Please note: This piece contains discussion of suicide and self-harm.
Americans have never been lonelier. One in three Americans experiences feelings of loneliness on a weekly basis. Premature deaths, dementia, suicidality, and heart diseases are no longer individual medical concerns, but public health impacts of social isolation and loneliness. What explains this crisis? Paradoxically, it may be the very values we hold so dearly as Americans.
Historical Foundations of Individuality
Conventionally, individualism is the idea that the freedom of individuals, over shared effort and responsibility, takes precedence in society’s organization. Our founding documents repeatedly emphasize both respect for autonomy and personal liberty as foundational to its identity. Over time, the ideological bedrock of individualism began to guide many of the economic motivations and social norms that Americans carry today. The foundation of the American Dream in the 19th century, political theories of individual rights nurtured by philosophers, and the changing understanding of the family as the basic unit of society began to fall in favor of individual prosperity and freedom.
These shifts, prompted by individualism, persist in the modern era, influencing the structures of society that shape Americans’ viewpoints. Young Americans, through their K-12 education, are taught to prioritize self-expression over conformity and to cultivate their unique technical skillsets for their future careers. In the job market, individualistic ideals have become a driving force for employees to excel, outperform the competition, and secure a promotion that affirms their work ethic. The rise of Silicon Valley industries in the late 20th century serves as a case in point of this process by which the commodification of self has become actualized, where every individual is a start-up of their own career, driven by their individual visions that must be in some way distinct from others.
Yet, the very values that celebrate independence and self-reliance may come with a hidden, unintended cost. While individuals can define success and identity on their own terms, this focus on autonomy and freedom often comes at a social cost — a cost that both displaces the values of interpersonal relationships and contributes to our modern crisis of loneliness.
The Societal Trend
Despite the social costs, the values of autonomy and self-determination have led Americans to prioritize solitude over collaborative endeavors. Since 2003, the amount of time the average American spends alone has increased by 24 hours per month, with a simultaneous 20-hour decrease in the time an individual spends socializing. This often manifests during mealtimes, where the number of young Americans, between the ages of 18 and 24, who eat every meal alone has more than doubled from two decades ago. Where mealtimes used to serve as an occasion to spend time with one’s family and friends, they have now become a routine spent in solitude for more than one out of every four people.
Across the U.S., more people are living and navigating life alone, fueling what many are now recognizing as a loneliness epidemic. In a survey conducted by Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, about 36% of Americans reported experiencing loneliness in the U.S. Of those respondents, 58% have named individualistic societal norms — eroded spiritual life, too much focus on one’s own feelings, changing nature of work to hybrid schedules — as the cause of our contemporary loneliness epidemic. Furthermore, of the Americans experiencing loneliness, about 67% reported social-emotional loneliness, spending much of their time in social isolation and disconnected from their communities. Taken together, these data points reveal the extent to which systematic and structural environments contribute to Americans’ loneliness, a potential by-product of an individualistic society.
How does the individualistic nature of American society increase loneliness? In an interview with the HPR, Dr. Julie Aitken Schermer, a professor in the Departments of Psychology and Management and Organizational Studies at The University of Western Ontario, explained that individualistic societies “…in the sense that everybody is out for themselves, typically don’t have a social environment like a social support set system and are highest in loneliness.” In essence, the prioritization of personal success undervalues support systems that allow individuals to maintain their social and emotional well-being through periods of social isolation. This begs the question: where do we draw the line?
Where Do We Draw The Line?
Life in an individualistic society compels us to confront the paradox of autonomy — where independence ends, and social isolation begins. Individualism, by nature, prompts people to prioritize self-sufficiency and instills a sense of individual accountability for one’s successes and failures. As a result, collective well-being often remains secondary to personal advancement, diminishing the strength of the interconnectedness that binds the society together.
Alternatively, in a collectivist society, individuals are often bound by a net of social support. These societies place more value on social harmony and interdependence, facilitating an environment where individuals can easily seek and receive support. In contrast, interdependence and relationships are not as enduring in individualistic societies.
Dr. Manuela Barreto, a professor of Social and Organisational Psychology at the University of Exeter, explains in an interview with the HPR that one’s “network is less resilient and more sensitive to variations” in individualistic societies because the primary orientation is towards one’s personal journey. The fluidity of relationships in an individualistic culture increases its propensity to be formed and dissolved, rendering social ties more fragile. For Barreto, it is the very social outlook of individualism that serves as a force behind loneliness: “The ideology [individualism] creates a lot of competition and drives people apart.” Though individualism alone cannot be blamed for competition driving individuals apart, it “enhances the isolation,” Barreto clarifies. As a result, individuals are more likely to leave social groups when they feel that maintaining a relationship interferes with personal pursuits.
In addition to relatively fragile interpersonal relationships, loneliness induces detrimental public health consequences. The flexibility, while offering individual liberty, increases the public health risks of social isolation, including a higher risk of premature death, higher cholesterol levels, increased risk of depression, and a risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization’s research, the effect of loneliness on mortality is equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
The dangers of social isolation are exemplified by the male loneliness epidemic. Various surveys have identified young males in the U.S. as the most lonely population. About one in four young men experiences loneliness on a daily basis. Another survey reveals that men, on average, have 50 percentage points fewer close friendships than women. And while many may attribute male loneliness to the global concept of “toxic masculinity,” studies have shown that young men in individualistic societies are more likely to report feelings of loneliness than elderly women in collectivist societies. As older generations are often regarded as the lonelier population, this inverted expectation suggests loneliness is a potential structural by-product of individualism, among other societal factors.
However, it is important to understand that social isolation does not necessarily equate to experiences with loneliness. Luzia Heu, an assistant professor in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences at Utrecht University, in an interview with the HPR, distinguishes the key difference between social isolation and loneliness: “Loneliness is a feeling, a subjective experience that is different from a reality where one can feel isolated even though they are not actually isolated. Whereas social isolation describes the actual social network someone has with those around them.” The relationship between social isolation and loneliness blurs the line between where independence ends and loneliness begins. In essence, the tangible social isolation created by individualistic ideals may not, in theory, always bring the subjective experience of loneliness that gives rise to mental health challenges.
Nevertheless, as research suggests, tangible social isolation is capable of producing health detriments similar to those induced by experiences of loneliness. Past research has pointed to the similar effects that social isolation and loneliness have on the well-being of an individual, where the objective state of being in solitude and the subjective experience of loneliness were both found to be correlated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality. This suggests that the psychological and physical toll of being alone — the act itself — is enough to cause health risks to individuals, regardless of whether they perceive such isolation to be an act of autonomy. Whether loneliness is subjectively experienced by the individual, the consequences of social isolation on an individual’s overall well-being are profound and measurable, underscoring how the cultural emphasis on autonomy may exacerbate risks associated with both isolation and loneliness.
The societal system that we have developed to increase creativity, innovation, and personal fulfillment has made it more challenging to balance these qualities with a sense of strong community. We have become a society that praises achievement and self-reliance, even as these very ideals work to fragment the bones of our community and contribute to the growing loneliness found across our nation. The modern loneliness crisis is not simply a product of one’s behavior, but rather a reflection of broader societal norms that have come to value independence at the cost of meaningful connections.
The Way Forward
To draw a line between healthy individualism and harmful isolation is to acknowledge individuals’ autonomy while recognizing the importance of fostering social connection. As a society, we must destigmatize vulnerability, normalize seeking help, and value resilience in our support systems. Non-profit organizations like the JED Foundation, For All Ages, Best Buddies International, and Friends For Good serve as examples of how we can work to combat loneliness by restructuring social environments and perceptions surrounding isolation. These organizations and their mission to address loneliness seek to shift the cultural narrative to one of shared responsibility.
Raising awareness is critical to addressing the cultural narratives associated with the current loneliness epidemic. In particular, raising awareness in schools and workplaces can remind those who are isolated and lonely that they are not alone in their struggles. These efforts are particularly important in schools to prevent students’ internalization of stigmas against seeking help. Functioning as a consistent place for in-person social connections, schools have a critical role in cultivating social connections for the next generation. Prioritizing social-emotional learning and increasing access to mental health counseling in schools will be critical to fostering a sense of community for young people.
Even in an individualistic society, as Schermer points out, having support networks for individuals plays a large role in mitigating individuals’ vulnerability to loneliness. The presence of such networks becomes a testament to a reality where true independence is defined, not by the absence of others, but by a sense of security found within a stable social infrastructure. As a society, it is our responsibility to recognize where and when to draw the lines, taking care not to lose sight of connections that give freedom its meaning.
Below you will find a list of helpful support resources for the Harvard community:
- Counseling and Mental Health Services: Confidential and open to all members of the Harvard community, the CAMHS Cares Support Line is available 24/7: 617-495-2042.
- Room 13: Confidential peer-to-peer mental health support.
- University Ombuds Office: Confidential space to discuss academic and workplace concerns: ombuds_cambridge@harvard.edu, or call 617-495-7748.
- National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: Confidential and free 24/7 support for those in emotional distress or suicidal crisis: dial 988.
- Crisis Text Line: Free, 24/7 crisis counseling for depression: Text HOME to 741741.
