Tag Archives: Loneliness

Addressing Loneliness

16 Thursday Mar 2023

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

I just finished a paper written by some PhD’s at the University of Essex entitled, “Understanding Loneliness: a Systematic Review of the Impact of Social Prescribing Initiatives on Loneliness.”

The authors make a helpful distinction between loneliness and isolation:

“Loneliness is a subjective, unwelcome feeling of lack or loss of companionship that occurs when there is a mismatch between the quantity and quality of social relationships that a person has, and those that that person wants.Though often associated with isolation, loneliness is distinct in that it is a feeling, while isolation is an objective measure of the number and quality of contacts that one has. Thus, it is possible to be lonely while surrounded by others, or to have very few social contacts but not feel lonely.”

Loneliness is thus a perception of the quality of my social interactions. I recall other reading which placed the important element of social contact on being able to share one’s difficulties — I imagine sharing one’s joys would also be relevant. What matters here is that loneliness is a factor of how I understand my relationships.

The paper went onto look at studies which had sought to address loneliness as a public health issue. Various interventions were examined whereby social workers of some sort sought to help lonely people find someone else with whom they could have companionship.

The “Aim” of one of the studies reads as follows, “Aim: Connecting people, helping them find purpose in their lives.”

It does make me wonder, what sort of world have we created for ourselves, when we have to train people to go out and try to get other people to feel lonely and to have a sense of purpose. If you had spoken to the dirt-poor ancestors of these people of England from 300 years before and said you were there to help not feel lonely and to have purpose, I suppose they would have thought you daft. What do you mean lonely? What do you mean purpose? We have far more stuff and apparently far less meaning.

We see people who have a frankly religious fury over things such as responding to the climate, which in the end is really an engineering problem (If rain patterns change, how do we move water to where it is needed); or a religious passion over identities which would have been non-existent just a few years ago. Perhaps it would be best to understand what we see as people eeking out a new religion for themselves. They are prescribing and demanding rites and responses to answer their loneliness and meaning.

These are functions which would have been performed

Loneliness as a failure of human interaction

28 Tuesday Feb 2023

Posted by in Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

If I understand this paper and the research correctly, we can think of loneliness not merely as a lack of social interaction but a failure within that social interaction:

“Lonely and non-lonely individuals were just as likely to interact with other people, but for lonely individuals the interactions were of poorer quality and provided less support and comfort (Hawkley et al., in press).”

Calling this “poorer quality” which is true but not sufficiently descriptive, I think that we could conceptualize of stress as something creates a certain burden upon me. There is the difficulty of the event causing the stress itself (I have to complete a project but lack time to complete it), but there is also a secondary element: when I bring my stress to you, I can offload the effects of that stress: we can more easily bear a difficulty when we understand that someone else cares about our stress. This is so even if other person in the interaction is unable to effect any change in the external circumstance which causes the stress. Just the fact that someone else knows and sympathizes with my stress creates a reduction of stress.

Should I bear some particular burden but have no one to whom I can unburden my heart, each interaction comes itself another form of stress: I am being hurt. No one cares that I am being hurt, which is a second stress. So we can conceptualize loneliness as a combination of two stresses: a first event which causes stress, and a second event when I cannot sufficiently interact with others concerning my stress.

“Stress has tended to be treated as if it represented a single mechanism, although, in fact, it represents a family of mechanisms that serve to mobilize and defend the body ( e.g., fight or flight). Each mechanism comprises a different set of operations that could contribute to higher levels of stress in the lives of lonely than nonlonely individuals. According to the

added-stress hypothesis, loneliness is associated with perceptions of social rejection and exclusion, which are themselves stressors that produce negative affect and lowered feelings of self-worth and, in turn, promote chronic elevations in activity in the sympathetic nervous, sympathetic adrenomedullary (SAM), and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) systems.”

There are a couple ways in which this could be understood the reason that “poorer quality” interpersonal interactions constitute an additional stress: (1) I expect that someone will care about me enough to share in my stress. (2) Stress is a kind of burden which we can off-load to others. I am stressed about completing some task. You cannot relieve the stress of my task, but your sympathy creates a state in my mind which makes easier to bear the stress. How exactly is that stress easier to bear if it is distributed?

Distributing the stress to you reduces the stress to me. Being unable to distribute the stress creates a new stress. As said above, it seems from this paper, but also from human experience, that an effective distribution of the stress through social interaction is effective even if there is no ability in the friend to alter the external circumstance.

What precisely makes social interaction effective to alleviate stress? While an expectation that someone else would care about my circumstance and then finding that there is no one to whom I can unburden myself would explain an increase in stress, it does not explain the reduction in stress should I be able to find a a friend. What if I come into contact with no one, would that make my loneliness no longer an additional stress?

It is unquestionable that isolation constitutes a vicious problem.

Let us imagine that I possess stress as an object, a weight. I expect that someone will care about the weight of the object. I tell someone about my stressful circumstance and the stress become less. But if no one cares, the burden of the object becomes greater. The defeat of an expectation would be sufficient constitute a new stress. But this explanation is insufficient to explain how speaking to someone lessens the weight of my stress.

If I do find someone who cares, the weight of the original stressor lessens even if no weight from the burden is actually distributed to any other person. If I have to complete a project at work and tell you and you sympathize, you still have no burden transferred to you. The distribution is largely free to you, and results in reduction to me.

So this raises the question, why does a “positive” interaction with you effectuate a reduction of my stress? Romans 12:15 tells us to weep or rejoice with the one who weeps or rejoices. Perhaps this makes the issue clearer: If someone good happens to me, I do not experience the full weight of that good unless it can be shared with another person. Also, if someone weeps with me, even this other does not need to directly bear the burden of my loss, the loss is made less difficult.

So rather than think of loneliness as merely the ability to offload the psychological weight of a circumstance, loneliness is also the inability to share in a benefit.

Loneliness is then the lack of anyone with whom I can share my experience. Loneliness is thus not the pure weight of human interaction. Loneliness is the inability to have find anyone with whom I can weep or rejoice.

We can thus raise the question: Why is it critical that I have the ability to share my pain and joy?

This also tells us something about the church and the new life, the transformation of one’s mind as a result of the work of God (Rom. 12:1-2)

This then raises another question for the Christian: why does loneliness exist in the church? Isn’t the presence of loneliness a defect in the functioning of the church?

Where did loneliness come from?

08 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

I have two masters students who are beginning their work on biblical responses to loneliness. I did some initial research on my own and found the concept of “loneliness” almost entirely missing from theology prior to the 20th century. John Newton in a song lyric, “The Prisoner” has this image:

When the poor pris’ner through a grate

Sees others walk at large,

How does he mourn his lonely state,

And long for a discharge!

 Newton, John, and Richard Cecil. The Works of John Newton. Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1824, p. 605. Loneliness here is part ofthe punishment of a criminal, but apparently not a normal human condition.Thomas Boston says that being alone will be banished in heaven:

Heaven’s happiness must needs be unspeakable, in respect of the society there. The saints going thither shall no more be in a lonely condition, but have the pleasant society of other saints perfected, holy angels, the man Christ, and God himself. The society of saints here is very comfortable, how much more the general assembly of them in heaven?

 Boston, Thomas. The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: A Soliloquy on the Art of Man-Fishing. Edited by Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 5, George and Robert King, 1849, p. 411. He seems to be arguing that heaven will be even less un-lonely than here. Samuel Rutherford writes of someone pursuing Christ while others do not:

REVEREND AND DEAR BROTHER,—Ye know that this is a time in which all men almost seek their own things, and not the things of Jesus Christ. Ye are your lone, as a beacon on the top of a mountain; but faint not: Christ is a numerous multitude Himself, yea, millions. Though all the nations were convened against Him round about, yet doubt not but He will, at last, arise for the cry of the poor and needy.

 Rutherford, Samuel, and Andrew A. Bonar. Letters of Samuel Rutherford: With a Sketch of His Life and Biographical Notices of His Correspondents. Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1891, p. 703.

But this is not loneliness. Wordsworth in Lyrical Ballads gives us, “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud.” But it was a poem about voluntary solitude who finds himself in a “crowd” of flowers. But there is no actually loneliness in the poem.

Google N-Gram for loneliness shows the word almost non-existent in the early 19th Century only to gain dramatically after 1980. There is the UCLA Loneliness Scale which can be used to measure loneliness. An article in the New Yorker summarizes the proposition from three books which have examined the history of loneliness. According to one of the authors considered, loneliness seems to be modern product:

“Modern loneliness, in Alberti’s view, is the child of capitalism and secularism. “Many of the divisions and hierarchies that have developed since the eighteenth century—between self and world, individual and community, public and private—have been naturalized through the politics and philosophy of individualism,” she writes. “Is it any coincidence that a language of loneliness emerged at the same time?” It is not a coincidence. The rise of privacy, itself a product of market capitalism—privacy being something that you buy—is a driver of loneliness. So is individualism, which you also have to pay for.”

The author referenced has a TED talk which I will give a listen to.

The article and the authors quoted all seem to make a loneliness an economic product. And that must in part be true. Economics describes why we do not live in villages nor on farms nor even in crowded tenements if we can help it. But that does not explain someone living by themselves in an apartment. What is missing from this story is marriage.

In marriage, two people live together. One is not alone. Most often (and obviously not all instances), children come along to bring more people into the house. If there are families of origin nearby (the distance of extended family is an economic question), the grandparents will be involved. The children will bring in their own friends, and so on.

Thus, it seems to me that loneliness was made possible by the economic structures, but made actual by decline in marriage A quick review of Alberti’s book on loneliness mentions the medieval monk who did not feel “lonely” even when alone, because of how he conceptualized his solitude. Likewise, Wordsworth’s afternoon of solitude was not lonely. This would add a further element of loneliness to the loss of marriage. The monk had purposefully forsaken marriage for some task, and that task involved something quite meaningful. I should also mention, that the monk did not necessarily live in any sort of isolation unless he was in fact a hermit. And even then, the isolation was likely not absolute (some early desert fathers lived some bizarre forms of isolation).

Just some initial thoughts

Alone in Ulysses

14 Saturday May 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Alone, what did Bloom feel?
The cold of interstellar space, thousands of degrees below freezing point or the absolute zero of Fahrenheit, Centigrade or Reaumur: the incipient intimations of proximate dawn.

Ulysses James Joyce

This book can have such poignancy which seemingly flips into something comic. The loneliness of interstellar space, or is it just exaggeration? Do we laugh at Bloom or feel for him?

And this discussion of suicide in the Hades episode (note we learn later in the story that Bloom’s father committed suicide):

–The greatest disgrace to have in the family, Mr Power added.
–Temporary insanity, of course, Martin Cunningham said decisively. We must take a charitable view of it.
–They say a man who does it is a coward, Mr Dedalus said.
–It is not for us to judge, Martin Cunningham said.
Mr Bloom, about to speak, closed his lips again. Martin Cunningham’s large eyes. Looking away now. Sympathetic human man he is. Intelligent. Like Shakespeare’s face. Always a good word to say. They have no mercy on that here or infanticide. Refuse christian burial. They used to drive a stake of wood through his heart in the grave. As if it wasn’t broken already.

I have remembered that last line for decades: as their heart wasn’t broken already. And Bloom’s memory of his own father:

Thought he was asleep first. Then saw like yellow streaks on his face. Had slipped down to the foot of the bed. Verdict: overdose. Death by misadventure. The letter. For my son Leopold.
No more pain. Wake no more. Nobody owns.

How very alone in that moment as he is in the end of the story.

Schopenhauer on Happiness.16 (Sympathy for the Devil)

28 Tuesday Apr 2020

Posted by in Happiness, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The previous post on Schopenhauer may be found here.

At this point, Schopenhauer develops his argument concerning solitude. We can see this argument in a few different ways. There are three quotations which help outline his argument:

One:

From what has been said it is obvious that the love of solitude is not a direct, original impulse in human nature, but rather something secondary and of gradual growth. It is the more distinguishing feature of nobler minds, developed not without some conquest of natural desires, and now and then in actual opposition to the promptings of Mephistopheles–bidding you exchange a morose and soul-destroying solitude for life amongst men, for society;

Two:

The love of solitude which was formerly indulged only at the expense of our desire for society, has now come to be the simple quality of our natural disposition–the element proper to our life, as water to a fish. This is why anyone who possesses a unique individuality–unlike others and therefore necessarily isolated–feels that, as he becomes older, his position is no longer so burdensome as when he was young.

Three:

Let me advise you, then, to form the habit of taking some of your solitude with you into society, to learn to be to some extent alone even though you are in company; not to say at once what you think, and, on the other hand, not to attach too precise a meaning to what others say; rather, not to expect much of them, either morally or intellectually, and to strengthen yourself in the feeling of indifference to their opinion, which is the surest way of always practicing a praiseworthy toleration.

These arguments contain an overweening pride: “the distinguishing feature of nobler minds”; “anyone who possesses a unique individuality – unlike others”; “not to expect much of them, either morally or intellectually”. At first read, it would be easy just to think Arthur is a self-impressed jerk, even if he is smart.

But there is something else here: a justification for this difference from others. And seen from a distance, it inspires a certain sadness for the man. He admits that solitude was not a natural condition, but something he grew into, he learned it. He began by feeling “isolated” and later learned this as solitude. He had to engage in conquest of his “natural desires.” For one who has learned solitude, he “feels that, as he becomes older, his position is no longer so burdensome as when he was young.”

He wanted to have (more) friends. He learned to live with none or few and then wrapped himself in a sense of superiority to disburden himself of loneliness.

There is some psychological protecting himself against the temptation to desire company:

It is the more distinguishing feature of nobler minds, developed not without some conquest of natural desires, and now and then in actual opposition to the promptings of Mephistopheles–bidding you exchange a morose and soul-destroying solitude for life amongst men, for society;

It is Faust’s devil Mephistopheles who tempts him to feel lonely and desire company. But by resisting the desire for company, he is turning his back on the Devil.

It really should be noted that what is missing here is any sense of balance. There are remarkable goods in solitude. Contemplation, prayer, meditation are necessary. To be always in company is as crippling as to be always alone. We are made for both. Taking Jesus as the model for the most well-balanced man, we see him both alone and in company; never neglecting one or the other.

What we have in Schopenhauer is someone defending himself from loneliness with arrogance (at least as he portrays himself in this book); and for that, I feel some sympathy for him – even though the comic self-preening is difficult to overlook. Perhaps it is easier to feel sympathy for him, because I never had to endure what seems to have been his scorn for others.

Schopenhauer On Happiness.11 Life of the Party

28 Friday Feb 2020

Posted by in Happiness, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

(https://www.si.edu/object/saam_1996.63.185)

In this section of his advice, Schopenhauer becomes both grumpy and arrogant. But his argument is very seductive at the same time:

All society necessarily involves, as the first condition of its existence, mutual accommodation and restraint upon the part of its members. This means that the larger it is, the more insipid will be its tone. A man can be himself only so long as he is alone; and if he does not love solitude, he will not love freedom; for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.

And:

Further, if a man stands high in Nature’s lists, it is natural and inevitable that he should feel solitary. It will be an advantage to him if his surroundings do not interfere with this feeling; for if he has to see a great deal of other people who are not of like character with himself, they will exercise a disturbing influence upon him, adverse to his peace of mind; they will rob him, in fact, of himself, and give him nothing to compensate for the loss.

            ***

So-called good society recognizes every kind of claim but that of intellect, which is a contraband article;

            ****

No man can be in perfect accord with any one but himself–not even with a friend or the partner of his life; differences of individuality and temperament are always bringing in some degree of discord, though it may be a very slight one.

Let’s pick this argument apart. The argument begins with the truism, that no one is exactly the same in public that one is in private. We do monitor our behavior when we are around others.

From that he draws out a second move: since we monitor our behavior, we are not ourselves, we are not free.

There is a third move in his progression, and this is the seductive move, this is truly a burden for the great.

Conclusion: therefore, happiness can only take place when we are alone.

Let us consider this argument. Being absolutely alone is not known to be a means of happiness. In fact, we put the people we are most unhappy with into solitary confinement. It is an extraordinary punishment to force isolation.

Second, while introverts may like quieter settings than others, it does not mean no social contact at all.

Third, why does monitoring one’s behavior mean a lack of freedom or from that happiness? Part of maturing entails controlling and monitoring one’s behavior. Schopenhauer’s entire book is the result of extraordinary self-control. He has had to learn exceptional skills to be able to communicate by means of a complex book.

We can also think of self-monitoring as entailing courtesy and kindness. The very act of considering the good of another human being is a well-known means of obtaining happiness.

Put conversely, does anyone think that Scrooge is the happiest character in A Christmas Carol?

And what does this mean to be oneself? The way I am when I am alone is myself; the way I am in front of others is also myself – in that circumstance. And what sort of self does Schopenhauer mean?

Does he merely mean he likes to avoid boring conversation? That is the case for everyone. I am certain Arthur bored many people. Others found him fascinating.

Now if he wished to be “himself” everywhere, the Cynics gave a perfectly acceptable means of behaving. Their name comes from the Greek word for “dog”. These philosophers simply did whatever they felt like doing wherever they happened to be. You may not appreciate a person who was also “free” coming over to your home. It would sort of like a cross being an undiapered toddler and an ill-behaved dog.

But as we think this through, does not think that Schopenhauer was “happy” being this solitary “giant”? This sounds more like a self-justification for his misery.

He thinks that the reason all social contact is difficult (and I am writing this as person who tends toward introversion and who finds large parties painful) is because he is great.

Now everyone feels uncomfortable in some circumstances. Even the most vivacious often is trying to avoid their discomfort by sheer exuberance.

Thus, according to Arthur, we are all great – because we all feel discomfort in some circumstance.

It seems that he is painful awkward and seeking to solace himself. I tend to think that a friend would do him a great deal more good than nursing an enormous sense of self-worth.

These guys pretty much sum of Schopenhauer’s point: (1) I can’t be myself, and (2) my pain is because I’m special:

Loneliness can make you sick

10 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

2633077972_0e9bc8cd8e_o

Loneliness is more than a feeling: For older adults, perceived social isolation is a major health risk that can increase the risk of premature death by 14 percent.

Researchers have long known the dangers of loneliness, but the cellular mechanisms by which loneliness causes adverse health outcomes have not been well understood. Now a team of researchers, including UChicago psychologist and leading loneliness expert John Cacioppo, has released a study shedding new light on how loneliness triggers physiological responses that can ultimately make us sick.
The paper, which appears Nov. 23 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that loneliness leads to fight-or-flight stress signaling, which can ultimately affect the production of white blood cells.

Read the rest

Ecclesiastes 4:7–12 (ESV)

7 Again, I saw vanity under the sun: 8 one person who has no other, either son or brother, yet there is no end to all his toil, and his eyes are never satisfied with riches, so that he never asks, “For whom am I toiling and depriving myself of pleasure?” This also is vanity and an unhappy business.

9 Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. 10 For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! 11 Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? 12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him—a threefold cord is not quickly broken.