Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short
by Jason Godesky“…and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” So wrote Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Anthropology has shown this to be an entirely false description of the state of “primitive” society, but it seems to be an increasingly accurate description of civilized life. The first element, “solitary,” is an important element to consider, but one that I’ve generally tried to stay away from for one simple reason—how do you prove that civilization isolates people? It seems that the scientific evidence is starting to come in.
Americans are far more socially isolated today than they were two decades ago, and a sharply growing number of people say they have no one in whom they can confide, according to a comprehensive new evaluation of the decline of social ties in the United States.
This is no surprise to a primitivist. Primitivist literature frequently comments on the alienation and isolation created by civilization. When asked what wealth he was talking about that “Leavers” had that “Takers” lack, Daniel Quinn responded:
The knowledge that they’re surrounded by support (given by all to each because reciprocal support is needed from each); the knowledge that they’ll never have to go it alone with any problem — whether it’s illness, raising a child, or caring for a declining parent or spouse; the knowledge that they live under laws that have worked from time out of mind, that work for them instead of against them, and that protect rather than punish (and that for that reason are willingly embraced rather than constantly evaded, as in our society); the knowledge that when times are good, they’ll be good for everyone and that when times are bad they’ll be bad for everyone (this is what chiefly distinguishes tribal society from our hierarchical society); the knowledge that they have cradle-to-grave security — they have no jobs to lose and membership in the tribe is for life. None of this comes about because tribal peoples are sweeter, kinder, nobler, or more altruistic than we are; this is just what works for people, and tribal society evolved as humans evolved, subject to natural selection (meaning that social organizations that didn’t work simply disappeared). Note again that tribal society works well for people; it doesn’t work very well for products. Our society works perfectly for products but very poorly for people.
John Zerzan wrote in “Age of Grief“:
Alienation and anguish were once largely, if not entirely, unknown. Today the rate of serious depression, for example, doubles roughly every ten years in the developed nations.
Proving statements like these is a difficult task I’ve shied away from. Daniel Quinn admits that his portrayal of “Leaver” cultures as generally lacking the “widespread discontent, suicide, depression, drug use, crime, and misery” found in modern civilization is based on a lack of any evidence for it, rather than direct evidence for its abscence.
An article on Savage Minds yesterday titled “The End of Marriage” discusses the cultural trends currently moving away from the institution of marriage, and in so doing, it highlights some of the ways in which industrial society makes it difficult to build long-lasting relationships:
In this new economy, even the minimal tie of one worker to another is beginning to seem too limiting. As academics of my generation have discovered, all-too-painfully, marriage may not just limit one’s prospects but eliminate them altogether. I’ve known a fair share of married academics that live across the country from each other, sometimes for years, as they wait for positions to open up for them. This isn’t limited to academics, though – married couples across the professional spectrum are finding that limiting one’s job search to the city in which one’s spouse lives is a sure path to frustration. Anyone with any degree of specialization may find their career needs and marriage needs at odds. Marriage is, ultimately, a limit on the free movement labor, and in the battle between emotional satisfaction and economic need, doesn’t seem like much of a long-term contender.
If we run down the functions that anthropologists typically cite for marriage, we see that other institutions in our society meet nearly all of them, often better than marriage itself does. For instance, establishing paternity is done with almost no margin of error today thanks to fairly simple DNA comparisons. Although our legal system provides a loose framework for inheritance, this can be rather sloppy and most people who have anything worth inheriting choose to dictate inheritance via a will, rather than counting on the institution of marriage to make inheritance flow smoothly. The huge number of single mothers (and much smaller number of single fathers) show that child-rearing can be performed quite effectively outside of marriage, and much of our child-rearing is handled by schools and other institutions anyway. Sexual access has already moved far beyond the bounds of marriage, with nearly every American having sexual relations outside of marriage at some point in their lives. Finally, the emotional satisfaction and sense of security that can be provided by marriage is apparently fleeting, with half of all marriages ending in divorce, and a goodly number of marriages harboring psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Many people today find just as satisfying relationships with partners to whom they are not married, whether by legal restriction (e.g. same-sex partners) or by choice.
Our political leaders talk about “defending marriage,” but it is the forces of market capitalism that presents the greatest threat to it—because they threaten all social ties. We must be ready to move where the jobs go, but unlike our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we do not migrate as bands: we migrate alone.
That article appeared exactly one month before Giuli and I are to be married, and it made me more convinced of my decision than ever. The natural tide of civilization is to treat human beings as units of labor and nothing more, and the most effective way to do that is to isolate us as much as possible. Asserting the bonds of community that we have runs counter to that course. A friendship, a marriage, all these things stand against the trend of isolation and alienation that our civilization pushes towards. I think we should embrace those things, and stand united, as a community, in defiance of civilization’s will to break us apart.
Intersetingly enough, the yahoo ad in the upper right hand corner is for women looking for marriage. Irony, coincidence, or synchronicity? Inquiring minds want to know…..
Comment by Rory — 23 June 2006 @ 1:51 PM
None of the above: it’s straightforwardly causal. The ads aren’t chosen randomly; they’re chosen based on the content of the page.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 June 2006 @ 1:52 PM
ok, that covers solitary pretty effectively. Are there going to be more essays forthcoming on the other elements of that saying?
Comment by ChandraShakti — 23 June 2006 @ 2:24 PM
Ehhhh … no. I consider those topics already covered in the Thirty Theses.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 June 2006 @ 3:05 PM
Americans are far more socially isolated today than they were two decades ago.
We must be ready to move where the jobs go, but unlike our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we do not migrate as bands: we migrate alone.
Although I agree that’s true (and truly detrimental to our mental health), I’m not sure your argument that civilization is the cause is convincing. For that to be the case, you need to address this fact: Throughout much of the 5000 years of civilization, people lived in extended family settings and close-knit villages that DID provide the relationships our society is now sundering despite not being hunter-gatherer bands. Often those relationships can be traced back centuries in the same place, testifying to their stability.
Comment by Jay Denari — 23 June 2006 @ 3:24 PM
I told you it’s a hard case to prove.
Well, I would say that this is a feature of industrial civilization—to what degree is industrialism the unavoidable fulfillment of civilization’s relentless march for eternal growth?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 June 2006 @ 3:35 PM
I don’t think almost every american has sexual ties outside of marriage, i’d be interested as to where that fact was based. I’ll post the question at savage minds.
I too notice marriage becoming less popular. I’ve been married since December and it’s been great so far.
This is all just a symptom of our cultural vunerability right? Something bad will happen and we’ll be helpless to help eachother. I always invisioned Meadowlark being open during turmoil with the community coming together and deciding what to do about it. One of the reason places like Meadowlark are necessary for our survival.
Comment by Adam Hintz — 23 June 2006 @ 11:27 PM
Hey, thanks for this — a much more optimistic take on this post than I think most of my readers have had. Congrats and good luck!
Comment by Oneman — 24 June 2006 @ 3:48 AM
What a load of hooey!
Even if I hardly ever socialize in person anymore, I still have 13,750 “friends” on MySpace, at last count. That’s substantially more than I ever had in so-called real life–including college. The only thing that’s missing now is a website would enable people to engage in virtual marriages and, perhaps, raise virtual families.
Comment by Peter — 24 June 2006 @ 1:40 PM
It could be said to be a feature of all civilisations, as almost all pre-industrial civilisations practiced slavery. A slaves individual ties are not considered to mater atall.
Comment by Stephen Wordsworth — 25 June 2006 @ 7:39 AM
I’ve got 9,000 friends on MySpace.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 25 June 2006 @ 12:39 PM
Very interesting essay. One of the reasons I am heading toward a Sociology degree is my desire to understand the way human relationships work in modern civilisation. It seems the more complex our society becomes, the less time we have to be human, and the more we suffer for it. Rates of depression are obscene, and our generation (I’m 21) is the most medicated generation ever (I can’t remember the source for that statistic).
Life is hard - I struggle every day to survive in a machine that I didn’t create, and I don’t agree with. How does a person who looks at society and sees it’s destructive nature bring themself to be a part of it and feed it? And how does that person live outside of it, when just to survive you need to work? I would love to live a primitive lifestyle: the fruits of my labour would actually be mine to enjoy and sustain.
It’s interesting, because as I was reading this essay (at work), my boss called me and told me I have to work this Wednesday on my girl-friend’s birthday, which I had rostered off ages ago. She didn’t care, telling me that if she says I have to work, I have to work. What struck me was how she considers me to be a non-person, like a slave with no life and no rights: a prime example of how industrial society is unkind to those who are not at the top of the “food chain”.
I refused to work. I consider my relationships far more important than work could ever be. She is now deciding whether to fire me or not…
Comment by poet — 25 June 2006 @ 8:21 PM
Adam — I imagine the statistic is less based on infidelity than the simple fact that most Americans are not virgins on their wedding day. Premarital sex is still sex outside of marriage.
Oneman — I really liked your article, and posted it on MetaFilter, so I apologize for some of the more offensive comments you were left open to because of that. I think you’re right that our market economy is adversarial to marriage, and indeed any kind of deep human relationship. To me, that’s a reason to resist the market economy.
poet — That’s a pretty good example of precisely what I mean. I hope you’re able to get through it OK.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 June 2006 @ 9:27 AM
Jason, Good point.
Comment by Adam Hintz — 26 June 2006 @ 2:44 PM
Interestingly enough, a friend of mine told me that in Roman times, people were most isolated from eachother and withdrawn into their homes right before they collapsed…might be worthwhile to do some research in, if you haven’t already.
Comment by Billly Fomenter — 27 June 2006 @ 1:46 PM
Late Antiquity is a particular favorite subject of mine, and I’ve got shelves full of books on it filled with all kinds of interesting sociological discussion, but I’ve never read anything like that, and frankly, I have no idea how I would go about researching something like that. It’s hard enough to quantify social ties today!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 June 2006 @ 1:52 PM
Have you started on a rebuttal to this yet?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html
Comment by Regis — 4 July 2006 @ 8:44 AM
Most of that article is simply hateful rhetoric. He vastly overstates his case, but what substance is in there is primarily his reference to Lawrence Keeley. You’ll find that I’ve addressed Keeley often.1, 2, 3 In the book version of the Thirty Theses. there will be a new thesis on war that will greatly expand and update what I wrote for a college class in 2000, “War & Society” (PDF)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 July 2006 @ 10:49 AM
Jason,
I was googling for that metafilter page and noticed your comment — so you’re the one! I was a little stunned by the viciousness of the response — I learned a lot about myself that I’d have never guessed, I suppose — but by and large I gound it amusing, and some really good comments were elicited to go along with the slurs. So no harm done.
Comment by Oneman — 30 July 2006 @ 10:27 PM
Well, at least there was that. I apologize for unleashing the hounds of hell on you like that; the MeFite is a most unpredictable species sometimes.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 July 2006 @ 4:50 PM
Wordy, word, word to this article!
Comment by venuspluto67 — 20 September 2006 @ 1:43 AM
I have been searching my own available resources to references of the incidence of depression. I came across the following:
[I]With regard to disintegration of communities, Nesse and Williams suggest that in recent years ‘[e] xtended families disintegrate as individuals scatter to pursue their economic goals’ (Nesse and Williams, 1995, p. 12). According to them the worst punishment that can be meted out to a human is to live in solitary confinement. And yet, because of the disintegration of the extended family (and even the nuclear family, often breaking down due to increased divorce rates), this is virtually what life is like for a growing number of people in the West. [I/]
Workman, Lance. Evolutionary Psychology : An Introduction. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p 323.
Comment by Anonymous — 26 September 2006 @ 1:02 PM