Picture a field peppered with wildflowers, tall grass swaying in the wind. A picnic blanket cradles plates of fresh fruit while friends frolic nearby. They collapse on the ground, exhausted but elated, savoring the joy of existing alongside one another. This reverie epitomizes friendships free of transactionality and unfettered by life’s responsibilities. But it is nothing more than a fantasy.
The reality of our interpersonal relationships is far more complex. A few decades ago, staying connected with one another required consistent live interactions, which constrained our social circles. Since then, technological developments have allowed us to communicate in real time with friends and strangers across the globe, fostering relationships that would not have otherwise been possible. We have grown dependent on these virtual platforms for our day-to-day socialization, but the ubiquity of social media has also promoted superficial online interactions that fulfill neither our social nor emotional needs.
Concerned researchers have dissected this dichotomy, publishing studies denouncing our pervasive use of social media and its role in exacerbating a “loneliness epidemic.” While a widespread societal increase in loneliness is possible, studies expressing concern about an “epidemic” often conflate loneliness (an emotion) with solitude and isolation (physical states of being). Time spent alone has surged in the past few years as virtual interactions become our norm, but during the same time period, the proportion of Americans who experienced loneliness on a daily basis declined by one-third. Researchers applying physical separation as a proxy for loneliness have therefore largely overlooked the psychological nature of the experience, drawing erroneous causal inferences between distinct phenomena.
Loneliness itself is ambiguously defined. Harvard’s Making Caring Common project found that people conceptualize loneliness in different ways. Some describe feeling surrounded by others “who only are present in [their] life because [they] are useful to them,” while others verbalized a sense of “existential loneliness.” Still others lamented being “unable to share their true selves with others.” In the absence of a precise descriptor, this stew of feelings has been attributed to loneliness, but a dearth of studies actually distinguish it from “a wide range of troubling feelings.” Until more research measures loneliness isolated from these other emotions, it is unwise to pathologize an endemic experience. It is similarly misguided to lament social media for causing the “loneliness epidemic” when structural factors—such as the prevalence of remote jobs and the decline of third places—that cause widespread isolation concurrently drive our reliance on virtual platforms to maintain interpersonal relationships. Rather, our pervasive use of social media is a result, not a cause, of our societal preference for solitude.
Perhaps our growing dependence on technology has changed the nature of social connections in such a way that modern friendships carry fewer obligations, reducing the need to invest in relationships to the same extent that we did decades ago. Or perhaps in-person interactions require greater time, commitment, and understanding to flourish, and we simply find this effort arduous, especially considering the ease of communicating online. As a result, we have developed a penchant for seclusion and virtual interactions that studies conflate with loneliness. But solitude can be beneficial, even invigorating. The problem only arises when we refuse to break our cycle of seclusion.
Still, these rising trends in isolation do not substantiate hyperbolized claims of a “loneliness epidemic.” We should instead accept the endemic nature of the emotion and incentivize research into why we seem to have forsaken offline relationships. Perhaps American society, which “speak[s] a ‘first language’ of personal ambitions and only a ‘second language’ of commitments to others and the collective,” promotes an individualistic way of life that stifles our social inclinations. Robert Putnam, a former dean of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, supports this theory, explaining that since the 1970s, the United States has experienced a “precipitous decline” in social infrastructure compounded by a societal “embrace of unbridled individualism.” Moral values and government policies shifting away from community-building in the last half-century have exacerbated our reluctance to invest in interpersonal relationships, characterizing a societal framework based on self-reliance that persists today. The rise of social media has further perpetuated this social structure, allowing us to maintain a semblance of connection through our virtual interactions and eliminating the need to invest time and energy into in-person socialization.
What incentive do we have to eschew virtual interactions in favor of offline connections? Our strongest relationships are bolstered by the continuous communication social media allows. Friendships founded on shared affinities benefit from algorithms that breed homogeneity. Digital platforms are primed to propagate echo chambers that reaffirm our existing beliefs while ignoring or disparaging dissenting views. And if we do come across content we dislike, we can ignore it with a click. This convenience and congeniality inherent to social media has eliminated our engagement with alternate perspectives, leaving us complacent in our online conformity. When the virtual spaces we inhabit consistently affirm our interests, why would we want to embrace the social friction that inevitably arises in offline friendships? Social media may provide a far more comfortable alternative to potentially awkward live interactions, but it cannot emulate the psychobiological fulfillment we derive from in-person social connections. Pretending that it does only corrodes our expansion of diverse and tolerant social networks.
Mark Dunkelman, a research fellow at Brown University, has suggested this modern structure is most detrimental to relationships that are “familiar but not intimate.” These acquaintances traditionally provided us with a broader diversity of perspectives and narratives, moderating our views and increasing our capacity for compromise. Developing this tolerance made us more socially flexible, allowing us to evaluate friendships beyond superficial agreements—or disagreements. Acquaintance relationships are vital to preventing “social fragmentation and polarization,” and have consistently been shown to improve “not just […] our moods but our health.” Their abnegation removes an important source of cognitive engagement and interpersonal connection from our daily lives, resulting in widespread emotional withdrawal. While 60 percent of our online communication still involves the 15 people we are closest to—which could imply the persistence of robust social networks—our remaining conversations are perfunctory and leave us feeling unfulfilled and misunderstood. This dissatisfaction discourages us from further socializing and is a contributing factor to the “amorphous stew of feelings” researchers equate with loneliness. If people are feeling disconnected from one another, that is a legitimate issue which should be addressed. But proliferating a buzzword for a nebulously defined emotion does not address the bottom line of the “epidemic.” Rather, the sensationalized framing implies a necessary attempt to eradicate loneliness, a feeling that is both natural and healthy.
Virtual interactions have changed the way we socialize and societal conventions have cemented a culture of individualism, but these norms are not immutable. We can make conscious efforts to rebuild our communities by seeking out and embracing opportunities to expand our social networks. At the same time, we should leverage social media for the scope of interpersonal connections it facilitates, but not as the be-all end-all. Nicholas Epley, a behavioral science professor at the University of Chicago, concluded that talking to strangers during their commute made people happier, even when they had previously expressed a preference for quiet. Reconnecting with a spiritual community or joining a volunteer organization have similarly proven to bolster feelings of belonging and improve social connections. Regardless, repeatedly initiating these small social interactions—even when we feel uncomfortable—provides a practical foundation on which to begin reinvesting in offline relationships.
Loneliness may not be an “epidemic,” but constant solitude and isolation are not benefitting us either. We can reclaim agency over the quality of our interpersonal connections, beginning with accepting individual responsibility in caring both for and about others. Societal norms and values will follow, naturally evolving as individual efforts toward more meaningful socialization compound into collective habits. For now, all we can do is care a little bit more, a little more often.