LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  June 2006

SOCNET June 2006

Subject:

Social Isolation- Best report.

From:

"Matthew E. Brashears" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Matthew E. Brashears

Date:

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:26:13 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (212 lines)

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****

I think this is probably the best article on the Social Isolation paper I've
seen yet:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/28/opinion/meyer/printable1762234.shtml

Go to CBSNews.com Home
The Lonely States Of America
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006(CBS) This commentary was written by
CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.


The American Sociological Review may have just published the social health
equivalent of the 1964 Surgeon General's report that declared smoking
causes cancer. The unpleasant but long suspected discovery in this case is
that social isolation in America has grown dramatically in the past 20
years.

Some things are uncomfortable to know. We don't like knowing the earth is
getting hotter; some people choose not to believe it. In 1964, about half
of all adults smoked and they did not like knowing the habit caused
cancer; some people chose not to believe it and some people still don't.
The scientific evidence about smoking and cancer existed long before Jan.
11, 1964, but when the famous report was issued that day, people started
believing it.

I expect something quieter and more eggheaded but quite similar will
happen with an academic paper with the vanilla title, "Social Isolation in
America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades." The
authors, Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin and Matthew Brashears,
sociologists at Duke and the University of Arizona, have no such wild
pretensions, but I think they've documented an enormous, stunning social
change so clearly that it will alter the way we look at social and
political life. It should.

And it should scare you.

The authors set out to empirically describe how socially connected
Americans are by asking them questions like, "Who are the peoplewith whom
you discussed matters important to you?" They did this as part of the
General Social Survey, the Rolls Royce of face-to-face social surveys that
has been conducted almost every year since 1972. In 2004, they precisely
replicated questions about social networks that had not been asked since
1985.

Because the findings are so stark and clear, and come with no linguistic
and philosophic adornment, I'll let the numbers speak for themselves in
blunt bullet points:

# From 1985 to 2004, "the number of people saying there is no one with
whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled." Now, 24.6 percent
report they have no confidants, family or non-family that's one in four
Americans. Another 19.6 percent say they have just one confidant. That
means 43 percent of Americans have either no confidants or just one, a
slice that has doubled since 1985.

# More than half, 53.4 percent, do not have any confidants who aren't
family. In 1985, 80 percent had at least one confidant who was not family;
now only 57.2 percent do.

# The average size of Americans' social networks decreased by a third
between 1985 and 2004, from 2.94 to 2.08; basically this means the loss of
one confidant.

# The kinds of relationships that decreased the most in providing
important contacts were neighbors and co-members of groups or voluntary
associations (as opposed to spouse, sibling, parent, co-worker, etc.)

# Women have more family in their networks than men, as they did in 1985.
But then they had fewer non-kin close relationships than men did. Now
women have about the same number of confidants outside family as do men.
Unfortunately, that isn't because women have made more contacts outside
kin, but because men have fewer.

# More education correlates with having larger social networks. Non-whites
and the elderly are populations with smaller networks.

Don't let yourself be numbed by the numbers because they tell a dramatic
story even though there are no victims, tears or sound bites.

The bottom line: "The number of people who have someone to talk to about
matters that are important to them has declined dramatically we have gone
from a quarter of the American population being isolated to almost half
of the populations falling into that category."

Stop and think about that for a second. Almost half the people around you
have at most one person they feel they can talk to about what is most
important to them. Seems like a pretty lousy social system we've got going
here, doesn't it?

Does this cold statistical portrait comport with your own experience of
the world and the people you are acquainted with? My first gut answer was
"no." But when I thought about it harder, the answer changed. There are
people who I think are frighteningly isolated even in my company, my small
neighborhood, my extended family and the community based around my kids'
school and these are all social networks by definition. The most
isolated, of course, I wouldn't even come across much.

The authors were even more surprised at the findings and looked for every
possible reason why the results could be wrong. They explored whether
people have different notions of the word "discuss" or "important" than
they did 20 years ago. They looked for technical problems in the survey.
But the news stayed bad.

So what explains this seismic social thud?

The paper eliminates a couple suspects. It is not caused by great
geographic mobility the corporate nomad syndrome. It is not caused by
employment rates. It does not correlate with increased television
watching. Most importantly, it is not caused by the demographic facts that
the population is aging and more ethnically diverse; if it were, those
trends would have been countered by the increased educational levels since
1985, since education leads to larger networks.

That means the answers will be deep and complicated.

Though they are mostly into documenting not explaining, the authors do put
out a couple of hypotheses. The main culprits are work time and commutes.
Both have increased since 1985 and both take time away from families,
friends and voluntary participation. As women entered the workforce in
bulk, the total number of hours family members spent working outside the
home went way up. As people fled the cities, suburbs and exurbs boomed and
so did commute times.

This especially affects "middle-aged, better-educated, higher-income
families." As the paper points out, these are exactly the people who build
neighborhoods and volunteer groups and those are the social structures
that have most atrophied in the past 20 years.

The more speculative hypothesis is that perhaps new communications
technologies have led to people forming wider, but weaker social ties that
are less dependent on geography. E-mail and cheap phone calling have made
it easier to stay in frequent, sometimes constant touch with lots of
people, no matter where they are.

These weak ties are different than the confidant ties that this study
measures, but the authors are open to the idea that a network of weaker
ties can provide equally meaningful, but different, social support (a view
supported by a quantitative study done by two university of Toronto
sociologists for the Pew Internet & American Life Project). But they do
point out the obvious: "some services and emotional support" do depend on
proximity.

Certainly, it's hard to escape complaints about the busy-ness and
time-stress of life these days; it's an obvious, bad problem. For most
people I know, it is exacerbated by the technology that is meant to make
it easier for us to communicate and stay connected. Instead of feeling in
touch, many feel on a leash. Portable, gadget driven communication doesn't
count as soul-feeding bonding for many people I know, but is rather a
cruel mockery.

I do suspect that this study overlooks one simple contributing factor, the
decline of real geographic communities places where people grow up where
their parents grew up, where non-nuclear relatives live near by, where
friendships and acquaintances go across generations.

Explaining social isolation will be controversial, but not as difficult as
repairing it.

In primitive and survival-dependent societies, social isolation was
basically impossible. But modern societies have never been without chronic
existential worries about isolation and loneliness; it is one of the
defining marks of modernity. Literary and philosophic examinations of
American souls and social life began with the very first American books,
like Ben Franklin's autobiography.

Looking at these issues empirically is a different matter. Social
statistics aren't the stuff of teen angst, novels and high culture. But
the story they tell is just as disturbing and just as hard for society to
accept. Recent social science research, for example, about the decline of
civic engagement and community participation has been exceedingly
controversial and contested. There are even larger objections to the idea
that "social science" can ever get a handle on these kinds of issues in a
way that is at all scientific.

It is hard to believe and accept that we live in a society where one
person in four feels they don't have someone to confide in. It's
depressing and even somewhat terrifying. We can, of course, ignore it all
and choose to keep on smoking.


Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com.

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil)
ones, sometimes in edited form.


By Dick Meyer
MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

***********************
Matthew Brashears
Graduate Student
Department of Sociology
University of Arizona

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
-Charles Darwin

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently."
-Frederich Wilhelm Nietzsche
***********************

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager