Leading Lonelier Lives
While we're talking about studies, let me direct you to a more serious one.
A study performed at Duke University has concluded that Americans are suffering from social isolation in greater and greater degrees. Money quote:
Whereas nearly three-quarters of people in 1985 reported they had a friend in whom they could confide, only half in 2004 said they could count on such support. The number of people who said they counted a neighbor as a confidant dropped by more than half, from about 19 percent to about 8 percent.
The other statistics in the study appear just as baneful, prompting famed sociologist Robert Putnam (whose "Bowling Alone" I highly recommend) to say "I told you so" in so many words. Putnam and others cite the prevalence of television and the growing prevalence of the Internet - as well as more hectic work lives - as primary factors in our growing sense of social disengagement.
I can't help but think this growing disengagement - save through 'secondary' forms such as the Internet - helps contribute to the increasingly hostile atmosphere in our public square. If you don't view your political opponents as friends and neighbors, what's to keep you from adopting a violently adversarial tone?
I'd like to leave everyone with some ancient wisdom on the benefits of friendship, and cite an author whose comments Gaufridus and I have discussed in the past:
For he, indeed, who looks into the face of a friend beholds, as it were, a copy of himself. Thus the absent are present, and the poor are rich, and the weak are strong, and -- what seems stranger still -- the dead are alive, such is the honor, the enduring remembrance, the longing love, with which the dying are followed by the living; so that the death of the dying seems happy, the life of the living full of praise. But if from the condition of human life you were to exclude all kindly union, no house, no city, could stand, nor, indeed, could the tillage of the field survive. Cicero, De Amicitia
posted by Joshua @ 9:58 PM
12 Comments:
I think it is all too easy to assign blame to the Internet. It has been my experience that the dwindling number of friends in the Boomer generation can be directly linked to the mobility of our generation. Many of us live far from our hometowns, thus leaving behind all those friends we made in our youth. Job transfers and countless relocations cause us to abandon friends made during various stages of our adult lives.
Personally, I have found that if it weren't for the Internet, what friends I have made throughout my life would be lost forever if I couldn't at least stay in touch by e-mail.
Excellent points, Anonymous. It wasn't long ago that I would've completely lost track of several of my best friends from high school. But thanks to email, instant messenger, friendster and the like, it's becoming easier and easier to maintain such friendships. And it wasn't that long ago that the rules were changed to allow us to keep our cell phone numbers while changing service providers, meaning that, if desired, we can still be reached at the same number years from now. Personally, I find something like instant messenger the best, as it allows one to send a short message after months or even years without communication while somehow diminishing the awkwardness of that lengthy silence. Whereas, with a phonecall or even an email, I often find myself looking for a reason to call (oh, it's so-and-so's birthday) or something of importance to relate (I'm leaving for the Army) but with instant messenger, I can spot someone's name and think, oh, haven't talked to them in awhile, say hi, and simply take it from there.
Not to say that I disagree with Putnum, as I think Bowling Alone is excellent. And I agree wholeheartedly with Tacitean's comment that "If you don't view your political opponents as friends and neighbors, what's to keep you from adopting a violently adversarial tone?" Moreover, if one can't be bothered to empathize with your neighbors down the hall or street, it's not surprising to me that one wouldn't care about strangers half a world away in foreign lands.
But, ultimately, I think it's too far easy to blame the internet, or any technology, really, for our society's increasing sense of atomization and distancing. What's more important than the technology itself is how we use it - whether it be in isolation, clustered around tv sets in single-family homes (and, indeed, even separated around different tv sets within those homes), or more communally in order to break down the barriers between strangers. In fact, lovely Kelly’s participation on this blog was largely a result of her mostly unknown neighbors inviting her and her roommate downstairs to watch the State of the Union in 2005. I can also say that I’ve met several people while watching movies at Bryant Park. And both cases led to friendships that were facilitated by technology providing a common reference point around which to organize an event.
Alex! You've been outed!
I'd also like to add that my meeting my neighbors had less to do with their friendly invites and much more to do with Baker Carr showing up on my doorstep with cookies pretty much every day. Never underestimate the value of baked goods in bringing down societal walls.
Also, I would agree that the internet and technology has led to people being able to stay in contact longer. However, it has definitely led to people often preferring to email, chat, or text someone as opposed to actually talking to them face to face. I'm guilty of this. We're so comfortable with talking to people online and emailing all day that personal contact can be anxiety-causing. So while we're communicating with more people, longer, than we used to be able to, that face to face interaction, and the art of conversation, is fading fast.
Take Kelly and B.C.'s comments, put them in a blender, and hit frappé.
That's what I would have said.
I'm inclined to agree with Anonymous's thoughts on mobility.
Since it's easier for people to leave their hometowns and cities, life-long friendships are much harder to sustain than in the old days, when all it meant was you kept living next to the same people and being friendly.
It's a very upsetting economic calculus that forces us - I think the word is warranted - to choose between having a career that can nurture your economic oportunities and put bread on the table and sustaining long-term friendships of the type seen in the olden time.
I'm reluctant to weigh in on the value of the Internet, if only because I'm aware of the irony of doing so on our common blog. But I have to say I'm a bit leery when I read some social scientists talking about how people are merely opting to communicate over the Internet as opposed to in person, and this just reflects time pressures and is no big thing.
Well, I think it is a big thing. The Internet is> great - and here I second Prometheus's Murrowism - but in the grand scheme, I still think it's a substitute for social ties that have been weakened by greater mobility. I realize I am something of a traditionalist on this one, but I would much prefer a society that prizes face-to-face communication to a society that prizes 'instant' communication. The question, of course, is whether my preference is realistic. Your thoughts welcome.
I really like the arguments set for by Prometheus, et al, but I can't help but think that I've lost many of my good friends from long ago due to the prevalence of electronic communications. I had the great misfortune of moving in 1995, which fell before I moved into the Internet Age. Eighth-graders are notoriously bad letter writers, and major phone-calling was out of the question, so all of my early friendships went by the wayside.
Once high school and college hit, I had the great fortune to meet some incredible people at summer programs and through the Model Arab League. I was able to maintain those relationships through email and instant messenger since I didn't get my own cell phone until my senior year of college. However, as people graduated and moved on, they changed email addresses and screennames, so it was much more difficult to track them down. Once more, friendships fell by the wayside.
These experiences have really led me to believe that to maintain a long-distance relationship, you need more than just the internet linking you. It's not enough to correspond through email or hope to catch someone on IM. There is still a place in this world for the old-fashioned letter or phone call if the person is too far away to meet for lunch. My fear is that with the ease of internet communication, people are growing lazy and not putting the necessary effort into maintaining friendships, and I know I'm as guilty as the next person.
In short, I don't entirely blame the internet for social isolation, but I see it as a catalyst for the dissolution of many social ties as we as a society grow too busy to keep in touch.
I had an excellent discussion at work today about this very topic (or so), and our general consensus was that the automobile is the chief villain.
By granting us such individual autonomy and instant mobility, it has lessened the need for people to stay in one spot and created an economic system of individualist consumerism. Alienating indeed!
On further reflection, we also considered the long-term pernicious effect of driving a car. It like I was saying to Boudicca the other day: what happens when someone cuts you off? Do you consider the manifold reasons why they may be a decent person with a legitimate reason to hurry? Or do you curse their very existence? What about when there's traffic? What does that do to your mood for the rest of the day? What if, God forbid, there's an accident up ahead? Which do you feel first, concern for the possible victims or frustration that you may be late for an appointment somewhere?
ah, so now we're assigning blame to the car? What about the exodus to the west in the 1800's by horse, wagon train, and the Iron Horse (train)? And what about from the 1600's through the early 1900's? All those who emigrated to the US from European nations by ship? Let's not forget those nomads in the Mid-East and their camels.
Humans, by their very nature, are mobile creatures, always seeking greener pastures as it were. Now, some folks cannot ever bring themselves to leave their home turf. (my own father was born, raised, lived and died in his hometown). But....wanderlust takes over for many, and thus, we leave behind those who we knew so well.
Thus begins another line of thinking. What is it about humans that makes us want to venture forth? Comments?
Prometheus -- I'm not surprised at all that I was confusing in my previous comment. I'm surprised at myself that I can write complete sentences. (See my Wedding-Planning Hiatus remarks). What I was trying to get at was this: while various search engines make it significantly easier to track down long-lost friends and offer some ease of maintenance for those relationships, I think many people are solely using email and instant messenger for those communications instead of finding face-to-face time or phone time. When you can only track down someone via an ephemeral medium (in the sense that it's much easier to change an email address than a postal address), the chances of losing track of people is far greater. It's not a fault of the technology at all, but rather a fault of the individuals.
Of course, this could lead into a discussion on the nature of relationships. Is it possible to maintain a close, intimate friendship with someone using only email?
Anonymous,
Intentionally or not, you have willfully misrepresented my argument. I did not say - in any manner - that transportation was bad. Nor did I, as you seem to imply, condemn historic migrations.
What I said was that automobiles are a unique form of transportation in that they encourage a level of individual mobility previously unseen. At the same time, we've designed our society - please don't pretend we haven't - around the automobile as a primary source of transportation. As a planner, one of the first things one has to ask a prospective commercial developers is "how much parking will you have?"
What this means is that we've designed our society around catering to individual activities. So many cookie-cutter suburbs are designed with individual accessibility and comfort in mind, and decidedly not civic-minded public spaces.
This is precisely why I am not, as you say, blaming "horse, wagon train, and the Iron Horse." I can think of nothing more communal than a wagon train setting out to found a new town! What people have to recognize is that fantastic new technologies that have enormous benefits for the individual - in this case, personal transportation - have the net result of creating a more individualized society, with multi-hour commutes and townscapes designed for cars, not people.
Tacitean, it was certainly not my intent to misrepresent what you said. What I meant was that mankind has always been seeking new turf to settle, explore, etc. The best example of our need to "get away from it all" is the pioneers who sought that little piece of heaven out west, only to move on when someone else moved in nearby - a few miles away! It doesn't take an automobile for one to get away from your fellow man.
While I totally agree that planners have destroyed the sense of community we once had with a traditional downtown - or as we still enjoy in New England, the town common - no matter what, people still choose to move away from town/city centers because they cannot stand the din of everyday noises. Some of us choose to live in the woods because we relish the quiet solitude. If it means not having close-by neighbors, so be it.
Yes, we have had to leave behind friends in our moves. But by moving, we have discovered that we are now at peace in the woods, can hop in the car to get to where we need to work & shop, then return home and de-stress to the sounds of nature. How is that a bad thing?
Again, I mean no disrespect to your opinion. It is quite valid and I do respect your views. And that's what makes this medium such a great thing - you can say your peace and I can say mine! And then, I can log off and listen to the birdies sing in my backyard!
When I get the chance, I've got some quotes from Kenneth Jackson's excellent Crabgrass Frontier to add as far as automobiles and to bolster Tacitean's views.
In the meantime, I'd add that our move towards suburbanization isn't so easy as saying we have a pioneering spirit. Government involvement has played a role throughout - whether through the Homestead Act, funding for the interstate highway system, and the promotion of homeownership. And it's the historic availability of relatively cheap and plentiful real estate that has made this possible - one of the more unique facets of our rather large country. While these and other factors might lead to some positives, like Anonymous' quiet solitude in the woods, it's also created that lovely example of urban sprawl, the automotive wonderland that is Los Angeles.
Post a Comment
<< Home