hours as demanded by our corporate bosses. We bury our heads in cell phones and I-Pads even at presumably social gatherings. I have clients that email and text me at all hours and expect an immediate response. I don't know the solution.
3
I have 3 teenagers and it's like whack-a-mole to get them off their phones when we're out for dinner. We were on a beautiful, exotic vacation and on the way to the hotel, no one would take in the scenery because they were so busy doing whatever it is they're doing on their phones.
Does it increase loneliness and social isolation. 1000%. But asking Zuckerberg to fix it is like asking the tobacco companies to help eliminate smoking.
8
What a narrow analysis, and a careless one at that. When I was decades younger the villain was identified as television watching. Now it’s social media engagement.
1
Facebook et al. are not unprecedented, but their isolation effect is exponentially greater. Prior mass media did not include the illusion of remote "friendship."
TV, even radio and the printing press were also transformational phenomenon, but without the false intimacy.
As said 50 years ago: The medium is the message. (McLuhan, 1964.)
The internet is a boon for old age. Now I know I'll never be entirely alone, as long as I have eyes to see.
You've missed the point of this article. You are just an observer and not a participant.
Our search for meaning and life fulfillment is a symptom of a deeper problem: our moral decay. Without interpersonal interaction and relationships of every type and every level, we don't see ourselves though other eyes, we see ourselves reflected from the screen. We believe what we see and judge our value by the portrayals of like minded Smart Phone Hermits. As humans, we need physical contact. We need interpersonal relationships. We learn from these interactions. This is the next step in our devolution. Is it any wonder we are so predisposed to violence? It is electro-isolationism...
Loneliness is a social pathology? Look, alienation is the byproduct of freedom. And anonymity is what is required for our court systems and occupations to work. What if the judge knew everybody that came before his/her court? Such a system is called Patrimonialism. Yes, we don't have the neighborly social relations that once existed in rural life where mediating institutions of church, extended family and community prevailed. But that has been replaced by networks of one's own choosing, including those on the Internet. I have a few Internet friends I have never met. I have just made a loan to a talented musician from Egypt so he could legally emigrate to the US, all over the Net.
An op-ed in this very paper from a few months ago (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/opinion/sunday/loneliness-health.html) disputes the claim that loneliness is a growing health epidemic. I propose an on-line debate between David and the op-ed author, Eric Klinenberg (Mr. Living Solo), to settle the matter.
1
Or maybe, big data manipulation of minute personal characteristics has resulted in users receiving an equally minute slice of available information and little, if any, information that challenges the information used to form their values, beliefs, and principles. What they receive reinforces them rather than challenge them w/ new info in various fields that permits people to "grow" as individuals.
Social media the FB way has become more about information confirmation than anything else.
Granted it doesn't sound pleasant, but people whose first impulse is to reject new information and ideas just aren't that interesting and aren't worth getting to know if the effort it takes to get to know them far outweighs any potential rewards.
As a matter of full disclosure, no one in my household has been permitted to use Facebook since I read their privacy policy and it said I granted them the right to access files on my computer, files on computers hooked up to my network, and FILES ON DEVICES WHO ACCESSED FACEBOOK THROUGH MY NETWORK. Your files are your files and I have no right to grant access to your files merely bcz you use my wi-fi.
I know, it's so 20th century thinking and all. But! It's my network and I still have the right to say what happens on it — though I'm confident some lobbyist in D.C. is busy trying to convince politicians requiring user agreement inhibits the POTENTIAL profit increases that "obviously" outweigh the privacy decrease paid by any individual citizen.
4
When Sean Parker, formerly of Facebook, admits "God knows what it's doing to our children's brains," perhaps we should take a step back and decide if we want to continue to allow unbridled social media among young people.
4
A very insightful and important column today, David. Thank you.
1
Check out Bloomingdale Aging in Place (bloominplace.org), an all-volunteer senior support organization on Manhattan's Upper West Side.
1
And you don't think a free market capitalism (dog eat dog) financial system coupled with a failed religious system that only offers lip service isn't responsible? Of course people will look to other empty vessels for solace or validation...........they got nothing from your conservatives' daydream. Apple pie and country music along with prayer and 'gumpshun' hasn't gotten the middle of the country any further than raves, tattooes, easy sex, iphones, facebook and pilates has gotten the 'others'.......it's never been easy getting along and finding peace and prosperity in this world, why blame the latest technology? We're flawed, but some of us do just fine......
2
I am in Cairo, Egypt, with a population of 23,000,000, watching as people are living multiple families to a room in tall buildings jammed together, barely existing with minimal amenities, breathing polluted air, drinking contaminated water...who would love to feel lonely in whatever part of the United States you, Mr. Brooks, live. Social Media, indeed.
4
You can blame the social media for the destruction, but the Real Estate business doubling rents and throwing people out on the street in the name of gentrification, especially in the West, isn't social media, it's just plain old miserly greed on people who have nothing left but the street. REH NYCity Artist
3
I am a liberal precisely because I see this issue same as you do. There is nothing more damaging to society than a disconnected soul.
It is why I am RABIDLY pro-LGBTQ. Because statistics show that when these people are marginalized, suicide rates go up. And when they are included, as has happened with marriage equality, suicide rates go down.
It is also why I abhor racism and bigotry. When we marginalize "others" we isolate them.
It is why I am pro-reform in the jails. Locking someone up like an animal doesn't erase their crime nor does it rehabilitate the criminal.
We have a fundamental problem in America and you are in the neighborhood of identifying it. We are lonely because we are a nation who loves to judge and cares mostly about ourselves. Instead of seeking to understand others, and walk in their shoes, we seek to judge, marginalize and put down.
The way up is to adopt a culture like Canada's. To truly value egalitarianism---not in a communist or even overt socialist way--but to recognize that different kinds of people have the right to live their lives as they see fit without being socially excluded. We need to be friendly instead of hostile. To lift, instead of one-up.
....and we need to give everyone on ramps to education and basic healthcare.
Then, we will have the tools necessary to have the sort of social wealth of which you speak....
.....because let me tell you this.
The 1950s you seek only served some, leaving the rest out completely.
334
I’m Canadian. It is the same country as the United States, but with a broken public health care system that pushes many who can afford it to seek care in the United States. Not to say that the US system is great, but imagine your standard DMV experience applied to healthcare. That’s Canada.
Speaking of diversity, it’s also hard to compare the culture of a country with a population 3/4 that of California, nearly all of whom live in a few large cities, to the United States. The US spends so much time drilling home that diversity is a skin or orientation idea that liberals assume diversity of opinion between the heartland and the coasts - between people who look the same - isn’t about culture or lived experience, but rather ignorance.
13
We should not lock up animals either, they are living,feeling creatures sharing our planet.
6
I find it odd that you see that isolation and marginalization is very damaging to individuals and society, but also say that you are "RABIDLY" pro-LGBTQ and you "abhor" racism and bigotry. Should no effort be made to understand those who are racist or bigoted and try to show a better path forward? Approaching these issues with "rabidity" towards those who don't understand the world the way you do will likely lead to people behaving as they would when faced with a rabid animal: fear, quarantine of the rabid animal and ultimately violence to put down the threat.
4
"Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage"
The root of the problem!
3
How so?
David, you didn't mention the real causes of the isolation. (1) Political correctness. Only God knows what can be said and what cannot be said. Interactions with strangers come with high risks. (2) "Separate but equal" communities. This country is divided by zip code. we should not kid ourselves. (3) Mass immigration dilute coherence. Multi-culturalism didn't create a melting pot. The society is disintegrated based on racial/tribal lines. In essence, the great American experiment is failing and it should not surprise anyone! It is in our DNA.
Liberal democracy was a noble idea but it can only work in a homogeneous society. In fact, behind the beautiful words, slavery and colonialism was happening. "All mem are created equal" is the best example to illustrate the hypocrisy.
David, with your wisdom, please wake up and face the realities. You can bury your head in sand but it is not helpful. Seriously, how could Americans work together if hates are such a strong feeling in some communities. The only solution is to divide the country based on their personal choices (but not racial lines). Isolation is an action to disintegrate from the dysfunctional society. If the society is sick, we better stay home. It is just that simple. Therefore, you only observed the symptom but not the cause. Multi-culturalism and mass immigration are the real problem!
2
In which yet again we learn that capitalists have a hard time recognizing just what it is that capitalism does to societies at every level.
4
For once I've got to fully agree with Mr. Brooks. Social media is a catastrophe by any standard. Everywhere you look it has destroyed human relationships and made the world a lonelier place. Most depressing is the way it has intoxicated and subdued young people. Yeah, yeah, here and there a protest march is instigated by Facebook. Big deal. The reality is that tech companies have turned people into sheep.
1
“The truth is, relationships are the most valuable and value-creating resource of any society. They are our lifelines to survive, grow and thrive.”
Should have left it at this.
I hate to tell you, David, but this is not news. Robert Putnam put a name to the loss of social capital in our society nearly twenty years ago. He called it "bowling alone." That it has increased and that we have arrived now at a place of loneliness and tribalism is not surprising. See http://bowlingalone.com/
3
"I summarize all this because loneliness and social isolation are the problem that undergird many of our other problems."
The problems that undergird much (possibly most, possibly all) of what ails us as a nation are:
1. Money in politics and
2. Capitalism in general...
...which contribute very directly to the prevalence of monetized social media, and our general insularity.
Brooks as always makes excellent observations of reliable data. I would add what I call the digital age is attracting large numbers of qualified young folks to big cities to find work. Large cities are typically not a place where people get involved with their neighbors. Big cities breed crime and being on ones so called guard is job 1. Go to work all day, usually with a cult of co workers, go to your apartment and lock yourself in. Many many small towns in middle America have a declining number of young folks or none at all, they simply are drying up. Meaning church's, town hall meetings etc are sparsely attended.As for kids smart phones feed on their being naturally shy so they don't have to face developing social skills.They can't go anywhere without being chauffeured by a parent so they rather hang behind closed doors in the bedroom.
1
I'd give some attribution for the malaise Mr. Brooks describes to the greater corpocracy, which has been dismantling a sense of place, and related sense of community, for a long time. All are familiar with a local business failing in the face of the mega-corporation with its storefronts stamped out over the land. Another example that galls is the naming of sports parks after corporations. Oriole Park at Camden Yards embodies a sense of place, but where in the world is FedEx field or Regency Furniture Stadium?
You have to go out and join things--church, the Y, a bowling league, a Habitat for Humanity build, Friends of the Public Library, a Meet-up hiking group. Ever see a group of old men sitting in the sun playing checkers outside some little store? They're staying connected.
2
Republicans keep pushing the community "relationship" angle as if it were the key to individual
& societal longevity. The case of a long time neighbor & friend stepping in to save one's home from oblivion is akin to buying a lottery ticket when the balloon payment is due on your land contract.
No matter how hard you try, Brooks, lobbying to dissolve the social safety net through statistically bizarre occurrences of benevolence is a non-starter. Governmental largesse is here to stay, no matter the opinion of yourself & Grover Nordquist.
3
Hmmm, the socially wealthy, which according to D.B., includes Washington politicians, impressed me with how little they understood social media, and in particular the aims and aspirations of Mr. Zukerberg. Clearly, the clans, villages and tribes of these socially weathy politicians don't know how the other half lives. But I'm aghast that these tribes would ever be be extolled as social role models. I think I'll hang out with that other half.
Funny how loneliness has arisen almost directly in line with neoliberalism. Who would have thought that treating man as an economic automaton, whose only purpose is to maximise his utility through competition would have an effect on us.
5
Solitude is good.
A couple of decades ago, Mr. Brooks celebrated how so-called (absurdly pretentiously) "neoclassical economics," the "human capital" movement, & "rational choice" theory - all basically glorified forms of market-worship, pioneered at the U. of Chicago, were unleashing the tidal wave of entrepreneurial creativity that's come to include MS, FB, GOOGLE, APPLE, AMAZON, EBAY, & other wiz-kid digital/electronic behemoths that now dominate our economy. Above all, these essentially social-darwinistic economic doctrines said it was virtuous to get rich (draw your conclusions about being poor), & the love of money was the root of all social good.
After a stream of ersatz Nobel prizes ratified the theorists as intellectual benefactors of humanity second only to billionaires in their service to mankind, the "human capital" religion became official US creed, codified in school curricula & practice, implicitly in law & jurisprudence. Dissenting left-leaning academics, rooted in anti-imperialst post-modern, multi-culturalist & anti-technocratic discourses, incl. schools of thought like "Frankfurt School," lamented the trend, suggesting new forms of oppression & inequality were setting in/calcifying. By the 90s though, these left-leaning discourses were old hat, passe, marginalized dinosaurs to be humored on campuses & forgotten, like other relics of 60s counterculture.
Well, liberal tycoonism from Apple to Ben & Jerry's to FB, the human capital left-right synthesis, is yielding its fruit.
1
The largest study on civic engagement in America showed that almost all measures of civic health are lower in a more diverse setting. The effect has been described as being “shocking.” The greater the diversity in a community, the less people volunteer, the fewer people vote, the less they work on community projects and give to charity. Neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. These findings were corroborated by economists at UCLA and MIT in 2003 who reviewed 15 studies, all of which linked diversity to lower levels of social capital.
http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downs...
2
Curious about this comment from Mr. Brooks’ commentary.
“... human societies exist on three levels: the clan (your family and close friends), the village (your local community) and the tribe (your larger group). In America today you would say that the clans have polarized, the villages have been decimated and the tribes have become weaponized.”
“Clans” , close families and friends, have “polarized”? Due to social media? Certainly some families and close friends have polarized, but certainly not all or even a majority, I would imagine, and not due to social media but politics in general.
Ironic that an app named Facebook actually leads to a lot less Face time.
1
I tried hard to find something in David Brooks' op-ed to disagree with and to my chagrin I found nothing...I need another glass of wine.
I am not of the generation that is married to their smartphone. I use most all of the social media platforms but I am not married to them.
I see them every day, at my gym, on the sidewalk, in stores, essentially most everywhere in public. They are staring into their smartphone, busily typing away with their thumbs (as an aside, are there any scholarly studies on thumb injuries?) or catatonic with their headphones on while working out or running and even walking, bumping into people on sidewalks.
I see people stepping off curbs on busy streets, crossing without looking for an errant driver who is also texting while driving. Another epidemic. or it might be a newer form of culling the herd of dumb people, I don't know.
People complain about not meeting others and there are reams of self help books on this topic. Well, how about leaving the phone in your pocket and talking to others to start with. Take baby steps, maybe you will make more "real world" connections.
Consumer society doesn't thrive without creating wants and needs in society. It suggests that we are lacking something it will provide. Take dandruff, for instance, which is utterly normal, but is stigmatized through advertising to promote the sale of products to alleviate it. We are shamed, lured, coerced, and herded into purchases that promise fulfillment, but leave us empty and dissatisfied. The best minds in psychology go into advertising. They've refined the art of goading humankind to perfection, directing their efforts most particularly toward the young "consumer," appealing to our basest instincts, sex, death, anger and the like- is it any wonder our society has lost its soul?
Here's the answer you are looking for and it has little to do with social wealth. Want to light up your life again, folks? Well drop your chalupa and your cellphone too, and TALK TO ONE ANOTHER FACE TO FACE! Yes, I hate to shout, but no one is listening anymore. They wait for a truly affirming test. Like Godot they sadly sit waiting for text messages that will create or restore true relationships. Texting just can't do this. You can see more in the eyes of the other person and feel the warmth of their handshake or hug than any electronic device can ever give you. It even beats sexting. If you can't meet with someone face to face, talk to them on the phone . Forget the texting. It's bound to be depressing. It provides us with no immediate interaction. It leaves us wondering what was really said or meant, and there's no immediate way to respond or ask. The eyes face to face, or the hug closeup will never be recreated in virtual reality. Grab on to the real reality: "There are more things in the eyes of face-to-face embrace, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your errant thumbs and fingers."
1
Part of the problem is the failure of Christianity to meet people's needs. It won't adapt or accept or accommodate a changing demographic, a demographic that rejects bigotry and intolerance. Only the most liberal churches today accept people for who they are. The mainstream churches continue to teach bigotry and intolerance. And the sex scandals permeating both protestant and catholic congregations reflect a moral decay that is absolutely undeniable. If you want to be rich or feel morally superior (even though you're not), then christianity has your ticket. Everyone else is on their own.
78
While I do not think you have made a fair assessment of Christianity, perhaps some connection to what you have said is possible. Why was Jesus such a failure? Why did he allow himself to be crucified? Why did God allow the temple to be destroyed? War, disease, poverty, loneliness? Certainly we can do much better, even making it up as we go along.
3
Just in case you haven't noticed, Christianity doesn't have a lock on the "moral decay" that permeates society these days.
Look closer -- there's more than enough fault to go around.
5
@N. Smith
That "Christianity doesn't have a lock on the "moral decay" that supposedly permeates society these days" is NOT the point. (And one would need a definition of "moral decay" from those claiming it permeates society before pursuing a discussion beyond the venue of a comment board at the NYTimes)
The real point here is that some Christian sects, arguing their own persecution by a "war against Christians," have assumed a false moral high ground while their own hypocritical behavior prompts the wider society to ask, "What would Jesus say and do?"
These are the politically active communties of "faux" Christians who chalk up high rates of infidelity; indulge in secret homosexual relationships; witness the rape of young people in their congregations and support efforts to protect the perpetrators; discriminate most un-Christianly against LGBTQ persons; actively support "bathroom laws"; argue for the rights of florists and bakers to discriminate against homosexuals; impose ridiculous dress codes on young girls; threaten the dignity and legal rights of women seeking abortions; support segregated "Christian" schools , and etc.
The list is long and more than depressing, insofar as these "good folks" have gained unwarranted political power in direct opposition to Constitutional barriers against the support of a "state" religion, or any justification that the principles of "freedom of religion" could possibly be construed as the freedom to impose one's beliefs on others
Brooks commits an intellectual reductionist fallacy, imaging ‘loneliness’ is simply the result of external forces. Of course, the individualism demanded for a consumer culture and job-chasing disruption of stable neighborhoods make a difference. But, ultimately, the absence of human contact requires a problem in creating & sustaining relationships. After a lifetime of autonomy as an ideal or personality problems of a psychological sort- folks end up alone.
Is this major mental illness? It is not Depression per se. It is the end game of rage reactions, irritability, passivity, racism, delusion, wariness, TV addiction, shopping as pleasure (no hobbies) and no attachments.
Feeling lonely is a complex experience, not always due to the absence of opportunity for community.
Brooks makes a shallow analysis when dependence is seen as failure, bowling leagues are corny, and after 50 years dragging to a dulling job obliterates vitality...folks end up nowhere.
3
I believe the learned Mr. Brooks needs to look into research on "social capital."
From Nahpiet and Ghoshal (Academy of Management Review, 1998, v 23, pp 242-266): "The term "social capital" initially appeared in community studies, highlighting the central importance-for the survival and functioning of city neighborhoods-of the networks of strong, crosscutting personal relationships developed over time that provide the basis for trust, cooperation, and collective action in such communities" (p. 243).
I worked in the Gay male community for years with men who were seeking long term committed partnerships. I told my men, build community, build friendships before looking for a mate. Some of these men were looking for partners to “ save them” from their social isolation. Never works.
When guys would go out and join clubs, join faith communities/social groups and get invoked in their communities it was a marvel to see how their “ isolated view” and of the world changed.
THEN they had a foundation on which to move to dating, romance and finding true love.
3
Brooks editorial on social media, lonliness, and the Zuckerberg hearings misses the point. On C-span on the second day of questioning, a few House members pleaded with Zuck to stop Human Trafficking, pornography, terrorist, and online pharmacy ads on Facebook. And all Zuck could say was we'll get to this when AI kicks in. My view is that lonliness needs to be addressed after Zuck tears down anti-human, pro-death websites.
I understand the emotional impact of relying on personal stories to make a point--but they can easily mislead and are not a form of proof.
There are reasons to question Mr. Brooks' take on this subject: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/opinion/sunday/loneliness-health.html ("Is Loneliness a Health Epidemic?," 9 Feb 2018). From that essay:
"...Social disconnection is a serious matter, yet if we whip up a panic over its prevalence and impact, we’re less likely to deal with it properly."
Klinenberg points out that more of us are aging alone and that more of us have embraced individualism. He also notes the failure of social media to deliver on early promises of meaningful social connection. He then goes on to show that the best available data do not show spikes in loneliness or social isolation.
Klinenberg concludes: "I don’t believe we have a loneliness epidemic. But millions of people are suffering from social disconnection. Whether or not they have a minister for loneliness, they deserve more attention and help than we’re offering today."
Mr. Brooks offers a popular opinion that can be gleaned from any number of advice columns--but repeating the idea of an isolation epidemic does not make it so. Nor does it mean we should not try to address the problems of modern loneliness.
1
I think David is overstating the problem.
That being said, I think the basic model makes sense. First, a person turns away from their own family. I don’t use social media that much, but some of the most strident political zealots that I see are clearly having some sort of reaction to their own upbringing. I know this because I know how they were raised. I know the pose that they strike as an urban sophisticate - or self sufficient rustic - is just a pose. They’re all children of the suburbs, they’re just too embarrassed to own it.
And then they turn against their immediate community. But in this, I think it’s usually economic. Maybe they’ve been priced out of the area they’d like to live in, or they can’t afford the family life or social life they want. The ones who frantically post pics of having a good time or their kids are maybe the most pitiable. And so they build an interior, social media version of the life they want to have.
The final turn is against their own society writ large. All of a sudden every cop is a killer, every corporation a Ponzi scheme, their nation an oppressor or infected by the “deep state,” and their President a fascist if on the left while the college kids who do kid stuff are a mortal threat to society on the right. Monsters are everywhere, solutions nowhere.
The big difference is that these depressed shut-ins, the socially poor, are now visible with a vengeance thanks to social media. The solution is to just ignore them.
1
This meditation on the mortal importance of social ties brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s famous dictum: “There is no such thing as society.” There are individuals, and families, Thatcher asserted. “Society” is a liberal fantasy designed to excuse an oppressive controlling state apparatus.
This is the essence of modern Anglo-American conservatism. Poor people are poor because they lack self-reliance and individual drive. Social and governmental institutions to help them climb out of poverty are a positive evil, in this view, because they prevent the exercise of individual initiative. Alternately, the richness of the rich is the key sign of their individual worth, as it signifies their individual success in the pursuit of self (and family) interest.
This is nonsense, of course. Tell it to Donald Trump Jr., or to the affirmative action kid, Clarence Thomas.
But the alienation and loneliness Brooks describes must be seen as a feature, not a bug, of the modern conservatism he supposedly espouses. As ugly as Facebook is, to blame all of this on Mark Zuckerberg is, well, rich.
1
With most people struggling to make a living in our, oh so progressive, times it is quite clear that social relations are nearing point zero.
This is no surprise. It is rather built-in in human behavior. A sad fact.
"those of us who are socially wealthy don't really know how the other half lives." And how about suggesting a solution to this? I can hear you now, something along the lines of we should make efforts to get acquainted with those from other economic strata or some such nonsense. You never seem to acknowledge the obvious, that society is intentionally structured economically, politically and racially to keep us separated. How else do you think the "socially wealthy" manage to keep their social wealth? The solutions are legal ones, the ones you never seem to talk about.
Would someone please write a column of how loneliness has increased since the rise of Evangelicalism and generic nondenominational megachurches? How the rise of the prosperity gospel, where God only shows his love by making you wealthy, and the anti-poor/middle class actions of the gated community Reagan Republicanism has lead to the decline of greater community.
2
More Brooksisms. Just managed to reconnect with my Kindergarten friend Roy who has been on quite a life long journey since I last so him at HS graduation, went on to PHD in bio chemistry, retired and is now a brewmeister for a midwest brewery and coming to the Beer Brewing conference here in Portland this summer. We'll have dinner; thanks FB. Same with my old friend Artie who works for NGO's in Malaysia, we will be meeting up at at a 50th HS in the Fall coordinated on our HS FB page. I could go on.
What is missed with these statistics is that the "increasing" loneliness of our society in part is a change in how people are willing to talk about it; Americans are much more likely to be honest about their personal feelings than lets say the "Greatest Generation" were. Thanks to our collective exposure to thousands of movies and television shows like Oprah and Dr. Phil and telling us to get in touch with our feelings and to share themw; unlike my grandparents who did not "air their dirty laundry" in public and even the adage; what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I'm not feeling socially poor myself, anecdotally. Just connecting differently than my grandparents and parents did. I wonder if Brooks is using this article to explore his own life as he looks about rather unhappily at the society the Republicans have forged and wishes we were all busy being American entrepreneurs or happy soldiers or girl scouts leaders and church goers. Who knows?
1
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Loneliness is a condition unknown to individuals who have succeeded in crafting an interesting life. So make your own channel worth watching, and the networks will take care of themselves.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
2
If social media networks are so damaging and generate so much loneliness, why are they so attractive? One would think basic human instinct would make us turn away from something so awful.
Of course, we're not dealing with basic human instinct here. We're dealing with a subversion of it, a deliberate and very successful effort to redirect our attention toward something other than our best interests. It's not that Facebook has set out to make us all miserable; it's that they've set out to make us all a profitable commodity. Our well-being doesn't enter into the equation.
This is the present-day state of the evolution of marketing, the effort to bring together human wants and needs with a supplier. In its purest form there's nothing wrong with this. It's the prime driver of our economy, invention, and quality of life. Imagine how things would be without the middle man who brings customers and products to the same marketplace.
But that pure form has been grotesquely distorted by a campaign of fear and false promises. Big pharma has us convinced we're all so sick we need to ask our doctors if [insert drug here] is right for us. Banal, useless products promise us slim sexy bodies, and lives filled with unimaginable joy. And Facebook promises us likes and friends and social acceptance.
All the while, the cash registers ring and we are sold as cattle and sheep to the highest bidder. And thus are we separated from our community by the false promise of something better.
1
Facebook and other social media have redefined "neighborhood" and placed much of that concept on line for many of us. I interact with people in a different way, that's all. I don't see them next door, but I do see them on my screen, and meet people there every day; sometimes people I have known; sometimes old friends. I don't feel socially abandoned in any way because of this interaction. I still nod to the neighbors and chat them up when we are outside together.
I don't understand your thesis in the sense that social media has changed my interactions with others, but has in no way limited them. It has allowed me to integrate the people I want to spend my time with into my daily life. Time and distance are no longer a barrier to continuing long term relationships. That is a good thing.
What a tremendous column, thank you, David Brooks. I've so noticed this over the last decade. There was a time when without social media I could easily put together a pizza outing with friends --- whether they were married or not. Today, many of my friends have drifted by the wayside (though some have time for 100's of "friends" on Facebook), people don't hang out after work anymore (though they have time for their phone), and well, it's just one lonely world out there. I hate to long for the good ol' days, but yes, as far as socialization, the 70's and 80's, and some of the 90's (pre-internet/cell phone) were definitely the good ol' days.
4
Just read David Brooks last paragraph to realize that the class struggle is alive and well, and more determinative than any other factor in the national divide.
3
I now understand why so many Americans are expats. Its an amazing trend. We have always had expats, people who are adventurous. Now many people are relocating to Europe especially for the quality of life. That includes more time with family and creating a circle of friends.
One of my sons has a friend who lives in Holland and won't be coming back. He has a family and prefers to raise them there. Too many people are on call 24/7. That is not a life, its a form of slavery.
I could go on an on, but have been struck by this trend. If my husband and I were younger we would relocate back to Germany where he is from. Our youngest son and his wife will be retiring in a few years. They will probably join other expats and relocate to Europe.
Something has gone very, very wrong with our culture. If we don't address it, America will no longer be a country that people want to live in.
5
Very good article Mr. Brooks. I am not sure we can put this squarely in technology's lap. I think our national mentality has been getting away from compassion for about 30 years....starting about the time of Ronald Regan.
1
It seems that you are saying that most people aren't socially wealthy, at least among those heavy online users, i.e., they suffer from the same problems as socially poor people. Perhaps what you need is to differentiate between the socially rich and the socially wealthy (and of course, the poor). The same analogies to the rich and wealthy apply here. As with all things in life, when you are content, you are wealthy.
Isn't this saying that who you know matters more than what you know? having a fat Rolodex seems still works, right? Having a healthy set of friends with rich relationships matter but that's not what Mr. Brooks brings up.
I have a very small circle of friends but I am not lonely because my larger circle of friends are the books I read and those authors who are alive and sometimes died centuries ago keep me company. And it's a very healthy company.
2
Mr. Brooke's insightful analysis of social wealth and his ability to spotlight the disparity of that wealth reveals a larger truth. The greatness of a society depends on truth. It just so happens that the number one rule of truth is that yours' is not the only one.
What is motivation?
If money is our motivation then we are lost as individuals and as a society.
If honor and wisdom and love are our motivations, then, we will be fine.
What is rewarded here? Money. The recent tax cut rewarded it even more.
This nation is a poor example of love.
This is our crime, sin, problem
1
Re: Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage.
It's a mistake to equate "children born outside of marriage" and "chidren born to lonely mothers" as there's a trend of cohabiting couples to marry later in life, after having children. Or not marry at all. Therefore, this statictical factoid means nothing outside of statistics of cohabiting.
1
I suspect that life in 1860 was just as difficult and lonely as it is today. But I do remember that my grandparents worked hard at relationships, every week going to a neighbor or distant relative for a chat. Life was slower and there was pretty much one culture. Today, we live in an America with many different cultures, and none of us really belong because cutthroat capitalism says you only matter if you have money.
Lose that wealth, whatever it is, and you go out on the street, probably to never again rise again.
Can't be a fundamentalist Republican like Brooks and and still rail at the loneliness and powerless of the times. They are a feature not a bug of the economic world he cherishes.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Wow, did you hit the nail on the head. Technology has created this isolation and has helped make people paranoid and extremely insecure. The social safety net has large gaping holes to fall through now. Additionally technology aids in the creation of groups like Black Lives Matter, Metoo and others, which are making people afraid to talk to, or look at, each other when they do finally get away from the pixel screen. This technology seems to be on a relenting path to human misery. I recommend you don't use an iPhone, the old flip phone with voice and text is a convenience with more than enough connectivity for general use. Once the iPhone is in your hand you are under strong efforts by professionals and greedy corporations to take you over. Then the loneliness and depression quickly follow. Give up your human soul to a corporation? Not me. I still like to ride a train and look at people and talk to strangers, Take a walk and look at the animals and trees. My home computer is there when I need it and want it. Re capture your soul.
Funny. In spite of Mr. Brook's efforts to school us in the higher ethics of social wealth, the first thing that came to mind after reading about Bob Hall, the rancher, is that he probably wouldn't have had this problem if he had affordable health care.
Evidently, some things don't change.
2
Sure, Facebook has a dark side. But I’ve made plenty of friends through it. I use it to keep in touch with family with whom I’d otherwise have no contact and to reconnect with long-lost friends. I use Instagram to share pictures, of art I really enjoy, of my vacation or of my mother’s 90th birthday party. It isn’t all malign.
And those disaffected, disconnected teenagers of whom you speak? Some of them are using social media to create the first serious anti-gun movement this country has seen in several generations. That seems pretty connected, serious and impassioned yo me!
Where have you been, Mr. Brooks? You’re writing as though we’re living in 2017!!!
124
Hear! Hear! I love it!--Closer, not less close, to folks and friends.-WS
2
So maybe we are suffering from social disfunction, and some manifestations, such as depression and suicide have increased. Brooks suggests that social media, along with enabling technology, might be to blame.
I suggest that all media are more likely the problem. Almost by definition, "news" focuses on attention-grabbing issues and events, and usually those that harm and threaten people. Like our society, our media have become more partisan. Sources with a left slant repeatedly blame the emerging apocalypse on the right, while conservative media beats the same drum but blames the left. And even neutral media seldom balance good news with bad. As a result, we hear over and over how awful things are--and getting worse. Of course, modern technology means we can hear this constantly, imbedded in all our tech experiences, and colored to match our own biases.
What to do? Ban bad news or otherwise control media? I would rather nudge people towards other perspectives and less hysterical sources (e.g. Steven Pinker and data that show, in general and long term, how our modern world continues to improve in just about every way). And start encouraging people to ignore exaggerated fears and victimization, whether promoted by the left or right.
Remember, if the news was statistically accurate, most headlines would say "Nothing Much Happened, and Most People Got Along Fine".
2
1981 is when Reagan was elected. Could it possibly be that tilting the economy toward the wealthy has unwanted social effects for the rest? No, no, it's Facebook.
Really?
11
Furthermore, the feeling of loneliness, of being left out, is increased by the fact that rich people, or those who have a lot of « friends » often are the most active on social medias. The fact that the author highlighted that with social media it was as if the lonely didn’t exist is extremely true : the lonely, the poor can be either the one who doesn’t publish anything or the one who develops a passion for social media and hides his or her real loneliness, the fact that they lost their true friends in favor of virtual ones. You see people together, laughing on photos, eating incredible plates with their friends or enjoying a party on snapchat, when you are alone. This virtual communication and the overwhelming flow of photos make you feel lonelier and make you feel that your life is worse than theirs. The sadness of one’s life, its loneliness, is completely hidden by those « fake » - one can say that - photos.
65
Mr. Brooks has an important point about our social interaction, but I would submit that social isolation does not exist completely apart from the struggle for existence and economic stagnation that so many feel.
4
Sorry, I've been meaning to write, but just TOO BUSY!
I appreciate your column, as I have chaffed recently with the use of "Tribalism" as a simple and an entirely negative word. I think cohesive, caring and compromising families, clans, villages, tribes are what got us all here over the millenia.
It seems that no one has the time or inclination to spend the necessary time with eachother to build these structures. People have to work too hard, with the immediate goal of satisfying personal desires. I'm not sure how we got this way, but Industrialization/corporatization and the power of advertising to shape our society seems to have been on a particular upswing over the past generation.
I live in a relatively/extremely well off and liberal community. It strikes me when acquaintances stop saying hello. We need to have a monthly/weekly/ daily communal bonfire with food and music. And Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon should sponsor it (or weighted by whoever is in the S&P 500!). I know it sounds crazy, but maybe there's a reason "Social" is in Socialism
1
The problem of social connection may also be exacerbated by an educational system that focuses almost exclusively on passing tests and gives scant time to the personal and social aspects of social connection. There is some social-emotional learning done, but it is usually touted as a way to improve test scores by improving group study processes.
2
When properly used Facebook is a tool that can connect us to friends and family in other states and countries. While I definitely see the evil that can come from social media, there is also a lot of good, if people choose it.
8
In the old days we knew our neighbors because we saw them almost every day. Everyone kept an eye out. Now, when a burglary or theft occurs, people marvel at the lack of witnesses. We think that, surely someone saw something.
But no one saw anything because our lives don't extend to the front yards, porches, stoops and sidewalks as they once did. We don't interact with our neighbors. In fact, we don't even know them.
If we are outside at home, we are in the fenced backyard, on the deck out of sight. We pull out of our garages and head off to our destinations without contact of any kind with those around us.
We are separated structurally as well as electronically from our neighbors. We used to know everyone on the block. Now we are strangers.
These days the only witnesses police are likely to find are security cameras belonging to the neighbors whose names we don't even know.
6
While I usually find wisdom in David's opinions, this one feels like sloppy science to me. I grew up on Long Island, NY in the 1960's. No Facebook, but plenty of disfunctional families and loneliness.
Sorry David. I do not agree. We are more complex than the neat analysis that you propose.
4
Loneliness and its increasing trend is indeed a major issue here and abroad. The electronic age has surely contributed to this dilemma along with polarization and increasingly harsh talking heads on TV.
Several years ago AARP surveyed folks 45 years or older, and found that:
- A little over one-third (35%) of survey respondents were categorized as lonely.
- Older adults reported lower rates of loneliness than those who were younger (43% of those age 45-49 were lonely compared to 25% of those 70+).
- Married respondents were less likely to be lonely (29%) compared to never-married respondents (51%), and those with higher incomes were less likely to be lonely than those with lower incomes.
Findings related to the electronic age include:
- Lonely respondents were less likely to be involved in activities that build social networks, such as attending religious services, volunteering, participating in a community organization or spending time on a hobby.
- Lonely and non-lonely respondents did not differ significantly from each other regarding frequency of email use. However, 13% of lonely respondents felt they have fewer deep connections now that they keep in touch with people using the Internet, compared to 6% of non-lonely respondents.
Now, when I see all those folks on the metro each day with their heads buried in their electronic device, I'll wonder - are they really connected to others?
https://www.aarp.org/research/topics/life/info-2014/loneliness_2010.html
1
An interesting article. I've seen this with others, especially teens and young adults. An important point is the loss of "the village", where people do things together for a group of people, not just themselves. The benefit of the village is that the results are visible, and the feedback is tangible. There are many reasons it's easier to create a village online, where you can learn the language of emojis faster than some can learn the finer points of body language. I will agree that the "tribe" has become weaponized. The United States is a large and diverse country. We have somehow decided that out tribes should be at war at all times. Spending more time on fighting the other tribe rather than accepting them (even if there's disagreement) has become the slow poison of our country's constitution, and the "two-minute hate" has become the "24/7" hate in some forums.
1
So many of the causes of loneliness named here are rooted in the neoliberal economy we are trying to live in. When a small number of very wealthy people determine everything about our daily lives--everything from what Congress will do, to what jobs will be available to us--we are no longer even imagining what we want our lives to be like. Time to insist we have some say. Time to fight back.
10
Putnam nailed this with Bowling alone. Later highlighted the splitting off of the more educated and less educated as have others. We are a more fragmented; we sought to heal the barriers on race by integration and it worked for some but for others it became more isolation as people cleaved to smaller and more homogenous groupings. We are more and more a silo nation than one coming slowly but surely together. Facebook is a symptom, not a cause. And they are a business exploiting a situation; they didn't create it, we did. A relative recently told me about going to live in a different region where the participants would be exposed to and learn about those who are more dependent on government, and they are to be asked to go on Food Stamps to learn about poverty. After that graduate school and a profession awaits that visit. Imagine that, so isolated that it requires a special immersion experience to get to know people in another "silo," poor people. Brooks is onto an old subject but one that is a deeper problem than the common busines practice of exploiting resources so freely offered: the isolation and clustering of likes even by way of the remoteness of a video screen.
I'm a middle-aged woman in a rural area, a seasonal area, where many houses are empty except in the summer, with one of those jobs where all my work is done on a laptop out of my home. I spend a lot of time alone. I am also a music geek, distance runner and animal lover. Interests over which I've been able to bond with fellow Facebook users. I've weaned myself off of getting involved in what passes for political discussion on Facebook, and also use it to keep in touch with extended family, all of whom live far away. For me and many others, Facebook has only positive connotations.
9
All of our technoligies are both a blessing and curse. Cars give us the freedom to travel quickly while polluting the atmosphere and killing thousands each year. We are now beginning to understand the downside of information technology. It will imperative for parents to start monitoring their children's use of these technologies and educate them on the negative consequences of over reliance and the addictive naure of instant gratification. Something our parents were well aware of in the past . Facebook should not be sharing any information without explicit approval of users and not in their many page use agrement but each time they wish to share information approval of the user should be requested. Then users can choose who they wish to share their information with.
1
It is intriguing to consider if the rise in loneliness/isolation in the US is exacerbated by the stresses of an ever-diminished social safety net.
While that seems very likely, it also appears that the increase in personal isolation is occurring with equal ferocity in countries that we'd consider more "supportive" than the US.
In the U.K., this year the government created a "Minister of Loneliness" to address what they consider a critical and growing issue. While that country is not Scandinavian in its social support structure, it has universal health care and a less "go it alone" ethos.
I will be interested in knowing what steps the U.K. Will take in addressing this issue. If anyone reading this comment is from the U.K. I'd be interested in your perspective.
3
I do not know if Mr. Brooks is correct as to why this has occurred, but, he probably is correct that there is less cohesion than the past which has resulted in more loneliness. We were having dinner one night, and , there was a man who was sitting by himself. We had seen him there, alone, before. We asked him to join us. He proved to be a wonderful person. We were enriched, and so was he. I think we all need to reach out more. It will help a little.
9
I suspect that we would all be a bit more relaxed if we thought that the government had our backs. That is, if we were assured of decent health care when we needed it and if we were assured of a livable income when we became too old to work. Instead, we have the Republican Party in charge of our government and their creed is every man for himself. Of course it gets lonely at times.
12
I think it is all about balance. I welcome the addition of social media into my life because I am able, with my writings, to touch and reach many more people I would never be able to, without it, and whom I will never meet. If one maintains real time, outside activities, be it work, volunteering, being a good neighbor, visiting family and so forth, there doesn't need to be social poverty. There are many ways if someone is lonely to reach out and be open to allow oneself to be reached by others, at all ages and in every economic strata.
2
Blaming loneliness on social media is confusing correlation and causation. Social media helps us stay in touch with people it would have been impossible to stay in touch with before, like friends who moved away. Social media doesn’t make people lonelier; rather, lonely people are more likely to use social media. Social media is an imperfect substitute for live interaction, but it is better than nothing. Without social media, lonely people wouldn’t magically have rewarding face to face relationships; they would have nothing.
4
Mr. Brooks frequently highlights decline in family and relationships in his work. I think people often imagine this to be based on a loss of faith in society, and I see hints of this suggestion in Mr. Brooks' writing. But I can't help but think that the decline in social interaction and in faith, have both been driven by free-market forces that lead to longer working hours. Longer work hours mean more stress and less family time, which can lead to overcompensating helicopter parenting, feelings of disconnection, and even the pursuit of online social activities, which seem more palatable when schedules are busy. Conservatives are all about talking about the decline of the family, but seem not to recognize their free-market zeal as a potential cause
12
I belong to two closed Facebook groups. One is made up of people from my hometown. A typical story was when, years ago, a school bus full of children got stranded in a farmer's home during a snow storm. Several people told stories about the incident. Then the farmer's daughter posted a picture of a thank you note the children had sent her parents. We all got such a big kick out of this. The second group are people who follow a art journaling teacher. We post our artistic journals and people give feedback and encouragement. People from all over the world are now my new friends. I have recently moved to New England and after a year I only have one friend despite being out and about socially. People here are friendly but reserved and I feel lonely. I am thankful for having Facebook to help fill the lonely times.
12
A host of classical sociologists noted the transition from rural to urban society and the consequences of social change. The discovery that germs made people sick and subsequent public health changes have seen the world population and cities explode. In 140 years the world population has grown from 1 billion to 7 or 8 billion with clean water and sewage disposal in much of the world. The intimacy of the village has been replaced by the anonymity of the city and suburbs. You live one place, work in another, shop in another and have, if you are lucky a few friends and Facebook and your cell phone. We see that 1 percent has grabbed through their influence on congress a vast and disproportionate share of our nations wealth. They have no concept of "the general welfare" of our nation. And politics has become as polluted as the streams and rivers were 150 years ago. A "feel good" story doesn't change any of this David. What we have become is depressing.
Vietnam Vet
11
Your analysis of this problem probably began back in the early 1950's with the introduction of television and air conditioning into homes and apartments. Prior to that folks got out, sat on the porch, a balcony, in the yard under a shady tree, went for a walk, etc... When it was hot indoors and not much to do, you spent time outside and social interaction (talking to someone) happened for good, bad or otherwise. I used to ride my bike a half mile up to the drug store and get my Dad the New York Times, now I just log on my computer and read essays, like this one, drink my coffee and don't interact with anyone.
26
Astute observation! I agree.
2
I agree that social connectedness should be factored into how we consider our societal problems. I would ask whether the subtext is that entrenched economic disparity can be ignored because us liberals just don't consider the role of the soul. I would also ask if David would be in favor of government intervention to help the social health of our country. If so, I agree that would be a more multi-dimensional approach to facilitating good lives.
3
As usual, David Brooks is waxing philosophical, but--also as usual--apples and oranges. Facebook has been selling data, and allowing nefarious companies to use that data for gain of all kinds. That's the problem. The social issue is complicated, but that's a place where people get to make choices. People whose data was sold to Cambridge Analytica didn't get to make that choice, but--and here's the rub: people seem to fail to understand that when they go on line, every single thing they do, say, buy, or communicate enters the public realm. Consumers have a responsibility to understand the media that they use, and decide whether or not they want to buy in to it. I don't use social media, but my children do, and they seem to use it mainly to stay in touch with friends who they either see here at home, or who live elsewhere. Not a bad thing!
4
"Teenagers are suddenly less likely to date, less likely to leave the home without their parents, more likely to put off the activities of adulthood."
Brooks claims these are signifiers of "social collapse.". But perhaps teens are finding more satisfying ways of creating relationships rather than dating. And if they are spending time with parents, isn't that a good thing? And what are the "activities of adulthood"? Becoming independent? Moving into your own apartment?
Some creators of social collapse is the huge pressure on young kids to become adults as if there is only one way of being in the world. Leave home (your clan), move somewhere exciting (a new community) and make something of yourself. Don't be dependent upon others; make sure you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, not anyone else's.
Then there's the way we treat our elders - shuttle them off to a home somewhere segregated from the rest of their clan.
While I do agree that our young people are too much tethered to screens, we have a lot of other structural issues that are contributing to our epidemic of loneliness.
10
Is social media fueling loneliness or are the lonely taking refuge in social media for connection. Probably some of both, but Mr. Brooks misses the second part of the equation.
6
There is one memory of a recent happening that simply will not get out of my head when the talk turns to teens and technology.
I was walking in the mall and 3 young girls were coming towards me. Each girl was busy texting (their fingers indicated that) and paying no attention to where they were walking and not even looking at each other.
When I commented on this later to a teenager relative, his caustic comment was that they probably were texting each other.
I don't know about teens being depressed, but after that incident I am depressed.
8
David Brooks claims that "Facebook and other social media companies are feeding this epidemic of loneliness and social isolation," but I'm not sure he has proved a causal relationship. What if already-lonely people are turning to social media to find companionship? Perhaps social media is a symptom of isolation rather than the cause.
6
Like a muscle; use it or lose it. Learning helps protect the brain from dementia. Social interaction appears to be necessary for mental and emotional balance. Visit and speak for a while with a person who is housebound. Notice how they light up, come alive. Without the physically present social group, we shrivel. Addictive technology is tearing us apart. It exploits our brain's chemistry to repeat what is presently pleasurable, no matter that it leaves us feeling desolate. Conversely, ordinary interactions with people are both pleasurable in the moment and salutary after. All require effort and a cultural medium that supports it and makes it attractive.
6
I find this column to be at odds with my experience. I have friends all over the world who I initially met on social media. I have gone to Paris to get together with them, Australians who were a whole lot of fun came and stayed at my house. I have gone to Seattle and taken a favorite author out to lunch with a friend from Colorado and another from Washington State, all met through the internet. I am rather a solitary sort by nature, and Facebook and other social media allows for as much contact as I like and wonderful conversations and debates with people who do and do not share views and experiences in common. I do not fit in well socially with the people in my physical community. I am a bi-coastal person with an academic job in science in an extended family centered, not well educated rust belt community. As a life-long single woman with a STEM PhD I would be very isolated if it wasn't for online connections and a hobby for which I travel. Facebook and other social media allows outliers like me to have and keep good friends easily.
23
I would posit that social media is a good thing for some people. It can expand your list of contacts and is particularly helpful if you then meet them in person. It is a great device for many of the infirm and elderly who can no longer travel easily, particularly those who already had a large social life of personal contacts. Lonely? Not us. We are too busy in retirement with our volunteer efforts, visits from friends and family and doing things with people we already know in person. We make every effort to include those we know who might be lonely or have few friends in the area. Social media is not the boogeyman and often is a facilitator for getting away from the machine and out meeting real people face to face.
4
No, Mr. Brooks, the big issue with Facebook is not that it feeds an epidemic of loneliness; it is that in unacknowledged and unaccountable ways, it has been using the information we provide to attempt to influence our political choices.
13
David, if I may call you that, I have written earlier that what you don't see are people on the streets, walking, talking, and seemingly having fun together. Often on city streets you see friends of different colors as well. Look at yourself and your sometimes blindness before you jump
Social media is a tool. Whether it is used to gather or repel is up to the people involved. Loneliness is not affected by social media use or not use -- one either lives where there are people open to friendships, or one does not. One has social skills to form and keep friendships, or one does not. I hear from senior citizens who are lonely and those who are not...its always comes down to social skills. Takers just don't realize that the marks have no interest in their company, and by the time they are seniors, they refuse to get drawn in.
1
Mr. Brooks thinks communicating through Facebook is a sign of loneliness. I suspect that to many younger people, it's just the opposite: Facebook is a way of staying in touch with friends.
4
Without the required adaptive capacity it's really painful to negotiate modernity that advances over the traditional patterns of life and values. As about the alienation,it's mainly due to the systemic imbalances that reward the patronage and sycophancy over the merit, and divides society between the top 1% privileged gainers and the 99% losers with no hope to get opportunities of life. Again, it's futile to search for the real world joys in the illusory virtual world or desire for the premodern primordial bonds in the post-industrial modern society.
2
I agree, and so would most Americans who have the time to look around. Ironically, its the online marketplace, pushed onto our screens by the advertisers who are the paying clients for platforms like Facebook, Google, etc., that eats up time that could be spent outdoors, getting sunshine, exercise, and neighborly interactions.
Dog owners already know this.
12
During the depression most Americans in the same boat.Many lost their jobs,homes and whatever assets we'had.So there was no rampant inequality exists today.
But as the captains of finance and technology displaced our industrial base,our social order fragmented.We were no longer in the same boat together.The smartphone internet did not cause are loneliness but are simply andadjustments to the social bonds torn apart by decades of Republican indifference.
so
10
Just as water seeks its own level so do social interactions. Social interactions prosper with need and ease. Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc., today fill many needs, ergo less classical social interactions. Its not the world of Bob Hall's vast, bleak plains' homesteads anymore with their rare social interactions, its the new world of endless quickies and selfies social interactions. And I'm thinking it will work out just fine, given time.
I am leaving it to the younger set to quickly square it all away. One day the youngsters will have to research the descriptive word for Bob Hall's world, 'laconic'.
2
I've lost multiple friendships due to political arguments on Facebook itself. Political differences that we otherwise might not have been confronted with were thrust to the fore. We then tried to hash them out in text via Facebook comments, rather than in person, losing all the nuance and social/emotional cues of live face-to-face conversation.
I've also failed to establish new friendships because upon meeting someone I liked, instead of getting a phone number and making plans to see them again, we became Facebook friends and they receded into the background.
I partly blame myself--why do I still have a Facebook account? But it's a technology with a propensity for destruction.
3
I tried to do Facebook, once and only once. I think e-mail is a good way to communicate with friends and family. What's wrong with that? Who needs Facebook?
7
Yes. I did the very same thing. I became suspicious of the platform right away and for varying reasons, including how I could see what a time waster it could be. As you wonder, so do I. What's wrong with email? That's my main mode of communication, and I hardly use the phone anymore. With email, one can communicate his/her thoughts when there is time; and the people on the other end of email are able to access it when it works out for them. With all the questions arising around the term"social media," I keep wondering if email is considered one of those:)
There was a social rule long before Facebook: don't discuss politics and religion with your friends.
I think Mr. Brooks is missing the forest for the trees. I am no fan of social media, but that's not the principle cause here. The collapse of the social safety net is. Kids aren't leaving their houses because they can't afford to. When I graduated college, in 1985, I moved to New York with my girlfriend. I worked and she went to grad school then she worked and I went to grad school. We had no problem at all living off one (pretty small) income, we could pay rent, eat well, and go to the theater once in a while. Can't do that now. The same is true for older people, does Mr. Brooks think the opioid crisis is Facebook driven, or does he realize it comes from a whole chunk of society which has no chance for any sort of success anymore? I've been lucky, I'm not a 1%er, but I am a 3%er. I see my kids, and my friends kids, they spend 24/7 on their phones, but they're not depressed. They know they have a life to look forward to. It's hard to stay happy when you have no future.
40
No Mr. Brook's, Facebook's problem is precisely privacy, as it is for the net in general. The current Wild West of data has to eventually swing the other direction (look at Europe) and how we use websites will begin to change for the better.
Although I agree that social media in general increase loneliness and fear and anger, none of which are good.
I agree with this article. Much of the things that make one happy (laughing, joking, sharing one’s thoughts) are linked to relationships. I deem that you need a visual contact to experience those things fully : if you find a message funny, you would not laugh in front of your phone, you would hardly smile. However, as it is now possible to talk to people virtually, it is not as necessary as it was to see people face to face. Moreover, when you feel lonely, you don’t need to make new acquaintances as you can just talk to your old friend : it becomes more difficult to create new relationships. One’s still has the social platforms to make new friends but I think that the beauty of friendship is also the circumstances in which one creates it, how it emerges and how one meets the person.
4
It is true that we often underestimate the influence of our psychological condition on our global health so much so that we do not realize that it is sometimes more affecting than our physical state.
The problem is that loneliness is an invisible disease but even worse all its origins are ceaselessly encouraged by society. When a child joins junior high school, he immediately feels excluded if he does not possess a cellphone. Accordingly, by wanting to be integrated and with the complicity of their parents, the child will commit an irredeemable act: buying the instrument of their real social exclusion.
Governments could decide to implement public policies to fight loneliness but what an embarrassing target! For that matter, is it not the job of associations? Or more exactly of those who contribute to promoting the downward spiral of social media. Perhaps this is food for thought for Mark Zuckerberg.
5
David,
I’ll let you in on a secret: it isn’t technology that is isolating us. It’s the telos of our society that shapes what we do with technology. Our technology is built for freedom and self reliance because that’s what we’ve thought of as the end of a good life. Turns out it wasn’t true. The only way out is to rethink our teleological commitments, but we are doubling down on the ideas that have isolated us - competition, globalism, etc...
5
I grew up in an inner city neighborhood crowded with people. My neighborhood was largely made up up of Jews, but a few blocks away there were black neighborhoods and even one consisting of whites from the South who came up for work during World War II.
I can’t say that the residents of the different neighborhoods were particularly close, but we tolerated each other, and there were plenty of interactions between us to help make life interesting. There was a public park nearby, complete with a zoo, tennis courts, a swimming pool, basketball courts and baseball diamonds. Cops walked the beat. Everyone knew the guy who delivered the mail.
Friends were easy to come by. People visited with each other. Kids used public transportation. Families walked to nearby churches and synagogues. Pick-up games of basketball and touch football went on, almost around the clock. Families sat on benches outside their homes during the summer months. There was a kosher butcher shop, a couple of drug stores, a barber shop, a Greek deli and a fixit-shop where a guy repaired radios, electric fans and whatnot. Even a couple of nearby movie theaters.
I still visit that place frequently, albeit only in my head. It makes me sad these days to see kids being trucked around in cars with their eyes on their screens, never even bothering to take a look at the outside world. I’d be depressed too if I had grown up like that.
10
As a cusp Baby Boomer, I was raised without electronics. Still carry a flip phone turned off. Friendships and acquaintances have been work or hobby related. People close and seen occasionally.
My son who is of the digital age and carries two different smart phones and works IT is friends and acquaintances with people all over the globe. A few work and hobby around town. But many he converses/chats with online from many different locations and nations every day.
His world is the future. Different but not wrong.
Closeness and or lack there of, can be found in every generation. Life is what we make of it.
Mr. Brooks sounds like he is shaking his fist at the clouds and yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
11
I totally agree. I have few friends who have time for me and since retired, I spend a lot of time watching Youtube and reading NYTimes etc etc
I need a life!
14
What an interesting column. Despite the social isolation experienced by many, there are opportunities to engage with others in your community. For example, there is a museum in my county that relies heavily on volunteers to supervise the exhibit floor. Floor guides are encouraged to engage with the visitors, who come from all parts of the country and the world. The volunteers are a close community within itself. The work is very rewarding and great fun, but the museum suffers from a shortage of volunteers. Most volunteers are over 60.
There are all sorts of clubs and organizations that rely upon members and volunteers. Your local SPCA, historical society or United Way probably needs board members or other volunteers.
All you have to do is turn off your phone and reach out to the others in your community. The social benefit to those who do is great.
11
This is interesting and deserves attention. I wonder, though, does heavy social media immersion make a person sadder or are sad people more likely to heavily immerse themselves in social media? It would be worth further study to figure out the cost-and-effect dynamic.
7
Great writing and observations. Thank you!
7
This article is essential to understand the psychological issues that are hitting us in the digital era. Social media are making our primary instincts coming back to the surface. Instead of encouraging cooperation and social links strengthening them, they incite us to jealousy and nastiness.
To nuance the gloomy and alarming observations of the article, I want to say that we are still free to quit our screens and social media, to take courage to dare to speak to people in public places, supermarkets and public transportation.
4
I don't agree!
"Patients came to see him partly because they were lonely, partly because loneliness made them sick. Weak social connections have health effects similar to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and a greater negative effect than obesity, he said."
Of course, because someone says something - it must be true.
6
And it's not true because... You got nothing.
The questioning of Mr Zuckerberg by members of Congress reminded me of questions my mother used to ask me about computers. They reflect an almost impossible-to-imagine incomprehension of their subject, making the possibility of answering in a way so as to fully inform unlikely. As I used to do with Mom, Zuckerberg answered with earnest , but essentially meaningless gobbledegook. The intent was to assure that all the expected words were said in a way that doesn’t show you believe you are talking to someone who cannot HOPE to ever understand. And the same is true of kids who’ve grown up on Facebook and their parents generation. We will NEVER understand, and they will be fine. Philosophical handwringing over it is pointless...like Congress questioning Mark Zuckerberg.
10
I remember how a Google search came up with a politically incorrect result, and politicians demand that Google "fix it". They didn't understand that computer results are often generated by vast amounts of data and algorithms, and that tracing the reason for a particular result is like searching for a needle in a haystack. As for rewriting the program to "fix" a particular answer, that's even more complicated.
They should be more worried about biases in computer systems. I've heard that recent violence of the police against blacks is the result of "expert systems" which have been told that lots of blacks are in prison and assume that they are criminals.
1
Maybe you should actually try to understand it but I know that's a lot to ask.
As a culture, we have come to value material things and spend enormous time and energy on their acquisition. Getting ahead means acquiring more things. We can now acquire so many of these things sitting by ourselves in front of a computer. Its no wonder that social wealth has fallen by the wayside.
8
At first glance, social networks seem to be a form of progress for social links: there are a lot more virtual links, which create real ones too. Distances are abolished, and you can share good moments with your families and your friends virtually.
Despite that, the article is right: the more we are connected, the more we are alone. The cognitive effects of social media and smartphones on children and teenagers seem to be very bad, as the studies show. I am always very surprised by the addictive side of smartphones: people walk in the streets without looking at others, fascinated by their phones, it is an obvious fear of interaction. Social Network are perverse because they protect us from our weaknesses in real social interactions by dematerializing them. They make us more lazy, we prefer to speak on messenger than really seeing the people. Social media also increase selfishness with the seeking of likes, publishing ostentatious photos of an idealized life, making a real society of spectacle.
So how can we change this worrying evolution ? By education mostly. We were lucky to not be exposed to those technology in our childhood, the children nowadays need to be protected from the screens, and to be teached how to use them in a good way.
4
I largely agree with this commentary, but my reaction to the first historic example of the benefits of community is to offer a counter-example, one that may require helping the neighbor in a way that poses less risk. My great-grandfather in late 19th C also co-signed such a loan so that a neighbor could hold on to his farm (Indiana), using his own farm as collateral, and ended up losing it when the neighbor couldn't repay the loan. As a result, my great-grandfather had to move to a poorer farm that, unbenownst to him, had a tainted well. Water from that well contributed to the premature death of his wife in her early 40s, devastating that whole family, including her son, my grandfather. So, we should certainly do what we can to help those in need, but it may be important to gauge the type of assistance that will be helpful while minimizing risks to all concerned.
7
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay "Self Reliance," addressed the tug of war between living within oneself and the intrusion of society into our lives. He was not sparing in his judgment of the latter, and thoroughly developed his argument in favor of isolation, and a reliance on oneself.
The dichotomy between social wealth and emotional poverty gives us something to ponder. To be sure, the connections we form are increasingly with devices and curated information prepared for us, not by our friends or even acquaintances, but by total strangers.
Technology has much to do with the increasing isolation of individuals, but at the same time, it forges connections, superficial though they may be, with others through the devices it has spawned.
The information increasingly and readily available to us through the march of technology supplants the interchange of ideas that formerly took place in the local coffee shop or place of worship. Its ready availability reinforces our sense of self and the beliefs we develop from within, isolating us further from others while building ethereal bridges of commonality with a far wider spectrum of individuals with whom we never come into contact.
If there is blindness, it is perhaps to the reality that by increasingly isolating ourselves from direct contact with others, we pervasively balkanize society. We become observers rather than part of its integrated whole.
We have met our new neighborhood, and it is ourselves, alone.
4
Online life being one main reasons for exclusion and loneliness is a recurrent argument, especially used among the generations that experienced a world without the internet. Yes, Internet has redefined social interactions, and like any kind of innovation it has drawbacks.
However, I feel like our society started feeling lonely and depressed way before smartphones and computers. And every decade, their is this new innovation which is supposed to be responsible for loneliness : telephones, private transportation, headphones… There is no doubt that for socially wealthy people, online life generates even more social interactions. But I deem that online life has also helped those who were socially poor. Indeed, many marginalized or bullied kids found support, help or even friends on the internet sphere. Online space is full of blogs, forums, in which people share their experiences, their thoughts.
Maybe our generation doesn’t reach their neighbors as often when they need something, or when they want to talk to someone. But online life has given us the chance to reach people far beyond our small communities. You feel alone and depressed ? Well you may find someone from your town, your city, another country, who feels the exact same way and can understand you.
24
When you come right down to it, all we actually have in life are relationships. Everything else is just the "housing and clothing" of them. Thus, that which destroys relationships destroys the social fabric. We can know this. But doing something about it is another task altogether. Like other Pandora's Boxes that humanity has opened over the millennia, social media offer the double-edged sword of creative possibility and corrosive destructiveness. Where we end up will remain unclear for some time to come.
6
Do not blame the Internet or Facebook for peoples isolation. Or give credit to highly educated Helicopter parents that guaranty that their children will not be isolated.
The difference between life now and then perhaps has something to do with most parents having to work to keep their heads above water. They can't afford to have a nanny, have their children in extra curricular activities.
There is also the possibility that not everyone is built for parenthood but they have babies anyway, as they do not know how to prevent getting pregnant.
It is all to convenient to blame outside distractions as interfering with socialization. It could also be fear of rejection. I put my hand out to shake yours and you ignore me kind of rejection.
All Facebook does is distract as does the Internet.
It is imperative that all parents teach their children how to socially outreach to other children. If the children do not learn this at home then at least teachers and schools can fill in as social partners.
As far as women under the age of 30 not marrying the fathers of their babies, perhaps they are making a wise choice. Perhaps these fathers are not good marriage material.
I think this isolation is happening because as a nation we have stopped caring about our neighbor . We have been pitched against each other by the politicians and we have allowed this.
Ask anyone over the age of 50 what they wished they had done differently and I bet the answer would be "Spent more time with my family.
10
Actually, as a lonely stay-at-home mother, the Internet connected me to long lost relatives, friends and other moms.
Totally agree,
2
Reminds me of the long ago term , oh he or she is a latch key kid. Meaning as females entered the work force in large numbers kids were provided with a house key to get in when they came home from school. Mom and Dad came home later or much later.
Jean: how can a man who is "bad marriage material" possibly be "good father material"?
1
I think the increases in these trends may be partly attributable to the normalization of corporate layoffs as a ongoing business practice particularly in the wake of the the Great Recession. It decimates those losing their jobs and their loved ones.
13
Social media and the smartphone culture are symptoms, not primal causes, of cultural social pverty. It began with the first industrial revolution. Agrarian cultures have a certain social stability that is lost when economic concentration drives populations to be urbanites. Technology is not the cause of social poverty. Technology is merely a tool for making money. What steals social cohesion and drains meaning from lives are industrial age value systems that deify wealth and debase human values. It's the modern era's human value vacuum that made room for online social platforms, which despite their many drawbacks, do serve some positive human social wealth functions, albeit in a sterile container. The primal cause of social poverty (disintegration) is the ascendancy of monetary values over human values. As long as a culture espouses that worldview there is no end to the painful socio-economic consequences.
19
It can work the other way. Here in Vermont, we have Front Porch Forum, which is the anti-Facebook. Recently a Robert Wood Johnson grant funded a member survey which indicated that neighborliness was enhanced in real life because our tool made the introduction easier. Unlike Facebook, all posts are managed and curated. Bad behavior is not tolerated. Our founder recently did a Ted Talk about FPF's genesis (trying to connect in his new neighborhood), and he runs the business from a mission based perspective. Full disclosure, I work for Front Porch Forum, and it's the best job of my life. Also, I think we figure things out in VT pretty well, and America is always better when they follow us.
6
I recently had a similar experience on Facebook of all things! We are moving in a few weeks into a new neighborhood in a neighboring town. Through a closed Facebook group dedicated to the neighborhood, I’ve initially made contact with many neighbors and have had positive interactions! It has certainly made me feel more welcome and less anxious about meeting people once we actually move. I guess I’m not seeing the big difference offered by FPF.
1
Most of the people in my neighborhood have to work too much to spend time with one another. The moms and dads, even those with kids, are both off to work early and return late. They spend their Saturdays mostly catching up on household chores. Sundays are no longer church days because the churches push ridiculous bronze age superstitions that we are all now too educated to accept.
Technology didn’t cause the attendant isolation. It stepped in to fill the gap caused by an economy that increasing serves the few. And it stepped in via our greatest national achievement—an entertainment industry that caters to our every individual fantasy. Whatever time people have after work is easier, more conveniently, and more inexpensively spent watching an IPhone, IPad, or computer screen.
But unlike Brooks, I think this isn’t all bad. Isolation has often been an important stage in self development and it could be the same for our national development. Think Jesus in the wilderness. If we are lucky, we will discover in our loneliness the emptiness at the heart of mere entertainment and begin pursuing the deeper satisfactions of culture. But that’s not going to happen until we take our economic system back from the 1% and the political hacks that serve their interests.
21
It's the same way it is with most anything we use for pleasure. Too much of it is harmful. Facebook has allowed me to see (literally) how my old friends from elementary school and high school are doing after all these years. But to use FB as a daily substitute for "real life" is unhealthy. I'm not sure that Zuckerberg is to blame for our addiction to easy fixes.
9
I too found both e mail and for some Facebook provided a communication media that simply never was there before to re-connect with classmates and relatives. Sitting down and writing a letter just doesn't happen especially with men.
This essay pines for the time when most lived in smaller villages and most local economy was some form of farming and country stores. Because that is the only way the author can have his ideal "human society" as he wants it.
Facebook is not the problem -- it is certainly an annoying manifestation of 21st century life. But the writer is trying too hard to come up with a thesis that does not work.
12
I'm wondering if these trends of loneliness and suicide of the last few decades are shared in all advanced nations, and particularly those with robust social safety nets and lower GINI coefficients. Smartphones and facebook make a good scapegoat, but this article presents little evidence that they are the cause of our current problems.
18
Hard to know. When ever I interface with folks of other countries they spend a lot of time explaining how much better off they are than we Americans. Usually starts with the dis-belief we don't have universal healthcare, and we shoot one another regularly .
Alone and lonely, two different things for sure, the first one a part of our individuality and perhaps seeking some privacy, the latter one might occur in the middle of a crowd if disconnected from each other, and Social Media may enhance it if your social life is nonexistent. Loneliness and depression are cousins, it seems, if our family is an abstraction, our community atomized and the tribe manipulating one's insecurities into a misunderstood loyalty above prudence (doing and supporting something not because it's the right thing to do but that's what is demanded from you to belong, not always wise nor just, witness the current obeyance of Trump's base to his whims). You are right, loneliness is a "disease" alright, and not always with a happy ending (and suicide is but one result, anomie being the other more hidden social instability we are feeling now, where distrust of each other is so prevalent, fed by a constant stream of Trump's triad of 'fear, hate and division).
6
I am 73 years old. When my parents moved to CONNECTICUT from NYC after WWII, they bought a house on a residential street. The milkman resided on one side of us, a reporter for the Herald Tribune on the other, and a partner in a NY law firm across the street. The kids all walked to the local public school. There were no gated communities. By the time the Vietnam war came around, the same socio-economic group was thrown together again, except now there were more of the working class and fewer of the middle/upper class kids. In my growing up experience, we learned how to support one another, fight with one another, and play with one another. We learned that, to be successful individually, we need the group to be successful and that success is a function of our relationships.
8
Probably people are going to jump all over Brooks for this article, and for good reason. Brooks has loneliness, atomization, lack of trust in America roughly correlated with computer activity/social media, and asks that people get off the computer and associate more with their neighbors, that face to face conversation is at least part of the solution.
But the fact is prior to internet and for decades America has not at all been like, say, a South American country which has public squares, people allowed to congregate, meet outside, etc. but has rather sought by any number of means to break people up, prevent them from meeting face to face and would rather have them shut up in their homes.
And this combined with declining economic prospects leaves people suffering alone, left now apparently alone with computer, television, other devices. America in its infrastructure, culture, is just not a society which makes it easy for people to meet each other, to just walk up the street and sit, like in South American countries, at the bodega, or to just sit outside on the street, talk, drink a few beers.
America is quite a lot about control. Blaming technology for why when you drive through a neighborhood you really see no one outside in group conversing is just not going to cut it. The larger a group outside in America becomes the more it's targeted: The police drive by, rules and regulations start getting erected, etc. zones devised, and so on. Some trust society.
18
While we can certainly blame social media for isolation today, this was not the case in 1980. It began with the great "government is the problem" Republican fallacy, which attacks the well being of the middle class. Isolation is the result of economic forces. Who has disposable income for a yoga class? Too many work long hours, two jobs, and have little time left for socialization at church or synagogue. Online shopping is to "save time". For what? To allow more time for work? Who has time for vacation, or a picnic in the park? Too many are "economic refugees" who move from one community to another, many states away, for work, loosing meaningful contact with loved ones and family. "Gig jobs", sans almost every benefit, put real pressure on individuals to work rather than play. These horrid jobs depend on this. Their purpose is not to allow the employee "freedom" but to save the employer money, period. Too few have disposable income for even a shared meal at a diner with friends. Children are not taught about the greatness of community, but rather, the greatness of competition. Add the layer of social media on top of this, and there is a perfect storm. Do we need to be physically close to others in order to be healthy? Are our "me first" economic policies and non existent labor laws at the root of this terrible loss of social wealth?
76
"Too many work long hours, two jobs, and have little time left for socialization at church or synagogue."
Or in certain parts of the country, church and synagogue are regarded with hostility, and so people lose an outlet for meeting others.
3
Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple are no different than Phillip Morris, Brown & Williamson and Reynolds--they want their customers to be addicted to their goods and services.
For cigarettes the addiction is to nicotine. For these tech companies, it is a more complex mixture of addictive forces, some chemical and others emotional. The social aspects Mr. Brooks mentions are an even more insidious and tragic effect of tech addiction.
Another effect yet to be measured in any meaningful way is physical. My physical therapist told me that she is seeing many patients, a large number of them younger, who are developing back and neck problems from being hunched over their laptops and staring down at their phones for hours a day. In particular, she expects younger people to develop significant neck-related issues later in life from this activity.
I am not sure when we crossed the rubicon, but much of the tech we use today has mutated from being a tool to make our lives better and more productive to actually running our lives. I shudder to think what will happen when Artificial Intelligence technology matures and computers can in essence program and think for themselves. Maybe the computers will decide they don't need us humans any more and we'll end up like an old fax machine or dot matrix printer, now useless symbols of an earlier time, piled in a landfill somewhere.
8
Ok, David makes some good points but I don't know that blaming social media is the solution. Learning how to use it effectively is critical. I use FB as a tool to maintain connection with relatives well out of my area, inventors all over the globe, and fellow entrepreneurs. but I still seek face-to-face with my neighbors, family and strangers in the community. My kids (teens) are certainly into their smart phones but they also compete in athletics having close social contact with teammates, similar in their music and still get together to do chemistry/calculus together with a big side of social fun and pizza at someone's health. it does not need that all that use social media are loners. help them use it well and step out into the world too! There's nothing like helping a neighbor with a project or tough task to build a neighborhood. :-)
2
"It’s very hard to quantify and communicate the decline in quality of relationships. But it is nonetheless true that many of us who are socially wealthy don’t really know how the other half lives."
"...nonetheless true..." an assertion without foundation, a conclusion without argument, a ...even the notion that "heavy social media users" are sadder than those fully scheduled "successful politicians and analysts" or "highly educated families" is suspect...too many of that lot are sad and lonely, even bitter, in the midst of their "social, wealth"...you could look it up.
no doubt "online life," especially the cell phone (see mesmerized carriers bumping into each other on the street) is a factor, but "social poverty" is a form of alienation, a condition that presented its symptoms shortly after ww2, long before "online life" existed...see the "the hucksters" and "the man in the grey flannel suit" for evidence of the self-centered acquisitiveness that has fostered "village decimating" competition, eroding the collaboration of "can do" that united us.
though remedy may be uncertain, the bet here is that a turn toward "social education," emphasizing the values of interaction in studies and projects, interdependence of individuals in framing and and accomplishing tasks, would be a good place to start...even as the 3Rs are given their due, and more consideration is given to cultural differences...student-centered methods, like montessori and reggio emilia, are worth a look.
1
We are never going back. Long before social media, before Zuckerberg’s parents were born, we were on a path of isolation from each other. Sidewalks and front porches started disappearing from our neighborhoods; individual cars for every person were preferred over public transportation; television lured us inside our houses as we gradually shunned theater, concerts, and movies; extended families living under the same roof are a thing of the long forgotten past. We’ve been on this cultural track for a long time now. It seems as though American individualism translates into isolation from each other. Most important, we’ve lost the ability to have discussions or arguments where we can disagree with each other in a friendly respectful manner. Maybe that’s where all of this was heading. It’s so much easier now to hurl epithets and middle-school banter anonymously in a tweet.
165
yes but in addition to all of that you mention == populations exploded. There are literally billions more on this planet that when I was born. Those numbers figure directly into all of those things you describe. People still keep having kids and the buildings will get higher and the cities more dense.
11
Consider Better Angels as a possible antidote. It may encourage you.
No wonder we have so much gun violence.
1
David thank you so much for your article. As I walked the streets of Boston I see young men and women staring at their phones as if it's going to show them the way. Of course it's fear of interaction. When I retired two years ago I saw the slow onslaught of loneliness. I went down to a church in my neighborhood and asked the pastor what job does nobody want I'll take it. For the last 18 months I am now happily the arts director, but more than that I am part of a community where people know my name.
19
Good work, Mr. Clark! And that's the answer, folks. We all need to get outside our own self-created "bubbles", acknowledge that we are not the center of the universe (God is) and realize that there is a great big world out there that desperately needs all the love and positive action we can give it.
2
You are highlighting an almost eternal truth. Having raised two special needs children for nearly 30 years in an otherwise "affluent" community, the only thing I will always remember is that nobody ever knocked on our front door just to see how they were "doing." Having grown up "hand to mouth" in an inner city neighborhood in the 50's and 60's, I only see how "rich" we were back then. Americans like to think that GDP equals progress. Quoting RFK, let me remind them:"It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."
"Even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all."
110
Facebook’s contribution to the epidemic of loneliness is most definite. But by those very same forces, Facebook creates a real benefit: it is an easy outlet for narcissists to satisfy their needs without exhausting the time and energy of those around them. The rest of us can simply ignore their posts, or click a quick “like” and go about our day.
15
As is Christianity leaning toward a Calvinist shunning of the other since the 1980's.
He once stepped out of his office, exclaiming how do you know so many people! If ever there was a prominent New York economist with a rich social calendar in the evening it was him, and not his secretary, who would dash home to watch a popular vampire series. Perhaps the world was shrinking.
In the early 80s I thought on occasion that I had too many friends. Can you imagine, and then my divorced parents were surrounded by the rich, the famous, the 'interesting' but rarely alone.
The loneliness person I have known is my Red Queen with a long list of acquaintances, some old, some new, but she was in possession of a salon and when the lights dimmed, her audience faded, she reached a long age, and lived in a home which she thought was an hotel. Happy she was, I used to enjoy her laughter on the phone while keeping a log of our daily calls. She has to be the center of attention, her carer told me, or she goes into the sulks during workshops.
Some of us are more solitary, Mr. Brooks, and wish to be life observers. The greatest of friendships are not built on economic wealth. Twice in my life I have felt lonely. Once in the month of May where I am standing looking at an empty view of the Seine at 16, and I flee only to find a lonely peer of mine, having made an aborted attempt on her life. It is my 'Catcher in The Rye' story.
Some of us choose to live life on paper. 'You have wonderful friends' is the finest compliment I have received. They all have a Love for Life.
8
My suggestion is that you join a congregation and denomination that is right for you, you will not be lonely for long. It worked for me when I was a bachelor, moving about on short job assignments. In spite of limited singing ability, I joined the choir, and made friends there. Later, when I lost my job, without being asked, fellow parishioners helped me start my own business. My three sons, all of them in their forties, and accomplished singers, are in the choir stalls every Sunday and holiday. Two of them met their future wives at church. I know church may not be a good fit for everyone, but I say give it a shot!
25
I feel I must rebut your article. It worked out well for you and your family I see, and good for you. But I see religion as it's practiced today, with megachurch pastors buying airplanes and mansions, with Catholic priests preying on children, with evangelicals openly ignoring the sins of our president, with right to life groups demonizing abortion while ignoring a woman's rights, with the wealthy and large corporations more interested in controlling and destroying the less fortunate, lest they harm their stockholders. Religion in my world comes from inside, attempting to not harm and living a moral and ethical life. I do agree with the premise of the article though, that technology has led us far astray.
I was not wanting to blow a horn; my life-long experience is with the Episcopal Church which, like all institutions, has had its untoward moments. I've had some experience with the Moravian and Methodist Churches, and the "Quakers", and they seem well grounded to me. Surely, I've had a disappointment or two, but that's far removed from the cynicism one hears from to time.
The article states: "Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage."
This may not be a sign of " aloneness" or "loneliness" as the author implies. There may be many reasons.
For many women, it is a lifestyle they choose, for various reasons.
After all, look at all the deep-seated conflicts that arrive in divorce or custody battles. Some may choose to eliminate the possibility of all that in the first place.
Men and women often have different lifestyles, hopes, dreams, activities, ways of looking at the world.
What is known these days as "serial monogamy?" The women take care of a family as a man goes on to create another and another, sometimes. He is capable of reproducing until he's 99; she isn't. Why not acknowledge "viva la difference" in the first place?
4
Perhaps it would benefit everyone (mothers, fathers and children) if we refrained from calling parenthood a "lifestyle" and instead described it as it is - a serious responsibility not to be entered into lightly.
3
I believe there is a huge correlation between the "socially wealthy" and the "economically wealthy". Isolation often goes hand in hand with poverty and illness, both of which has grown exponentially since the times of St. Ronald. Maybe if there was more of a social network, more hope for good jobs, a more equal society, better and less expensive health care, people would be less lonely.
32
Sally:
There are data indicating that the reverse is true: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105315578302 ("Does the mortality risk of social isolation depend upon socioeconomic factors?," April 2015).
I am not suggesting that these data are definitive, just that is that "more money equals less loneliness" is not necessarily the case--sometimes a lot of wealth isolates more. There is a lot we do not know.
My 12-year-old daughter Betsy took my hand on another Saturday night when I was trying to cover up my sadness after being abandoned by my husband, the father of my new baby, and I was not yet connected to friends and neighbors in the city to which we had moved. "Mom," she said, "loneliness is the worst disease there is." Such wisdom and empathy from a child. I thank God for her presence in that painful time.
102
Traveled recently from the DC area out to Las Vegas, Los Angeles and back. The constant staring down at phones is epidemic and it is my guess that if you were to ask people why they do it without interruption, they could not answer.
I spied on those around me. Not to learn their private or semi-private information, but to see what they were doing on the phones. Most of those I saw were randomizing, flipping through photos, scanning old messages, playing games and, in general, just fooling around. Why is this so compelling that stopping for five minutes is inconceivable?
This phenomenon is worldwide. The world around us is no longer interesting or even worth looking at. Everything of importance or value is down there on the phone, if we could only find it.
That brings up another issue: if you are looking for something, why then don't you find it and stop looking? Is there always some other goal, some other tidbit out there that is going to make your life suddenly worthwhile? Look. Look. Look. But the goal appears to be not to find, because that would mean you'd have to put down the phone and actually be in the world around you. The horror!
We had an entire generation raised on video games, lacking the normal social contacts and person to person arrangements that make for a vital life. That cohort seems to view other people, fellow humans, as weird interferences in their lives. Go away, please!
We have rushed headlong into something we don't understand, in whole or in part
79
In a competitive society, social wealth (connections, networking) is a private attribute that people must work and compete to get. Your network is a kind of property that you use to your advantage. Like other forms of property in a competitive society, it is something you work to create and maintain rather than something you are born into, as it used to be. The born-into variety of social wealth was often stifling and conformist, but the new freedom seems stifling in other ways.
Social wealth, like other forms of wealth, are inevitably based on economic wealth. Social bonds are difficult to maintain for those who are working to scrape by (unless they fulfill the utilitarian purpose of being part of the work). Just as those who have social wealth do not notice those who do not, those who have economic wealth do not notice those who do not. And both social and economic wealth may conceal an emptiness inside, one that we are encouraged to fill by activity that benefits the suppliers of the activity (who incessantly promote it) more than those who engage in it.
12
"The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar observes that human societies exist on three levels: the clan (your family and close friends), the village (your local community) and the tribe (your larger group). In America today you would say that the clans have polarized, the villages have been decimated and the tribes have become weaponized."
Am I wrong or hasn't Brooks criticized the growing tribalism of American society?
7
Although it's convenient to present ideas in threes, there are multiple levels and focuses of loyalty. A nation may have multiple tribes. A planet may have multiple nations. And people also organize around issues that are of interest to them, such as the validity of certain views or values (global warming, limits to growth, or various values that might govern human conduct). To encompass all these foci of loyalty, one might (loosely) call them all tribes.
In criticizing tribalism, I read Brooks to be criticizing polarization in how individuals and groups who differ in their loyalty deal with one another. A recipe for lessening polarization is to comprehend and empathize with the reasons that the position of another tribe differs from those of your own tribe.
We are in a time when we are intensely aware of resource limitations and questioning resource allocation: who gets what and why. This is driven by a sense of scarcity.
In my view, the sense of scarcity is in part driven and accentuated by both an awareness of and the lack of a plan for dealing with the growth of the human population. We have not been willing to face the need to control population growth, and we don't know how to meet the demands that that growing population places on the resources available on this planet.
4
Why would we be lonely?
Smaller multi-generational families. Unless you are a member of a fecund religious group,it's unlikely that there are more than three (non-step) siblings in each generation of the nuclear family. Larger families mean more connections even if they don't appear to be strong. Siblings, cousins, relatives by marriage...potential positive relationships.
Distance. Living more than 50 miles from other family members means that you must make an effort to see each other. When round-trip driving distance is too great to cover in a day, the chances of having regular physical contact shrink. If the distance is so great that it is best covered by air, the transportation costs and total times reduces physical contact even more. Don't let electronic contact as a substitute fool you--it's not the same.
Transitional living. It's hard to make long-term relationships if people are moving every 10 years. Rarely do those relationships last unless there is a blood or marital connection. How many children stay in the same school district until college or go to the same camp for five or more years? The friendships that tend to last are the ones made early in life but in our transitory existence, friends (really acquaintances) come and go.
I do not believe that humans were emotionally designed to lead the urban and suburban life we Americans live. People made Facebook the substitute for their lack of physical or true face-to-face connection and look where it got us?
26
On a reporting trip a few years ago I sat in a café and watched 4 young teenage girls at the table beside me order their after school tarte tartin and hot chocolate. Not a word to each other. Each was entirely occupied with her smart phone. Studies on skyrocketing depression rates - and the gravity-defying increase in prescribing of SSRIs and methylphenidate (Ritalin and others like it for ADHD) - point to something rather different from a drastic change in the physiology of the modern human within the space of a decade or so. The problem is epidemiological and the epidemic is 'intelligent' portable technology. Social dissociation and feelings of loneliness and alienation track directly with the proliferation of instantly-gratifying, endorphin-spiking technology. These are not intrapsychic phenonemon. I'm reminded of how cigarettes were once considered suave and debonaire. Public and corporate denial about the public health effects of that epidemic was legion.
18
Facebook is a malignancy that manifests in both loss of privacy and loneliness. However, Facebook is just a digital repercussion of consumerism, and a newfangled pipeline for goods and services.
Facebook is a for-profit business run by Harvard (Sheryl Sandberg) and Stanford MBAs, and is now a plank in the consumer society. Facebook sells data, sells targeted advertising, monitors internet use,and cues people to buy stuff - almost all of which they don't need.
Thus, people in postmodern America are preoccupied with buying and selling things, and also selling themselves and others - treating people like objects instead of subjects.
There is a blindness to social poverty, even among the affluent. What economists call non-pecuniary assets mean bupkis in the land of Trump. That's in part why he was elected. Hoi polloi prefer a land in which everything and everybody has a price, and no soul. Americans will not brook the immaterial, the impalpable, the rarefactions of the arts and sciences. The majority want something that has definite value in the marketplace.
Hence, taking succor in churchgoing is passe, as is becoming a well-rounded person, learned of the liberal arts in public schools. The market is blind to faith, compassion, and art for art's sake, Thus, those things have no attraction or meaning to modern denizens.
Trump is a stain, but he's a symptom not the etiology of our problem.
This problem will require nothing short of a new metaphysics.
13
I’m a new mom, and mothers groups with specific children like mine saved my sanity.
Read this in conjunction with the article about the mom with an autistic child staying on Facebook.
We have weaker social ties in person
A fear of not living up to others curated social media lives
Lost time trying to connect to former connections weak or strong online
We need each other. Facebook is both isolating and connecting.
6
Facebook has shown me that I have sets of cousins (first and second) on two continents, whoare happy having me on their friends list, but that's certainly it. They have always been near strangers. Sometimes I feel like de-friending them because it is kind of a farce. Fakebook it sure can be.
9
the problem is increasing affluence tends to increase individuation or isolation
in the old days, poor people needed to rely on each other to survive tough times - a historical book on my inner city suburb is titled 'doors were always open'
now I live behind two security doors - and if I hear someone in the stairwell as I'm about to go out, I'll wait until they're gone to avoid the awkwardness of opening my door to reveal my living space to a passing stranger - so - we never talk - and at best only grunt acknowledgments on the rare occasions we may cross paths at the doorway.
the upside of the internet is endless absorption - today in a medical waiting room I saw two young sisters, each absorbed in their own small screen, occasionally sharing laughter and 'look at this!' with some new find. No more staring at the wall like watching paint drying.
and the internet is heaven for introverts - the silent ?majority who may feel uncomfortable speaking to a stranger face-to-face in public, but can confidently prattle on all day about any topic that crosses their field of view ...
4
A friend came to visit on return from a humanitarian assignment to Asia, and it is rarely a dull moment in her company. We talked the night away, or rather I listened while she gave me directions on how to place a Buddha next to a print of Elizabeth I. 'The computer is my best friend', I added at dawn where we looked ghostly from lack of sleep.
Another friend, one from Africa, a colleague in the world of saving our children, insisted that I visit a small group of international speakers where at first I resisted on the basis that I chatter away already. But accepting the invitation, I joined this fine group as the sole American representative, and used some of David Brooks' essays on occasion when it was my turn to pitch in.
This was followed soon by the above friend, 'We will meet on Monday downtown after work when we convene for an award on table topics'. You have tremendous energy, I replied, and your family will be waiting for you to come home. We will be there to lend you our support. Why? 'Because you won the best table topic award at our workshop last week and we are now in competition with others'. But I only asked a question, protesting. Our president from Japan handed over a pamphlet with 101 possibilities. I liked 'how to wrestle a bear in the circus'.
Frank, when I go out and face the world with a jaunt in my step, I 'prepare' for what may be asked at a small brunch, tea with the neighbor, or my outing on errands with a 'Republican'. Listen.
2
You know what makes me feel depressed, Mr. Brooks?
President Trump makes me feel depressed.
You know what makes me feel lonely and isolated from my fellow Americans?
What makes me feel lonely and isolated from my fellow Americans is that I know people who don't believe in science, don't believe in climate change, don't think the government should help our fellow citizens get affordable healthcare, don't think people should get paid more than minimum wage if they work 40 hours a week, admire Putin, think Obama wasn't born in America, joined Michael Flynn in chanting "lock her up," don't think women should get equal pay, think that Trump is a good businessman, think it doesn't matter that Trump people met with Russians more than 70 times before the 2016 election, think that people marching in Charlottesville giving Nazi salutes are fine people, think that a pedophile would make a good senator, don't pay taxes and don't want to pay taxes even though they're rich, think it's great that Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat, think that The NYTimes is fake news, think that Fox News is real news, think that President Trump respects women.
Oh and the other thing that makes me depressed?
The other thing that makes me depressed is that the majority party that controls Congress, won't do anything to fix any of this, except to try and figure out how to eviscerate the social safety net, in order to give away more money to their 1% overlords.
That makes me depressed.
1087
I think part of the message Mr Brooks is trying to put across is that many people are depressed because they engage in things on which their participation has no effect, or that they don't participate at all. It doesn't really matter if they're involved or not. And it doesn't. Kind of like voting when you know you're up against a large number of creationists or whatever, and Putin has rigged the election anyway. So all one can do is to try not to get depressed about things you can't change. Enjoyment of the ephemeral beauty and beautiful absurdity of human existence is a good start. And I've found that placing my hand over any and all photographs of Trump and Putin when reading the morning newspaper is a good way to avoid spoiling a nice spring day.
43
V - thanks for your cogent list of the problems our nation faces today. I will never forget when my husband's very large company was closed early the day after Election Day 2016 because so many employees were truly devastated and traumatized by the Presidential election.
86
Awesome words.....I'm less depressed reading them....keep going....
21
Definitely a timely piece in trying to recover from the horrific tragedies of alienated youth. Radicalization home and abroad is a bringing together of those isolated, vulnerable to indoctrination. When we don't nurture and support our youth into wellness, they are more easily preyed upon. It is a tricky balance between safety and preparedness; how to both shelter and inspire courage in our next generation.
Keeping our kids safe involves preparedness, and awareness; but most of all, a sense of freedom to express what is truly inside. If youth don't feel like they can voice fears, confusion and disturbing feelings without getting rejected and diminished; they will start to need some way of proving validity. We are born valid, and equal.Tragedies of alienation end up in national grief.
Community online platforms are meant to enrich our relationships and businesses. They prove to be lifesaving in disasters, and communal responses to them. Just like any relationship can become dysfunctional, when misused, why would community online platforms be any different?
6
Mostly agree but there are alot of contra examples especially dating apps. It used to be if you moved to a new city and were not highly attractive, outgoing or charming, it was very hard to find a date. Online dating helped but there was a stigma attached as if you were a loser. With Tinder type apps, its easy to find a date and with the initial anonymity, you can open up and be honest. Texting makes it much easier to take someone's temperature than the phone call was.
3
Aurther Phleger, while 'Texting' might make it easier to take the measure of a personality for some of us than a voice on the phone, the thought spooks this essay reader. Bring on the phone, and perhaps in your honor, I will try a text message, but never a twitter. LOL, which by some accounts a British Prime Minister was sending to friends under the impression that it meant 'Lots of Love'.
Social media might be a factor affecting loneliness, but David is far from establishing it as a major one. And he hasn’t paid much attention to other factors of at least equal influence. Among these are the structure of society today, putting us in cars for hours by ourselves, having us work two jobs to pay the bills, bombarding us incessantly with stupidities in ads, TV, radio, that drive us toward false views of ourselves and our responsibilities to each other.
22
Great piece and one of the few times I've found myself in total agreement with someone from the other end of the political spectrum.
2
Addiction to drugs is an obvious, serious problem. The addiction to "phones" and such technology, built into the systems, is regarded as fun, as vital to "education" and for most a necessity for one's ego. "Everyone has it, so I must have it, too." Long ago in my small town youth, our movie theater showed a new picture midweek, a different picture on the weekend. With Saturday matinees. We gathered TOGETHER for Technicolor musicals, black and white dramas, westerns, weepers. It was a time of genuine socialization made obsolete first by television and now by the Internet. In schools, teachers and professors willing to risk hostility demand that phoney socialization products be turned off or left (like shootin' irons in old cowboy movies) at the door.
Actions have reactions. New products aimed at making addicts of us for profit have consequences -- not all of them positive, not all good for one's health.
In person, face to face communication has been replaced by technology's faux relationships in short messages, "likes" and efforts to have as many on line "friends" or "links" as possible. Sometimes "more" is not better. Time to bring back the long letter delivered by the post office.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
10
I agree with you about likes and friends but not about turning back the clock. The genie is out of the bottle and we need to move forward positively, not live in the past.
6
Writing on paper with a Forever stamp is not living in the past, and Mr. Giebel, looking forward to your long letter addressed to Narnia Garden, NY at our small village post office which is our community center.
What prevents us from writing a snail mail letter or a long email letter? What prevents us from face-to-face socialization with others (distance excepted)? One anything happens, it's "in the past." And we spend our lives remembering, reading about, dealing with "the past." I can listen to today's hip-hop but also listen to a recording by Caruso, Duke Ellington, Bing Crosby, Billie Holiday. The genie may have left the bottle, but the bottle is not an empty glass.
dg
David provides an interesting argument and set of facts about increased loneliness and worsening depression. The irony of internet driven technologies, which reduce the cost to connect, contributing to less human interaction is a tempting target. A more interesting take would be to look at this based on factors that drive increased insecurity in society (or a return to more insecure times?): from economic change to the war on government and conservative perpetuation of us-vs-them mentalities since the 1980s...as well as from the zero cost to instantaneously distribute information (and the social anxiety that introduces). It seems to me that introducing secure access to housing, health coverage and income would seem to go a long way to rebalancing. But this would probably remain incomplete without a change in social discourse favoring community, togetherness and a shared common purpose of (re)building our country.
4
I think you're right that there are a lot of confounding factors with all these studies. I don't think technology and increased connectivity online in and of itself is the problem. It's a tool and if it is used like a tool in a judicious manner, I think the problems David talks about would be minimal or nonexistent. The problem is that it is not used as a tool.
2
Speaking from the perspective of an upper middle class young person, I definitely agree that social media amplifies loneliness and depression. I've tried to figure out why social media is so popular, and I think it's popular because it is a mindless activity. It doesn't take much higher level thinking to scroll through an Instagram feed or to watch a Facebook video. However, this mindless activity is not truly rewarding. Though we might find a funny image or connect with some friends, the vast amount of time we spend on social media does not do much to satisfy human needs like love and appreciation. Heart emojis in the comments of a selfie do not mean that person actually has true friends. Once young people get used to social media forms of appreciation, we can forget what real fulfillment feels like. Then we get sad and lonely and don't know what we are missing...
6
I had to take care of a sick child who was in and out of school. I moved to a city by the coast 2300 miles from home where we knew no one because it was better for his health. I knew it would be hard on me, but even more difficult for my nine year old, who left everything behind, even his loving brother. I created a Meet Up group for parents and their boys my sons age. We went to the beach, amusement parks, dinners, movies, picnics, etc. I developed friends, and so did he. If it were not for this online platform, life would have been so much more difficult. I'm not naturally outgoing, but I do value friendships. Thankfully, he is on great meds, my older son lives with us now, and both are attending first class universities. I continue to work on friendships in my new home...I went to college with my younger son when he was admitted at age 14. He joined a frat his freshman year, he's now 16 and a Sophomore, and he's doing really well. You have to make the effort to connect with others. It may not happen on its own, but the payoff is enormous.
16
When I was working for MSN (Microsoft) in the 90's/early 2000's, building productivity consumer web sites like HomeAdvisor and Sidewalk, MSN had a tag line, something like the internet "lifestyle." I thought this was ridiculous. Instead, I was excited by the power of the new internet to simplify your life, to help you spend less time doing prosaic stuff on your computer so you could spend more time doing the things you loved. But brand marketers and engineers saw it as a way to hook customers in, to make the internet like crack cocaine, to make it something unto itself, not just an efficient tool. And that's what it became, to my everlasting dismay.
9
David does not mention that Americans are working ever-longer hours and enduring ever-longer commutes, while remaining tethered to their employers after hours by email and texts. And those are the people lucky enough to have a single, white-collar job. Others have two and three jobs, jumping from fast-food kitchen to cruddy retail shift, all because the 1 percent are wringing maximum profit from the rest of us. David doesn’t seem to get this.
349
I used to teach "Stress Reduction for Women." This was one big issue I talked about. No time for family, hobbies, vacations, etc--a big cause of stress.
23
I agree completely, and I would like to add another similar factor, namely the constant moving of jobs from one region to another, and then out of the country. When people move to get a job, particularly in booming areas with a lot of new growth, they are abandoning established communities, with a lot of ties, for new communities where neither they or their neighbors have significant relationships. The process may seem like "creative destruction" to the business class, it is nevertheless destruction to the rest of us.
46
Americans could handle loneliness a lot better if more people were better at being alone. American culture programs people to believe something is wrong with their life if they aren't blissfully interacting with people every minute of the day. This was part of our culture long before Facebook and the internet.
38
Yes, it could've led to the rise of the addictive behaviour but nonetheless, that's what has happened and it's the addiction that needs to be kicked. As someone who has done it with stuff a lot harder than social media, etc. I think the moment you start realising the addiction for what it is, and decide to give up the addiction, that's when the transformation can happen.
2
Is screen time exacerbating an already lonely, isolated person, or is it the origin of this person's loneliness and isolation? I think the former. Screen time can be like a drug or alcohol - an escape from problems already present in a person. Those problems are buried in the screen and not resolved. This person takes a double-hit, they don't deal with their problem and they spend time in "a screen" (like many spend time in "a bottle"), which could exacerbate fears, anger, depression, AND isolate this person from people or services who could help them sort out their problems. What could be driving the initial problems? Job loss? A society that is moving too fast and doesn't have a strong enough safety net to help those being left behind? Hopefully, the corruption that has so degraded our country is finally coming to an end, and we can move to government and communities as problem solvers rather than troughs with spoils to be doled out to the well connected and powerful. The United States needs cradle to grave services for people when they are in real need. We should find a way to strike a balance between the right amount of services and incentives to work, grow and be lifelong learns. For starters, stop glorifying the vulgar, showy, rich money grubbers who are corrupting the country and get back to supporting decent, hard working people willing to work, build communities and help people when they need it. In that society, why would you want to escape into a Facebook screen?
6
At a conference I attended once, a fellow attendee in a groups discussion made a point about the social isolation fostered by social media being a contributing factor in the incidence of child abuse. Ironically, this woman herself spent the free times between lectures and meal breaks choosing not to engage with the rest of us attendees. Social media is an easy scapegoat many times.
3
“But it is nonetheless true that many of us who are socially wealthy don’t really know how the other half lives.” Might I suggest, Mr. Brooks, that you should spend more time at the Applebee’s salad bar? This was, as I recall, what you recommended that Obama should do.
24
How much of this loneliness epidemic has to do with the massive move of so many women into the workforce? And what doesn’t have to do with that probably has to do with the lengthening of the work day. There are simply (almost) no able bodied, competent people who have time to interact — unpaid — with the old, the socially unskilled, or the sick.
In the end both the problem and the solution have nothing to do with technology. We need to trust each other. Right now we raise kids to focus all their energy on their career — their passion. We raise girls to never depend on a man.
Then people don’t learn the social skills — the trust, the patience, the tolerance — to have deep, long term relationships.
At the heart of this disjuncture, perhaps, is the fraught relationship between men and women now, on so many levels. Couples don’t want to marry young because they want to invest in themselves. So then they engage in promiscuity as an outlet for their natural needs. And when you’re 35, maybe it’s suddenly heart to meld.
I see lonely children who don’t what’s wrong. I see tired, tired women who have no time for anything. Often those women are angry — angry that they’re tired, angry that they have to do everything, angry that the work that takes all their time is banal — and then that anger spills out onto everyone else.
What is the effect of one angry person? How many giving, soft people do you need to make a caring world?
7
When the government quits its duty to help all of its citizens and becomes a conduit for tax money to wealthy people with decrease in health care, education, infrastructure. Then, allowing corporations to avoid almost all taxes and reward them for off shoring profits it is no wonder that this becomes the standard. Greed and consumption replaces support and caring for others. Trump becomes a national icon, unethical, immoral, cheater who accumulates wealth at the expense of others but is admired by millions. If you have the money you must be special, if not you deserve it.
16
I agree with this article. Social media creates a pseudo-context for peoples lives which is empty and soulless.
Neil Postman was right: every media has an agenda.
3
The whole screen capture has been occurring before Personal Electronic Devices came on the scene and it is closing in on a permanent "must have"implant within our lives I fear. Social observation will be unavoidable, interaction, probably non-essential. Already, lost productivity is common in the workplace with, not "bring your own device" but bring your own distraction. Nonsense and digital overload will be the new opiate and out of date GPSs driving us over the cliff will be the least of our worries.
1
I do believe that children/teens are more socially inept due to their constant communication using their smart phones. They don't know how to ask someone for a date, they can't carry on a phone conversation, they are not particularly articulate, yet they also don't write well, having learned to write in "code". I do worry about them.
I don't think most adults have been that badly affected. In fact, for the elderly or those in poor health, their computers/smart phones are a way to communicate with the world and be less isolated.
But the children? Yes, their parents really do need to take these devices away and GREATLY limit their usage.
5
I don't agree - I think there is a third way, which is synergistic, taking the best bits of the two ways (online vs. IRL). I started using the Internet in the late 80s in college and one of my first experiences (I was from a foreign country) was to connect with people who had similar interests to me. This led to some of my best relationships IRL to date. The fact that I was able to break the ice online and then meet up and deal with the awkwardness IRL strengthened my social skills in a unique way.
I was an early adopter of email relationships (which led to physical meetings in some cases and LTRs in a few) when my friends thought I was crazy for doing this. In the end, I married someone I met in IRL first (which one wouldn't have guessed from my college years). I've seen this in a few other cases also, where the two sets of social skills one learns online and IRL are transferred/interchanged to lead to a better synthesis overall.
2
Go anywhere. What do you see? People staring into their phones.
And we wonder why people are lonely? Is Facebook, Twitter, phones, etc. a way of ameliorating loneliness or partly the cause of it?
My view: Both. They are drugs that are easy fixes for loneliness but like all drugs they draw you into a never-ending cycle of neediness.
Throw away your phones, folks. Dump Facebook. Join a club, an organization, a group. There are a lot of people out there with energy for life. Be a part of them. The virtual world is not the real world---it is a siren beckoning you to oblivion.
We did not evolve to look at phones. We evolved to exercise our muscles and our voice boxes.
4
No mention of the cultivation of suspicion of others and of divisiveness by so-called conservatives, and the Republican party. No mention of the increasing madness of capitalism and consumerism that promotes the accumulation of material wealth and possessions and destroys the planet. No mention of the endless wars and the bleeding of the nation to support them - and the military - at the expense of support for services and programs that enable us to have a decent life - decent housing, healthcare, education, healthy food- that contribute to a sense of meaning and belonging and community. No mention of the dispiriting circus of venal politicians serving only their deep pocketed contributors.
Who, at age 14 or 18 or 25 wouldn't want to turn away and get lost in distraction, a phone, video games, drugs.
11
Okay David, you described the increasing isolation of people who are apt to have fewer social relationships. How about suggesting some solutions because people are not going to throw aware their smart phones and I don't think people are going to suddenly start believing in God and going to church.
What do you suggest?
3
Again, David Brooks pours old wine into new bottles. Robert Putnam basically stated this proposition, backed up with a lot more data than Brooks gives us, in his best-selling book, Bowling Alone. And before him, so did David Riesman in his classic, The Lonely Crowd, and in Individualism Reconsidered. And so did Robert Nisbet at about the same time, in his classic,The Quest for Community. And going back further, American psychiatrist, Harry Stack Sullivan, in The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. Indeed, today, the most cutting edge branch of psychoanalysis is relational psychoanalysis.
So David, tell us readers something new and important or at least extend ideas that are new and important.
7
You pine for the past so badly, David Brooks. But the genie is out of the bottle and we have to deal with it. This is what progress looks like! But rest assured that the future will be even weirder than you imagine. Perhaps there will be no need for even Facebook interaction as we immerse ourselves in imaginary worlds with direct computer-brain interface!
But, David, now or in the distant future, there will always be things that can never be taken away. On a dark night when I feel lonely with my loved ones in another city or continent, I go out and look up at the sky. The stars are old friends who never complain. And then even the parasitic Trump leaves my brain for a few minutes.
1
Thank you. Thoughtful article, well expressed.
Actually people talk about the lonely all the time. And yet your favorite party has cut funding for ALL social services. Not to mention food, housing, and mental health funding. Without that, families are stressed and people die before their time. Focus on real social policy and not superficial social analysis. Peoples lives are at stake!
9
Social and material wealth are connected, as are poverty and loneliness.
When you are poor you cannot meet friends in restaurants, join them at the theatre, opera, movies, or meet new ones in bars. You cannot throw dinner parties or entertain. You don't have nice clothes or a special haircut and when other people talk about the expensive things they do or buy its embarrassing. And the things which are most important to you, like a dull job, rent, utilities, and food, aren't interesting to anyone, even you. Not everyone who is poor is lonely, and many poor people have rich lives. Not everyone who is lonely is poor, but the private world of the internet is a good way to hide from the shame and anxiety of poverty. You can pretend you are just as fortunate as anyone.
I wonder why David Brooks doesn't write about the poor, as though they were important, or poverty, as though it were a social factor, when for many people, it is the defining one.
21
"We live as we dream... alone." Joseph Conrad for one, and other authors' great works underscore the reality that is at the center, yes the very heart, of the artificial trappings and moral clothing of our civilized world... modernity and advanced technology may have served to heightened that reality for sociologists and social commentators; yet, one wonders if that loneliness and isolation are natural and intrinsic to the human condition.
3
I agree with the premise of the article, but would take the conclusion a little further. There have always been the socially wealthy, and the socially poor....social media now enables the 'poor' to feel wealthy online, but when they close that app on the smartphone, there's nothing there. That contrast between online fantasy and the real world feeds the increasing rates of general unhappiness and social unrest. But, I would also argue that smartphones (the urban pacifier) keeps the masses unfocused and constantly flitting from one subject to the next. Can you imagine how the young people of the 60's/70's would be organizing and protesting a kleptocracy like Trump's?
Several years ago I used to remark about how sad it was to see a half-dozen young people out on the town together....all of them looking at their phones and not actually speaking to each other. It's worse now.
1
Yes! The pressures of economic survival in a country that refuses to require employers to pay a living wage, has no decent transportation options if you can't afford a working car, has no assurances of affordable healthcare, affordable safe housing--- these pressures limit the energy available to devote the the most life giving and essential wealth, social wealth. Expensive doodads won't till the emptiness of socially poverty, but pressures for economic survival can limit the opportunity for social wealth.
5
The book "Bowling Alone" that came out in 2000 was all about these ideas. Preceding that was "the Culture of Narcissism" in 1979 and "the Pursuit of Loneliness" in 1970. Perhaps social networks on the internet are not creating NEW problems but enabling our OLD problems to become worse.
10
Some would say that the commodification of the relationships we do have also creates problems. We often judge people based on their value to society. Online dating becomes weird CV-based interviews. Work events are "networking" about building "business relationships" that will help you later- which certainly is not about being part of a community of shared interests.
Do you want facebook, where all your relationships will be sold? How much political action depends on one's access to a check book? I know when the political parties do outreach it often begins with a desire for cash over participation. How about the cash demands from a "community of viewers like you"?
In a toxic world such as this, is it a surprise that loneliness becomes not only an outcome, but often a sad preference?
Tech only exacerbates the problem. The underlying problem is the belief that all our relationships are economic exchanges. Transactional purchases. Thank the neo-liberal consensus for turning us all into consumers.
7
Perhaps we see the past through rosy filters. People should watch the old Twilight Zone series not for the science fiction, but for its portrayal of American life in late 50’s and early 60’s. It is usually not pretty. The numerous social groups lauded in op-eds and studies were never universally loved. The bridge game with neighbors you really despised, mandatory community projects, even the after work drinking sessions that look so cool on Mad Men were things that millions of normal adults wanted to escape. Similar to the escape hatch offered by the early suburbs after the oppressive restrictions of WW2, escape from what was painted as unbearable conformity was attractive to many, many Americans. Similar to the negative impacts of suburban migration on cities, people escaping unliked groups left a lot of shattered glass.
The loneliness of being with people you really do not want to be around is far worse than loneliness created by being alone. Maybe social scientists did not measure that first kind of loneliness very well.
18
Well, you might as well mention the workplace. How many people that you work with would you choose to associate with if not forced to by circumstance? And you all get to bond over the absolutely meaningless, but supercritical work you are performing! Yes, we all have "work-friends" but work-friends are to friends as White Castle is to castles. How often has it happened that someone leaves the workplace, for reasons good or ill, only to find their cherished work-friends instantly cease to exist, and vise-versa? Such experiences can easily sour you on friendships in general. On the other hand, how many prisoners, once released from jail keep in touch with the old gang? Same thing.
2
Excellent, op-ed, David Brooks!. Consider it to be one of the best by you that I have read, and one that I hope is much discussed.
When I retired about ten years ago, what I missed most about no longer being a member of the workforce were the social dimensions of work--the daily contacts, discussions, and meals with colleagues.
Immediately after retiring, I found the loneliness unberable, so I became a volunteer, an Ignatian Volunteer, working for a social justice advocacy group no less than two days a week. This was definitely one of the best decisions I ever made, allowing me to not only do some good but also to unite myself in solidarity with a community that has become the perfect antidote to the loneliness that was eating away at me following retirement.
Do not know if what I did will lead to gearter longevity, but the quality of my life certainly improved, primarily because of the social contacts that have been so enriching.
Existentially, I know what you said in this article, Mr. Brooks, is spot on. Keep the conversation going, please.
9
Ah Brooks, a true conservative and a bit of a reactionary who always looks back to when things seemed to be better.
Today Bob Hall may have looked at the internet to find the place that could treat his cancer using the cancer's genome, lived and his family would not need the loan.
My grand children and my wife love their smartphones and are fully functioning and adjusted.
Look to the future with optimism and hope David not despair.
8
I agree that isolation and loneliness can result in bad outcomes. It has gotten worse but I'm not sure technology is the problem. It seems that our American values of individualism and materialism are the real problem. And income inequality seems to exacerbate these problems. We lock ourselves behind gates and wall ourselves off from each other. Our sensational media leads us to fear that if we step outside we will be a victim of crime, even though crime is at it's lowest level in decades. This fear also leads to mistrust, so we are afraid to lend a helping hand. My hope is that these young people who are becoming active leaders will help us to see that giving to each other will be the one thing that could save us.
17
In my experience you nailed it.
relationships. You mean, like families torn apart by the whims of commerce? The social safety net: healthcare, Mental health, infrastructure, a living wage-- are these things worth championing? When two, billionaires own as much as the bottom half of the world, can you just feel the love?
312
This trend has been accelerating, and has been written about, for nearly a century. The simplest and most explanatory account you can give is that markets are replacing all other institutions. Social media and the internet are not the causes, they are only the latest and most powerful atomizers of society. There could be a completely different internet, designed to help us accomplish and create the things we want to accomplish and create, rather than the current system, which is designed make every human action monetizable. There could be a different media, a source for communities to communicate about their experiences and problems, rather than the corporate monsters who only serve political manipulation and consumerism. We could have a different government, that represented the public in addition to the financial & corporate interests. Mr. Brooks' heart is often in the right place, but all the lecturing in the world is not going to make people refuse the only options that society gives them. The world is being changed from the top down, and if you want to change it in a different way you have to change the rules.
31
Social media are a symptom and not a cause of loneliness. Americans are not the only people using Facebook. It's like wealth or power that reveals who you really are. Social media reveal the kind of society we are. In some other societies, where communal and family ties are still very strong, social media are used to strengthen those ties. The individualistic mentality of this society where people are taught not to be responsible for anybody or expect anything from anyone is reaching its logical conclusion. Deadly loneliness. Sharing and giving is what makes us human and healthy, and not unbridled accumulation of stuff we don't need or use. We should rethink this ballyhooed Enlightenment philosophy.
10
Suburbs -- no sidewalks, three car garages, cookie-cutter homes. Isolation. Give me city living every time -- walkable, diverse, arts, characters, stimulation.
117
I would add to the list: the city is filled with people who are vastly different from one another. It's invigorating. It stretches the mind and asks us to think anew.
I am thankful every day that we sold the house and moved downtown into a complete group of strangers.
3
Keith Richards lives in the Connecticut suburbs.
I am not sure about the social media. I would just say it's individualism. While it's one of the greatest accomplishment of modern society, it didn't come with new social norms to adapt to a more individualist society. We live with a mindset of the present, with technologies of the future but values from the past.
2
Moved to SoCal 14 years ago, people are friendly but don't want to be friends... No one asks us to do anything. Gave up on some couples as it was always us giving, arranging, having over for dinner. Thank goodness, I have varied interests to keep my husband and I entertained, like attending Yom Hashoah, the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust's annual Remembrance event over this past weekend...
10
Robert Putnam described the decline in social capital in his book Bowling Alone. The rot started with television; social media has only added to a problem that has been festering for a long time.
However, another key driver in this is glorification of the pursuit of individual self interest - ironically mostly promoted in recent decades by so-called conservatives.
121
A few years ago, a caller on a radio program was talking about his older sister's high-school math class, and how the kids were taking notes with their iPhones. He said, "Back in my day, we had things called pencils, and paper..." Turns out, he was 25! Twenty-five, and using phrases like, "Back in my day." My grandmother was 75 before she said that. If social media and related technology is turning 25-year olds into grumpy old men, then no wonder it's robbing people of social skills and capitol.
8
I don't ever plan to possess a cell/smart phone, to myself, the solution is MUCH WORSE than the problem. I can't believe how many adults and children consider it standard/essential equipment. Lest you think I'm a luddite, I have a degree in computer science and work in the field of cybersecurity for U.S. Air Force space satellite systems. Cell phones are not allowed at work (thank heavens).
Not trying to be condescending and uppity, but I spent 4 days at a hotel recently, and couldn't believe the television wasteland offered via the several hundred channels, and that so many people pay for it.
Although it would put me out of a job, we (Homo sapiens) could use a world wide electron-magnetics pulse (e.g.,) solar coronal mass ejection) whereby our electronic addiction is placed on hold for a few decades.
I read quite a few books that I obtain from my local library network. Very few are keepers (purchase for my library), as is this one, The Shallows, by Nicholas Carr.
48
Cel phones and technology is great and should be embraced not ignored. They make us more effective in communicating and enhance our time available to cement and enhance relationships
4
Thank you for recommending this title. The top Amazon review for the book, by John W. Cowan, is astonishing. (I see the irony. But do click on it anyway.)
We all thought choices were great, let's have options, let the consumer decide. But it was all about what we buy instead of who we love, how we spend our time, the trade-offs. As electronic communication has evolved into social media, I have to say I feel less connected. Facebook tells me I have 635 friends. I've met, at best, half of them, and I am a bartender. But there are people from my childhood, high school, cousins, various jobs - that when we meet, it's a reunion. Fun, laughs, and connections. The last few years I have made an effort to seek out my past friends. So far, we still are, friends.
5
I was recently in a gathering of high level healthcare leaders from hospitals, insurance, and health advocacy nonprofits. This questions was thrown out: "What will we be talking about in ten years that we are not talking about today?" The answer was: loneliness or social isolation as a health factor, among all ages but esp. among the aged.
24
The unsocial wealth that is destroying this country is the wealth that has bought the Republican Party. This is the extreme corporate wealth of the Kochs, Mercers et al.. These are the people who under Citizens United have financed the undermining of our democracy through Red Map gerrymandering and the acquisition of state houses that have legitimized voter suppression. Why not expose this facet of our societal ills for what it is?
238
jefflz: I'll tell you why Brooks doesn't expose the facets of our social ills you bring up: He's spent most of his adult life promoting these things, directly or indirectly. Of course he doesn't endorse gerrymandering per se. He simply supports the party that most practices it, whose very survival depends on rigged elections.
It's not really in the things he says - his support for these ills is evident in all the things he consistently does NOT say. He continues to be shocked - shocked! - by T-rump, yet supported ALL of the incremental steps taken by the Republican Party that ultimately made his unholy ascendancy possible.
17
Surely you jest. Laying this on one party??
Would that I be jesting.
One of the most insidious anti-democracy schemes, REDMAP, was launched after the 2008 election by the Republicans under the leadership of Karl Rove. The plan involves systematic capture of state legislatures and governorship financed by Citizen's United dark money for the sole purpose of sophisticated computer-driven gerrymandering that suppresses voting by likely Democrats.
REDMAP's effect on the 2012 election was clear. According to a post-election Republican State Leadership Committee report: "Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic U.S. House candidates . . . but elected a 13-5 Republican majority to represent them in Washington; Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress.”
Deliberate, well-planned and financed undermining of the democratic process owned and operated by the GOP.
While I generally agree that we all spend too much time in front of screens, my company has worked to promote meetups of social media users in our industry. Social media has allowed us to be a part of a strong virtual and real community of people engaged in craftsmanship and the trades. My company has hosted meetups at trade shows and other events to bring people together from around the country. Within our industry other individuals are putting together similar events to bring together like-minded people from a given town or state. When social media is tied to real communities where you can shake a hand and share a meal it takes on a new dimension.
4
The world has always had and ever will have much unhappiness, and meliorism has done as much harm as good. Let's retain some perspective while trying to improve the world. ... "People try to compensate for the lack of intimate connection by placing their moral and emotional longings on their political, ethnic and other tribes ..." This is true, and it's tearing America apart.
While there is a large economic component to the problems that ail society, a cultural change is paramount. Such a change can propel economic change. Automation and trade have harmed rural America, but assuaging its problems, which were synergistic in origin, will entail multi-pronged attacks. ... We needn't be primitivists to note that technology often enslaves us unwittingly. We need leaders who see this and can help communities re-emerge. The online world is no substitute for the human world. We lack connective depth, but we all long for it.
Many (including Brooks) won't like this, but we probably need a little less immigration for a while. "Racism!" Yes, I know ... but so many are so worked up over this. It could help us reconnect across our differences, ironically. The rebuilding of community is an obligation for all. Finally, let's not forget the importance of architecture, of landscape. That's a serious point: Much of America is ugly, and it's literally depressing. Not being a millionaire shouldn't consign one to an aesthetic nightmare.
14
David L. - Not sure I agree about the immigration part but you are spot on with architecture and outdoor spaces. Where we live is run over with sterile developments and miles of identical apartment buildings. Apparently these 'spaces' are the new form of community and leisure. It is depressingly numbing.
9
Harvard's Robert Putnam has also found that as diversity increases, community and neighborliness declines. People "hunker down" and feel less open. Per his research, this is not limited to one race or class (for example, same effects if significant Chinese immigration to predominantly African-American neighborhood).
The bipartisan elites have been pursuing a de facto mass migration policy for about 50 years and even by the 1990's, Democrats like African-American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan recognized it was time to slow down and reduce immigration by stronger enforcement vs illegal immigration; and reduction of legal immigration.
Liberal Democrats like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. were rightfully concerned about the shift to neo-liberalism and divide (and conquer) strategy represented by the rise of identity politics (and how it could seriously threaten all of the New Deal gains). Schlesinger watched the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, who seemed on pace to hold together the New Deal coalition in 1968. He watched the rise of Reagan; and then Gingrich, as political correctness began to take over college campuses. His early 90's book, The Disuniting of America-Reflections on a Multicultural Society, is scarily prescient and worth re-reading in light of the last several years in America.
3
A whole lot of name dropping and buzz words (e.g. liberal elites, neoliberalism, identity politics, etc.) to attempt to reinforce an argument about immigration as what - - - a significant contributor to social isolation in the US?- - - especially given the recent data on the rise of social isolation/desperation in white, rural America. A very big stretch indeed.
It seems that “identity politics” is only a problem when it is minority populations seeking greater representation in the economy and/or the government, and not when it was associated with Nixon’s southern strategy or conservative white evangelical Christians during the Reagan years.
4
Does it ever dawn on social media critics like David Brooks that social media may, in many instances, actually enhance the lives of people who otherwise would have hardly any friends at all, or even be ostracized? Real social life includes an awful lot of cruelty and meanness--people treating others horribly just for the fun of it, or avoiding those who are even a little bit different.
Clearly not everyone on FB or posts on Instagram is obsessed with measuring themselves against others. Sometimes it's just about the fun of sharing nice pictures, or passing around links to sites that are interesting, newsworthy or provocative.
Loneliness and depression are caused not by social media, but by advanced capitalism (i.e., our consumerist economy). The loneliest and most depressed people in modern society are old people, not teenagers--people who barely know how to use email, and certainly don't hang out on Facebook. That there's been an increase in teenagers who are depressed and suicidal probably comes about because young people are smart and informed, and they get it that there's an emptiness at the heart of modern consumer society.
In other words, the problem is alienation, and it's a whole lot bigger than social media.
327
Agreed. I recently met very happy 89 year old. A fellow who'd spent an active life and now was pretty much wheel chair bound- but he said he was just fine - that he had a great computer and stayed in touch with world events and facts and opinions to which he never had access before. Beyond that, he had connections with family who had moved far away. Clearly a fellow whose life was less lonely, even enhanced, by social media.
5
I have 2 FB friends who have either close family or lots of close friends, actively involved in a religious institution with people that help to meet their needs, but use FB as their journal. When reaching out to specific friends they send their requests to everyone, instead of the group of people who can best respond to the request. Even when they request a suggestion of what to do from all FB friends they are quick to make you feel like a chump when you didn't respond how they wanted to. Sometimes I think they have a mental illness, because I would never share all the details of my life on FB. That's kept for an email, text or phone call to specific family and friends.
8
We live in a country where people who are most desperate for contact or in need are told to go talk to someone who's trained to deal with it. Friends do not stick with friends in a time of need. They run away. Being lonely is socially unacceptable so the lonely are themselves socially unacceptable. So too in America is a person who doesn't conform to the expected norms, who isn't liberal or conservative, who might need to be alone, who prefers to read, who isn't absorbed by the sports culture.
We have divided ourselves to the point that we no longer know or introduce ourselves to our neighbors. Our current political climate encourages this. We also walk right by each other because we no longer trust each other. That person who is hurt might not be hurt; he or she might be scamming.
It's as if every instinct we have to be nice is abused in America. No matter what we say or do or don't do is used against us. It is depressing but even more depressing is the realization that laws are made encouraging these actions on the part of businesses that are watching us online, in the store, and even when we want to be unobserved and left alone. Sometimes it's easier to be nice when we know we won't be ridiculed later.
90
There are so many opportunities to be kind to each other. What a shame for some people not to treat them as such.
I try to be appreciative and engaging with people for small interactions, like buying groceries or my daily coffee. I know how far a smile and kind words can go with me. Why not offer that to the next person?
At my job, I bake cookies and such for my coworkers every week. Nothing especially fancy, but it is a way of trying to add something good to others' days and let them know I think of them in my off time.
Even the comments sections can be personalized in a good way. We know each other not by voice or face but by words, so why not make them positive? Commenters, as they exchange ideas, can be encouraging, or at least polite.
What's ridiculous is being gratuitously mean, mocking or dismissive of others. It takes more strength to put ourselves out there for others, but we should be there for each other as much as we can.
39
Perhaps we should be looking at Maslow's hierarchy of needs to explain this issue. Many people are struggling with trying to ensure that they have enough money for bills, food, and shelter. They don't enjoy personal security, financial security, or health and well-being. When you are stuck in survival mode relationships suffer because you just don't consider them a priority.
There are things that the government can do to address some of these issues. Employers should be required to pay people a living wage and give them a consistent schedule. Food insecurity in a country as wealthy as ours is a disgrace and the government should be strengthening our social safety net not working to gut it. Public schools should provide free meals for all students so those who are food insecure can actually learn and better themselves. Healthcare isn't a luxury, everyone needs it and families shouldn't go broke due to a major illness. There's no reason why we should be the only developed nation without universal healthcare.
Get people out of survival mode and our suicide rate will drop on its own. A healthy and happy country is a productive country. It's not an accident that the golden age of America where we were most productive was the decades after the great depression and FDR's New Deal programs that helped a suffering country get back on its feet.
901
The solution to the problem begins with fathers married to the mothers and fully assuming the role of fatherhood. Without that adult acceptance of parental responsibility (on the part of both sexes) expect nothing! Our civilization was built around that model.
24
I strongly agree with this comment. It's hard to build good relationships when survival is a major struggle and the quality of life for most people is going down.
There is also a major political divide in this country between Trump supporters and the people like myself who are very concerned (to say the least) with Trumps presidency.
I'm really surprised that prominent conservative columnists like David Brooks can write about topics like people being lonely. I have trouble understanding how people can ignore the out of control political wild fire that is threatening the very foundation of our country.
70
I strongly agree with this post. I would like to add that in my view, it's not just survival and irregular schedules - the sheer exhaustion caused by constant overwork can both inhibit the nurturing of relationships, and trigger depressive symptoms which inhibit the nurturing of relationships even more.
I was fortunate to be able to switch to a four-day week at work last autumn, and the quality of my relationships and community participation, especially in my faith community, has improved no end. And yes, I agree with Mr Brooks that these human ties are important.
Unlike him, however, I would think that the use of social media is a symptom more than a cause, because this is a way of keeping some sort of connection to other people even if very time-poor.
218
"But the big issue surrounding Facebook is not privacy. It’s that Facebook and other social media companies are feeding this epidemic of loneliness and social isolation".
No, It's lack of privacy. It doesn't send you to the doctor, but it allows hundreds of data collection services to sell your information to anyone without your consent. Facebook isn't even the worst. We spend our tax dollars to be spied on by our government. Automated law enforcement, targeted advertising and manipulation of our elections is just the beginning. Who's side do you think our governments on ? The big money or our citizens ? At least in 1984 everyone knew who big brother was.
13
The best cure for loneliness and isolation : Get a DOG. I'm deadly serious.
A Cat is good for those in apartments that don't allow Dogs. If you are not able to adopt a Dog OR Cat, please consider volunteering at your local animal shelter. They have many " jobs " and flexible hours, to fit your schedule. One of my favorite hobbies is collecting coupons to use at the supermarket, then donating the " savings " to my local shelter.
Put down the Facebook, save a life. Please.
396
Also: Book groups. They're free, they're everywhere, they welcome everyone, and they encourage people to talk to each other. Plus, you get to read books, one of life's most enjoyable, rewarding and enriching experiences.
134
@Carson -- great point! Libraries and bookstores are gold mines, veritable fountains of youth. Now try convincing this president of the value of a good book!
1
My cats are the most beloved friends of mine. And I adore dogs, but don't have the energy to give them the outdoor time they need.
Not to diminish human companionship, but relationships with animals mean so much, too. They love you unconditionally and always, so long as you care for and love them. I can be my best self with animals more naturally than with most people. Pure love.
100
Without social media, what would those same people be doing with that time? Would they go out and socialize, or sit on the couch and watch TV getting drunk alone?
How does social media compare to what the same people would actually be doing instead? What they did before social media?
They were never socially rich. Social media did not deprive them of it.
Which is better, total isolation, or some communication?
99
I took my dogs to the local park yesterday. Mothers were pushing strollers. Couples sat on benches. Other dog owners walked their pets, all in total silence. Every single one of the people there was staring, mesmerized, at a small rectangle in his or her hand. all you could here were a few birds, and the eerie Sounds of Silence.
14
I don't know how young you are, Mark, but I'm a baby boomer and I definitely remember a time before smart phones and social media -- even a time as recent as 1995. I am so nostalgic for this era -- as I tried to sit this weekend with my two teen age grandkids, unable to get them to lift their eyes from their phones even while we ate out at a restaurant they love -- that I get weepy. I call it "The Lost World"....where people actually had conversations. Where friends looked at you, and not at their phones. When children played with one another, and went outside and climbed stuff, instead of sitting INDOORS all day long, staring at video games or YouTube. When people who were driving and operating large moving vehicles were not holding little rectangles of plastic and TYPING ON THEM AT THE SAME TIME!!!
It was a very nice world. I miss it.
21
“There’s a mountain of evidence suggesting that the quality of our relationships has been in steady decline for decades.”
This mountain of evidence is built on the post-war American Success Story, delivered to your home by television, cable and the internet providing clear and undeniable evidence happiness can be yours via consumerism. Loneliness is merely a sign of ones failure to own enough material goods.
22
This right here. The Joneses were easier to keep up with when they lived in your neighbourhood rather than any number of figurative Beverly Hills.
3
In other words: If you're not lonely, you might not pay attention to people who are lonely. Lonely people have a hard time of it. It would be better if they were less lonely, or not at all lonely. I thought about this watching the Zuckerberg hearing: if the people asking the questions were lonelier, they'd have asked different questions. But they're not, so they asked the questions they asked. I was really struck by that. Also, our neighborhoods are messed up. The anthropologists I talk to say it's because of their "structure." It's hard, no it's very hard, to talk about this stuff because it's subjective, and you can't quantify subjective feelings, but I'm writing about it anyway. Is this long enough to file yet?
13
You make a very good point that the wrong people are asking the wrong questions. But the question is, how can we find the right people and who should they direct the right questions to? Let's hope that the wheel-of-events turns just enough so the right things start happening.
4
You missed the finale: I'm not lonely.
Excellent observation.
We are fulfilling the early 19th century predictions of Alexia de Toqueville about the possible future of American individualism. It makes us easier to exploit. Divide and conquer. This is NOT a political issue. Left and right have competing versions of individualism, economic and social. You, David, seem to be writing a lot about this lately.
45
How did it happen that a 9 ounce gadget that fits into a breast pocket, which is 100x stronger than the computer on Apollo 11 and can connect anyone to everything, became the tool of loneliness, vapidity and despair? I agree that friendships--even those forced on you, like the kids I dealt with on the streets and schools of Brooklyn NY of the 60s and 70s, are crucial to development, but, again, how did this happen ?
10
Be cause there is an inherent desire that you may be able to connect to something better than the banal and becoming-boring person in front of you. In this way it's predecessor is the person who keeps changing channels with his remote control, convinced he's probably missing something more intriguing. Call it a high-tech illusion.
6
Our role model Tweetfellow Trump
Non-reader fast food fashioned rump,
An icon for our young
Tart Tweets, bells are rung,
Spouts hate for others on the stump.
75
It's all Trump, all the time with you, isn't it? Even responding to a column where he isn't even mentioned. How desperately sad.
1
David, in case you hadn't noticed your downward timeline has a starting point in the 'Greed is God' - um, er, 'good ', age.
It has been underlined and reinforced with every down-sizing/right-sizing since, led by the Ivan Boesky/Carl Icahn crowd pretending that vulturedom by corporations is 'disruption' instead of robber barony to make capitalism's escalator of profits to the .01 operate at hyper-speed.
These policies have been championed by one political party, and roundly condemned by the other.
Food for thought: What ever happened to tithing in this country - ever noticed how the ultra-wealthy don't even bother with that, anymore ?
192
Tithing is pretty rare, even in evangelical churches, because our modern cost of living and tax burdens are so high, that another 10% would simply drive people into absolute poverty.
3
@Concerned - Agree that average Janes/Joes are too squeezed these days, which is why we directed our comment at the 'ultra-wealthy'; just trying to point out the extremes of a 'Greed is God' culture, where the uber-wealthy don't want to pay taxes, and don't want to tithe - a limitless world of wealth where there is no concept whatsoever of 'enough'.
Oh come now. There must be one or two problems in the world that weren't caused by evil corporations. Why not just wait for an article that at least tangentially relates to what you want to say before you say it?
Correlation is not causation.
"There’s a mountain of evidence suggesting that the quality of our relationships has been in steady decline for decades. "
If the trend started decades before the prevalence of social media, where is the evidence that social media is a significant cause?
You may be right. It feels right. But feelings aren't evidence.
And please let's leave Congress out of this. We'd all be better off if Congress focused on problems that they can actually address with evidence based solutions.
265
I agree with you concerning causation. I am skeptical for the reasons you cite above.
And Mr. Brooks seems to work the following factoid into every column, mostly to underline the decline of .....well....everything.
“Most children born to mothers under 30 are born outside of marriage.”
I’m not sure how this is pertinent to the effects of social media (or necessarily the decline of civil society in general).
52
@Island man: To some of us the traditional family values -- a devoted and mature married couple committed to their marrage vows and dual parenting-- are the very basis of a civil society in which we could rejoice. Without it we forsee a hedonistic, self-indulgent, rootless future for our society.
1
LT: it was already in decline by the 80s, but smartphones and social media put that on greased rails.
3