I haven't read the book but want to comment on some of its implications. My comments will be based partly on reviews I've read of the book, particularly one by Nathan Heller in the April 16 New Yorker.
You'll note that this is Part 1. In future blogs I plan to comment on an article in The Atlantic about the psychological effects of Facebook (Part 2) and on some recent articles on Jesus vs. Christianity (Part 3).
Klinenberg and his research team interviewed more than 300 people over seven years and learned that living alone has become much more common. He points out that in 1950, 4 million people in the United States lived alone. Today, that number is 31 million. He notes many possible reasons for this shift: Americans are getting married later than ever, and half of marriages end in divorce. The sexual revolution and feminist movement have helped make it possible for more women to live independently, he notes.
In his review, Heller writes that the solo life, which used to be "a mark of social abandonment," now "tends to be a path for moving ahead." This has implications. Heller writes: "The single life is inherently self-interested; it calls for vigilance on matters of self-preservation both large (financial autonomy) and small (dish detergent), and, in many cases, it frees the solitary from the sorts of daily interaction that help craft a sense of shared responsibility."
He refers to Robert D. Putnam's landmark book from 2000, Bowling Alone, which noted a three-decade decline in what he called "social capital."
The basic point of these books is that people are not only living alone but not getting together much for social interaction, particularly civic participation.
One example is meeting people to possibly date. My parents, who weren't regular churchgoers as I grew up, nevertheless met at a church because that was the setting in their community for social engagement. (Actually, Jeanne and I also met at church, but that was at a worship service, not a dance or a game night.)
Today, many feel the need to go online to meet others.
Please understand, I'm not seeking to judge people's choices--and neither are these books. Instead, they're descriptive. They show us where we've come. And as people seeking to live healthy lives, it's important to pay attention to the environment in which we live and ask, How is that environment affecting us and our neighbors?
Klinenberg's first book was about the Chicago heat wave of 1995, Heller writes, "in which hundreds of people living alone died, not just because of the heat but because their solitary lives left them without a support network."
That's one implication of where we've come.
Part of the American identity is what's been called "rugged individualism." I grew up with a strong sense of the value of self-reliance. Most of us are affected by this ethos. It's not just the libertarians. We place a high value on meeting our own responsibilities and not being dependent on others.
The Bible, on the other hand, does not talk about self-reliance but about community. I write about this in my book Present Tense, particularly in Chapter 4, "Politics." In our faith we learn that we need each other, that we cannot make it on our own. And the Bible is clear that those in our community who are especially vulnerable--the widows and orphans--are to be cared for by the community.
I've seen the power of community not only in my church but through my involvement in Circles of Hope, which I've written about in an earlier blog, a group works with people who are seeking to get out of poverty. Poverty is particularly isolating, and one of the most effective strategies in fighting it is community. When people are part of a larger group, they not only have access to more resources, their sense of self changes, expands, grows stronger.
The cult of the individual is strong (and if cult sounds too negative, think culture). It affects us in ways we often don't notice. We need each other to grow as individuals and as a society.
No comments:
Post a Comment