By Janice
Shaw Crouse – 5.18.14
The National Science Foundation (NSF) reported
in its General Social Survey (GSS) that unprecedented numbers of Americans are
lonely. Published in the American Sociological Review (ASR)
and authored by Miller McPhearson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew Brashears,
sociologists at Duke and the University of Arizona, the study featured 1,500
face-to-face interviews where more than a quarter of the respondents — one in
four — said that they have no one with whom they can talk about their personal
troubles or triumphs. If family members are not counted, the number doubles to
more than half of Americans who have no one outside their immediate family with
whom they can share confidences. Sadly, the researchers noted increases in
“social isolation” and “a very significant decrease in social connection to
close friends and family.”
Rarely has news from an academic paper struck
such a responsive nerve with the general public. These dramatic statistics
from ASR parallel similar trends reported by the Beverly LaHaye
Institute — that over the 40 years from 1960 to 2000 the Census Bureau had
expanded its analysis of what had been a minor category. The Census
Bureau categorizes the term “unrelated individuals” to designate someone who
does not live in a “family group.” Sadly, we’ve seen the percentage of persons
living as “unrelated individuals” almost triple, increasing from 6 to 16
percent of all people during the last 40 years. A huge majority of those
classified as “unrelated individuals” (about 70 percent) lived alone.
The compelling findings about loneliness and
isolation and the ramifications for American society prompted numerous
publications and talk shows to focus on the prevalence of loneliness in
America. It is no accident that the social interaction trend declined sharply
in the mid-1960s when “doing your own thing” became vogue and “sexual freedom”
separated the physical act of sex from the embrace of an emotional attachment
and/or a romantic relationship. Rabbi Daniel Lapin suggests that “we are
raising a generation of children who are orphans in time.” He laments
that today’s generation of young people is “incapable of integrating their past
and their future ... [living] instinctively in an almost animal-like fashion
only in the present.” He notes that it is virtually impossible, then, to
connect time and space in a way that enables them to build their “present.”
Thus, they wander aimlessly about without connections — physically,
emotionally, or spiritually.
Rather than acknowledge family breakdown, some
commentators blame the increase in social isolation on television. In his book Bowling
Alone, Robert Putnam cited a dramatic increase in television watching
— five percent of American households had televisions in 1950 compared with 95
percent in 1970. Now, many homes have a TV in every room. Putnam provides
further reasons for the fragmentation of the family circle and disintegration
of family life since the 1960s: Families have 60 percent fewer family picnics
and 40 percent fewer family dinners.
Other analysts see longer work days and longer
commutes as sources of isolation. TheWashington Post estimated that for every 10-minute increase
in commuting time, there is a 10-percent decrease in time spent establishing
and maintaining social ties. The number of people who indicated that they had a
neighbor with whom they could confide has dropped more than half since 1985 —
from around 19 percent to about eight percent. As both the work week and
commutes have extended, those people who would ordinarily take the lead in
developing and maintaining social structures — the well-educated and
higher-earning people — are no longer available to mobilize efforts that build
communities.
In short, with the growth of two-career and
single-parent families, people have lost connection with neighbors and have
little time or energy for groups or volunteerism. With the growth in “bedroom
communities,” there aren’t enough moms available for field trips and community
service projects that depend upon volunteerism. One of the most frequent
complaints of home-schooling moms is that they are the only adults in their
neighborhoods during the daytime.
In an era of instant communication via cell
phone and e-mail, some would argue that it doesn’t make sense that people are
lonely. Nevertheless, sharing — the antidote to loneliness — is not the same
thing as talking. Chattering with another person can simply be a mask, a veil,
a barrier, a poor substitute, and distraction from loneliness, similar to
having the television on in the background to keep the house from seeming empty
and barren, or to make it less obvious that the people inside are not
interacting with each other.
While sharing may be thought of as an event
that takes place at a particular time, in a particular place, and in a
particular manner, it springs from a set of attitudes and values rooted in the
timeless Scriptures. The Scriptures provide a clear understanding of the big
picture issues that bear on our loneliness. They teach that human beings are
driven by two distinct sets of impulses: our higher nature and our lower.
Sharing flourishes when those who are interacting are driven by their higher
nature to trust each other and have the capacity for affection and empathy. But
trust requires mutual respect and caring, insight and understanding. Perhaps
more importantly, trust — and thereby, sharing — involves the indispensable
ingredient of vulnerability — a quality sadly lacking when excessive
self-reliance and self-sufficiency rule the day.
Indeed, a spirit of independence can be a
barrier that impedes sharing. Aloofness is the opposite of all of the favorable
ingredients necessary for camaraderie. Likewise, pride — the desire to be
viewed as a “winner,” the determination to be “in control” at all costs — is a
quality that isolates us from each other and keeps us from interdependency with
our family and friends.
Finally, the secular humanist view that human
existence is disconnected from any higher power and from responsibility for
anyone other than ourselves gives a certain freedom to make one’s own rules,
but there is a price to pay for this freedom. Gone is human dignity. Gone is
mankind’s special connection to the Author of beauty, truth, or goodness.
Ultimately, we are “free,” but autonomy is just another way of being alone.
Autonomous individuals have no responsibility to others, just as others have no
claim on them. There is no obligation to care about others’ troubles, or even
to listen when someone intrudes into another’s priceless personal space in
search of a sympathetic hearing of their concerns and difficulties.
In the best of circumstances, sharing is not
simple; it is a complex combination of conflicting factors. On the one hand, we
have an innate need to be known and understood; the desire to be open and
vulnerable with others is too strong in some and too weak in others. On the
other hand, we need the freedom to control our lives and particularly our
personal or emotional space. But the self-centeredness that results from a
culture dominated by the values of radical individualism is not a pretty thing;
it does not contribute to the maturing of individuals, the strengthening of
family, the growth of friendship, or the development of communities. As a song,
“Toby Keith’s “I Wanna Talk About Me” may be good for a laugh, but that
attitude doesn’t work as a way of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment