The Politics of Loneliness
December 14, 2022 8:28 PM Subscribe
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT): The Politics of Loneliness — Social, economic, and technological trends contribute to widespread feelings of isolation—and there’s a role for policy in making things better.
I think it's commonly held that fascists in the 30s came to power by leveraging social unrest caused by the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War I in Europe. It doesn't seem too off-the-wall to suggest that our social media landscape can contribute to social unrest in the present.
posted by judgement day at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2022 [17 favorites]
posted by judgement day at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2022 [17 favorites]
The Fascists in the 30s didn't come about because of TikTok, but the Rwandan genocide was definitely facilitated by RTLM. Which I guess is more Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson than TikTok.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:56 PM on December 14, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 9:56 PM on December 14, 2022 [11 favorites]
That said, this piece has a lot of good things in it, and it's refreshing to see this kind of thinking from a sitting senator. The connection that Murphy makes between loneliness and anger particularly resonates with me (I was a right bastard on this particular website at the height of the pandemic).
But I also don't find this a serious policy statement. I don't think that living wage and home affordability are related to loneliness. If anything, Americans who transition into the home-owning class within their generation tend to become exurban and more isolated. I think from a policy point-of-view encouraging urbanism would be key to addressing loneliness. Of course in addition to enabling pathways to building generational wealth.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:11 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
But I also don't find this a serious policy statement. I don't think that living wage and home affordability are related to loneliness. If anything, Americans who transition into the home-owning class within their generation tend to become exurban and more isolated. I think from a policy point-of-view encouraging urbanism would be key to addressing loneliness. Of course in addition to enabling pathways to building generational wealth.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:11 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't think that living wage and home affordability are related to loneliness
If your wage is so low, and/or your rent is so high, that you have to spend almost every waking hour working, then you don't have time for connecting with friends or family.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 10:15 PM on December 14, 2022 [24 favorites]
If your wage is so low, and/or your rent is so high, that you have to spend almost every waking hour working, then you don't have time for connecting with friends or family.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 10:15 PM on December 14, 2022 [24 favorites]
If your wage is so low, and/or your rent is so high, that you have to spend almost every waking hour working, then you don't have time for connecting with friends or family.
Yeah, sorry. This is obviously right. What I meant was that class transition (particularly the transition to home ownership) does not necessarily alleviate loneliness.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:19 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yeah, sorry. This is obviously right. What I meant was that class transition (particularly the transition to home ownership) does not necessarily alleviate loneliness.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:19 PM on December 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Some factors that can contribute to loneliness:
not being able to afford to live close to your friends/family, so that travel time becomes a barrier;
working antisocial hours (evening work, weekend work, shift work);
not being able to afford a car/petrol to travel to your friends/family;
a lack of safe, frequent, affordable public transport to travel to your friends/family.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 11:00 PM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
not being able to afford to live close to your friends/family, so that travel time becomes a barrier;
working antisocial hours (evening work, weekend work, shift work);
not being able to afford a car/petrol to travel to your friends/family;
a lack of safe, frequent, affordable public transport to travel to your friends/family.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 11:00 PM on December 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Fascists in the 30s didn't come about because of TikTok.
radio was Goebbel's medium.
posted by philip-random at 11:06 PM on December 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
radio was Goebbel's medium.
posted by philip-random at 11:06 PM on December 14, 2022 [8 favorites]
from that link:
Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made the complete use of all technical means for domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and loudspeaker, 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man...[11]
posted by philip-random at 11:09 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made the complete use of all technical means for domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and loudspeaker, 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man...[11]
posted by philip-random at 11:09 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]
Okay, I have to clarify. What I don't mean is that propaganda and communication technology played no role in genocide. What I do mean is that economic precarity plays far more of a role than "people are spending too much time online."
Senator Murphy's piece touches on this a bit, but only after layers of pablum. I'm skeptical of anyone who is so hesitant to say, "wages are low, rent is high, education/healthcare/everything is too expensive, all so that we can have richer rich people."
The US government is considering banning TikTok, a blatant move to stop a Chinese company from siphoning the private data of Americans (and remove competition from American companies that siphon the private data of Americans), so the timing of this piece is damn suspect to me.
If I made a list of the top 20 problems facing our world, "too much time online" wouldn't be on it. Depending on far back you look, people said the same thing about tv, radio, and even novels.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:30 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Senator Murphy's piece touches on this a bit, but only after layers of pablum. I'm skeptical of anyone who is so hesitant to say, "wages are low, rent is high, education/healthcare/everything is too expensive, all so that we can have richer rich people."
The US government is considering banning TikTok, a blatant move to stop a Chinese company from siphoning the private data of Americans (and remove competition from American companies that siphon the private data of Americans), so the timing of this piece is damn suspect to me.
If I made a list of the top 20 problems facing our world, "too much time online" wouldn't be on it. Depending on far back you look, people said the same thing about tv, radio, and even novels.
posted by AlSweigart at 11:30 PM on December 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
He uses the words "neoliberal", "union", and "antitrust" but he gets no gold star from me. Look at the times he uses the word "globalization", as if it's an eclipse or a hurricane or some other natural phenomena:
But many large trends have badly weakened local institutions. Among them is globalization, which has drained local economies and diminished the local cultures that facilitate connection, identity, and meaning.
Globalization and technology have helped hollow out institutions and weaken local identity, contributing to feelings of isolation.
By building an updated version of the early- to mid-twentieth century blue-collar aristocracy, we can restore personal and community economic meaning that disappeared with the jobs lost to globalization.
As if these conditions aren't created by the wealthy. Those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. That's a dangled carrot on a stick the donkey will never reach. And I don't trust any politician who is so clearly trying to not alienate the billionaire donor class.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:04 AM on December 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
But many large trends have badly weakened local institutions. Among them is globalization, which has drained local economies and diminished the local cultures that facilitate connection, identity, and meaning.
Globalization and technology have helped hollow out institutions and weaken local identity, contributing to feelings of isolation.
By building an updated version of the early- to mid-twentieth century blue-collar aristocracy, we can restore personal and community economic meaning that disappeared with the jobs lost to globalization.
As if these conditions aren't created by the wealthy. Those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. That's a dangled carrot on a stick the donkey will never reach. And I don't trust any politician who is so clearly trying to not alienate the billionaire donor class.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:04 AM on December 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Whatever, Al, you didn't like it. You wanted Senator Murphy to write something completely different, something that talks about guillotines rather than bipartisanship. I think you've made your point and maybe you can just move along to another thread already, leaving this one for discussing the actual subject of the FPP.
I thought this article was an eye-opening overview of some apparently-unrelated currents in society that have combined to wither away the larger systems in people's lives which create opportunities for companionship and camaraderie. He has a big picture view that I hadn't thought about before and he's a good writer. And he really got me thinking about my own life.
PERSONAL BEAN-SPILLING TIME:
I first heard about the epidemic of loneliness when I was in college, and I decided that the most important choice I could make in life was to keep having the kind of mass group friendship circles that sustained my very un-lonely social life at the time. Other people I knew who had graduated, married someone, bought a house, and got full-time jobs in other states had way less of a social life than I still did as a college student. Therefore I decided never to get into a committed relationship, maintain long-time connections, change jobs, leave my college town, or befriend anyone I'd have to make an appointment to see. I went to grad school for 10 years (kept switching departments) so I could be in a student social environment. But now I have to admit I'm lonely! Lonelier than all my old college friends I see on Facebook with their children and spouses and career accomplishments. Somehow they jumped ahead of me while I was working hard to stay put and hold on to happiness.
If you're still reading this, nodding your head, and wondering what to do, I found an answer. I joined a club called the Hash House Harriers. Their ostensible purpose is to follow a trail of clues to run from one bar to another, but at least in my town, they're getting together almost every day for games night, dress-up parties, movies, bar hopping (you don't need to drink alcohol to participate), or exercise. Best of all, many evenings will end with us "hashers" just hanging around afterward, shooting the shit in the late summer night while sitting on the hood of someone's car, talking about someone we know who did something really stupid and funny.
I can't promise you'll find the same thing, but it's working for me. And I'd vote for President Chris Murphy to create a Department of Promoting Fun In Everyone's Social Lives!
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 1:59 AM on December 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
I thought this article was an eye-opening overview of some apparently-unrelated currents in society that have combined to wither away the larger systems in people's lives which create opportunities for companionship and camaraderie. He has a big picture view that I hadn't thought about before and he's a good writer. And he really got me thinking about my own life.
PERSONAL BEAN-SPILLING TIME:
I first heard about the epidemic of loneliness when I was in college, and I decided that the most important choice I could make in life was to keep having the kind of mass group friendship circles that sustained my very un-lonely social life at the time. Other people I knew who had graduated, married someone, bought a house, and got full-time jobs in other states had way less of a social life than I still did as a college student. Therefore I decided never to get into a committed relationship, maintain long-time connections, change jobs, leave my college town, or befriend anyone I'd have to make an appointment to see. I went to grad school for 10 years (kept switching departments) so I could be in a student social environment. But now I have to admit I'm lonely! Lonelier than all my old college friends I see on Facebook with their children and spouses and career accomplishments. Somehow they jumped ahead of me while I was working hard to stay put and hold on to happiness.
If you're still reading this, nodding your head, and wondering what to do, I found an answer. I joined a club called the Hash House Harriers. Their ostensible purpose is to follow a trail of clues to run from one bar to another, but at least in my town, they're getting together almost every day for games night, dress-up parties, movies, bar hopping (you don't need to drink alcohol to participate), or exercise. Best of all, many evenings will end with us "hashers" just hanging around afterward, shooting the shit in the late summer night while sitting on the hood of someone's car, talking about someone we know who did something really stupid and funny.
I can't promise you'll find the same thing, but it's working for me. And I'd vote for President Chris Murphy to create a Department of Promoting Fun In Everyone's Social Lives!
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 1:59 AM on December 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
Fascists in the 30s didn't come about because of TikTok.
But Fascists in the 30s would fordamnsure have used TikTok if it existed. Also, people in the 30s were saying these kinds of things about radio too.
The reason Murphy talks so much about social media at the beginning of this piece is because it's a popular fad that everyone embraced as a social good and everyone assumed was helping people - but actually there was a down side people hadn't realized yet. Just like people were starting to notice about radio and mass media in the 1930s.
And then Murphy does go on to point to some of the bigger sources of the problem - the economy and the fact that we are all working too hard and are all too tired, and the dearth of smaller local businesses and the rise of globalism.
But I'd prefer if you kept your comments focused on the article and not on me personally.
I trust we are allowed to comment on how it appears that you've let your initial negative reaction to the opening paragraph of the article blind you to the whole rest of it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:06 AM on December 15, 2022 [7 favorites]
But Fascists in the 30s would fordamnsure have used TikTok if it existed. Also, people in the 30s were saying these kinds of things about radio too.
The reason Murphy talks so much about social media at the beginning of this piece is because it's a popular fad that everyone embraced as a social good and everyone assumed was helping people - but actually there was a down side people hadn't realized yet. Just like people were starting to notice about radio and mass media in the 1930s.
And then Murphy does go on to point to some of the bigger sources of the problem - the economy and the fact that we are all working too hard and are all too tired, and the dearth of smaller local businesses and the rise of globalism.
But I'd prefer if you kept your comments focused on the article and not on me personally.
I trust we are allowed to comment on how it appears that you've let your initial negative reaction to the opening paragraph of the article blind you to the whole rest of it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:06 AM on December 15, 2022 [7 favorites]
I would vote for a candidate who promised to find me a girlfriend.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:26 AM on December 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:26 AM on December 15, 2022 [4 favorites]
I mean, I don't buy that fascism is caused by loneliness either but any work or policy to foster connection and combat isolation is an absolute good and I refuse to argue with whatever justifications they wish to use. What I want to do instead is ensure they ARE focusing on fostering connection and combating isolation *across the board* i.e. that these policies are built from the ground up with intersectionality in mind. It's buzzy right now to talk about isolation among young men and others with a ton of power. And okay, it really is a problem. So maybe we can address the isolation of socio-economically powerful sections of society by signing them up for community programs designed to directly alleviate the poverty, oppression, and isolation of socio-economically fucked demographics. I'm envisioning a huge PAID volunteer corps program where isolated young men enlist to play video games - in person - with the elderly and (dare I hope) provide transportation for disabled people in their neighborhood, etc.
posted by MiraK at 5:28 AM on December 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 5:28 AM on December 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
I really liked this essay and I'm glad someone with some modicum of power is thinking about things like this. There's always been a lot of resistance on MetaFilter (and elsewhere) to the idea that the internet might not be the best thing ever after all or that it's not a sufficient replacement for real life. I disagree that the internet is just like TV or radio or books - it's obviously not - those are one way communications and the validation we receive from our own input makes it far more addictive and it's easy for people to lose sight of their actual values and the humanity of others through the unreality of a computer screen. And there are so many other far reaching consequences - like the rise of fast fashion, for one, and the environmental nightmare it has created. I truly think that history will end up showing that its invention did a great of deal of damage to the world to the point where it may not even be considered a net good (no pun intended).
Also, while there might be 20 more important problems than "more time online", I would posit that some of those problems might already be solved if humanity had collectively spent less time online. I know that's how it goes with my personal problems anyway!
Harvey Kilobit, Hash House Harriers sounds awesome. I can't believe I've never heard of them before.
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:56 PM on December 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Also, while there might be 20 more important problems than "more time online", I would posit that some of those problems might already be solved if humanity had collectively spent less time online. I know that's how it goes with my personal problems anyway!
Harvey Kilobit, Hash House Harriers sounds awesome. I can't believe I've never heard of them before.
posted by Jess the Mess at 1:56 PM on December 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Metafilter- won't leaders step up an do something about our problems.
Also Metafilter - no not that way.
Also also metafilter - this isn't exactly like 1930s germany so I don't think its relevant.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 2:08 PM on December 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also Metafilter - no not that way.
Also also metafilter - this isn't exactly like 1930s germany so I don't think its relevant.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 2:08 PM on December 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
I've re-read the article. And lots of people have brought up points and I can respond to them. But this is going to take a while, so if you're not interested, you don't need to read my comment and I don't demand any acknowledgement.
My first comment was brief because I thought the point would be picked up but it wasn't. That's on me. My point is that social media may contribute to alienation and isolation (the kind that gives rise to fascism we are seeing now) but the causes far more economic than technological. If you have a terrible economy and people in precarity, you'll have the seeds of unrest whether you have social media or not. And if you have a good economy where people are secure and have a safety net, adding social media won't create the epidemic of loneliness.
Our current situation of loneliness isn't caused by people spending too much time online, but rather because wages are low, housing/healthcare/education costs are high, and people have (not unjustifiably) little hope for the future. There's a feeling that there isn't enough to go around and the people who used have status (the white male "blue-collar aristocracy" that Senator Murphy speaks of) has their primacy threatened, and that (among other things) is what leads us to Trump and Republicans who capitalize on this and turn alienation into fascism.
Senator Murphy says that this is a problem that can be solved through public policy, and I agree. So I took a look at the policies he's proposing. They're all sort of vague.
* Fine social media companies that do harm to children. ("Harm" is hard to define and the mention of "children" causes my moral-panic-meter to start twitching, but the general idea of fining tech companies for the harm they do so much that they stop doing it is an idea I can get behind.)
* "A new strategy of economic nationalism—working to bring key industries with good paying, full-time jobs back to the United States—is a good place to begin." I'm not sure what he means by this either, but I'm positive he doesn't mean nationalizing essential infrastructure (e.g. a rural electrification-style push to bring broadband to everyone). This is his "bring back manufacturing" which is... just not realistic in 21st century global capitalism? Or if it is, I'd like to hear the plan from the Senator.
* Ensuring that one full-time job can support a family is also something I agree with, and he hints at unions to achieve this. But there's a problem with Senator Murphy's relationship to unions that I'll come back to later.
* He mentions antitrust policy to break up monopolies, which I can also get behind. But he doesn't mention which industries he'd go after.
Here's the pattern I noticed: Senator Murphy is okay mentioned TikTok and Instagram and Facebook by name when it comes to describing problems created by the tech industry. But when he talks about the economy in general, he mentions "trends" and "globalization" and "institutions" but he doesn't mention any particular billionaires or corporations or even industries by name.
Here's why that's a problem: The world is in its current state not because of some abstract economic tide, but because there are people and corporations with lots of money who want it to be that way. They want wages to be low and healthcare/education/housing to be expensive and they actively resist any changes to that. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that they exist because you want to stay on good terms or stay "neutral" (and instead just talk about "global markets"), you're not going to stop them.
And I don't think Senator Murphy will stop them. He says he's pro-union, but he was not one of the 15 senators who voted against blocking the railway strike. While he didn't vote for it, he did abstain from voting against it. He'll talk the talk but when it actually comes to an actual vote, he folds. That's kind of like when Hilary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq: she didn't want to take the hit for voting against something that she knew would pass anyway. And if this kind of compromise from Democrats has led us to Trump and Trump's Supreme Court, what good is it?
How are we to believe this man is going to stick his neck out against the interests of very powerful people? He's not a pundit or activist, he's a sitting Senator. I expect more than little essays.
This article is just so vague. It sounds nice but when I try to nail down an actual policy he's promoting, I don't see anything. It's like "we need to end America's dependence on foreign oil." Sure, I can get behind that. President Carter said it. President Reagan said it. And Bush and Clinton and Bush and etc. But it's weird that everyone seems to agree on this but it just hasn't managed to get done in the last half-century. Because it turns out nice-sounding words aren't useless against rich people who very much want to keep us dependent on oil, foreign or otherwise.
I mean I get it. I was also enchanted by Obama's 2004 DNC speech. But here in 2022, nice speeches just don't do it for me. I saw cities paint "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on their streets and then increase the budgets of the police who beat peaceful protesters (and the corporate media described it as an antifa riot). The words of Malcolm X, "The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice." ring very true.
So this is why I view his talk about loneliness (the kind that drive people to vote Trump and join the Proud Boys) as being caused in part by social media as... that reads as a distraction and straw man. Sure, there's some truth to it, but I can name several more important factors.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:41 PM on December 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
My first comment was brief because I thought the point would be picked up but it wasn't. That's on me. My point is that social media may contribute to alienation and isolation (the kind that gives rise to fascism we are seeing now) but the causes far more economic than technological. If you have a terrible economy and people in precarity, you'll have the seeds of unrest whether you have social media or not. And if you have a good economy where people are secure and have a safety net, adding social media won't create the epidemic of loneliness.
Our current situation of loneliness isn't caused by people spending too much time online, but rather because wages are low, housing/healthcare/education costs are high, and people have (not unjustifiably) little hope for the future. There's a feeling that there isn't enough to go around and the people who used have status (the white male "blue-collar aristocracy" that Senator Murphy speaks of) has their primacy threatened, and that (among other things) is what leads us to Trump and Republicans who capitalize on this and turn alienation into fascism.
Senator Murphy says that this is a problem that can be solved through public policy, and I agree. So I took a look at the policies he's proposing. They're all sort of vague.
* Fine social media companies that do harm to children. ("Harm" is hard to define and the mention of "children" causes my moral-panic-meter to start twitching, but the general idea of fining tech companies for the harm they do so much that they stop doing it is an idea I can get behind.)
* "A new strategy of economic nationalism—working to bring key industries with good paying, full-time jobs back to the United States—is a good place to begin." I'm not sure what he means by this either, but I'm positive he doesn't mean nationalizing essential infrastructure (e.g. a rural electrification-style push to bring broadband to everyone). This is his "bring back manufacturing" which is... just not realistic in 21st century global capitalism? Or if it is, I'd like to hear the plan from the Senator.
* Ensuring that one full-time job can support a family is also something I agree with, and he hints at unions to achieve this. But there's a problem with Senator Murphy's relationship to unions that I'll come back to later.
* He mentions antitrust policy to break up monopolies, which I can also get behind. But he doesn't mention which industries he'd go after.
Here's the pattern I noticed: Senator Murphy is okay mentioned TikTok and Instagram and Facebook by name when it comes to describing problems created by the tech industry. But when he talks about the economy in general, he mentions "trends" and "globalization" and "institutions" but he doesn't mention any particular billionaires or corporations or even industries by name.
Here's why that's a problem: The world is in its current state not because of some abstract economic tide, but because there are people and corporations with lots of money who want it to be that way. They want wages to be low and healthcare/education/housing to be expensive and they actively resist any changes to that. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that they exist because you want to stay on good terms or stay "neutral" (and instead just talk about "global markets"), you're not going to stop them.
And I don't think Senator Murphy will stop them. He says he's pro-union, but he was not one of the 15 senators who voted against blocking the railway strike. While he didn't vote for it, he did abstain from voting against it. He'll talk the talk but when it actually comes to an actual vote, he folds. That's kind of like when Hilary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq: she didn't want to take the hit for voting against something that she knew would pass anyway. And if this kind of compromise from Democrats has led us to Trump and Trump's Supreme Court, what good is it?
How are we to believe this man is going to stick his neck out against the interests of very powerful people? He's not a pundit or activist, he's a sitting Senator. I expect more than little essays.
This article is just so vague. It sounds nice but when I try to nail down an actual policy he's promoting, I don't see anything. It's like "we need to end America's dependence on foreign oil." Sure, I can get behind that. President Carter said it. President Reagan said it. And Bush and Clinton and Bush and etc. But it's weird that everyone seems to agree on this but it just hasn't managed to get done in the last half-century. Because it turns out nice-sounding words aren't useless against rich people who very much want to keep us dependent on oil, foreign or otherwise.
I mean I get it. I was also enchanted by Obama's 2004 DNC speech. But here in 2022, nice speeches just don't do it for me. I saw cities paint "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on their streets and then increase the budgets of the police who beat peaceful protesters (and the corporate media described it as an antifa riot). The words of Malcolm X, "The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice." ring very true.
So this is why I view his talk about loneliness (the kind that drive people to vote Trump and join the Proud Boys) as being caused in part by social media as... that reads as a distraction and straw man. Sure, there's some truth to it, but I can name several more important factors.
posted by AlSweigart at 3:41 PM on December 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older It's a Decemberween Miracle! | Snakes have a clitoris Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by AlSweigart at 9:26 PM on December 14, 2022 [2 favorites]