Are You Lonely Tonight?

There's always food for thought. You just have to look for it. Sometimes not very far, in fact. For me, it was an article in my local newspaper, re-printed from the New York Times. Written by David Brooks from Chengdu, China, it was entitled "A lavish statement in resurgent collectivism", and it super-charged my thought processes. It made such good sense.

Three is a life-affirming crowd. One, a sadly solitary emotional chasm. People are by their very basic nature, tied to other people for their emotional needs. We take naturally to crowds, although there are of course many people who do find themselves conflicted in the company of others; those who prefer their own silent presence, the hermits among us.

Like other animals we are gregarious in nature and primal temperament. We find comfort and emotional support in the company of others. Admittedly, others like ourselves. Or those others to whom we are inextricably bound, through bloodlines or tribal affiliation. Those links can be further extended to ethnic groups, shared cultures, nationalities.

David Brooks's article was an enticing read because it points out the differences in populations and in their countries' prevailing social cultures. There are, he wrote, collectivist countries and individualist countries. Those countries of the world where the collective ideal reigns supreme, and those where individuality does. Where, in one, the individual is subject to the collective, and those where it is not.

Oriental countries are by their nature collectivist. People are bonded to the group, they work in harmony, they share, they tend to think in terms of their relationships. Whereas countries for whom the collective ideal is a foreign social concept, celebrate the rights of the individual, as opposed to that of the collective. The social engineering political movement known as Communism based itself on the collective ideal.

It took root readily in countries other than where it originated, mostly Asian countries, where it still maintains its brooding presence. Asian countries of the world; China, Japan, Indonesia, Burma, India, for example, are highly pressed for geography, monumentally blessed with people. People crowded together in huge numbers where privacy and isolation of the person is simply not possible.

Their social convention takes its cue from the collective ideal. Countries such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, for example, have great wide open geographic spaces and relatively sparse populations. Where Asian countries can boast of ancient traditions and cultures, these new-world countries were based on the pioneer model of home-steading.

They were populated in large part from Europe; courageous emigrants setting out to discover their own brave new worlds in geographic spaces already populated, but relatively sparsely, by primitive tribes whom they overwhelmed and took charge of. The European-derived populations were the flotsam of their original homelands. As Europe shed its extraneous, indigent peoples, and sought to empty its overpopulated prisons.

In these new-world places the pioneer spirit that settled the country, tended to be self-reliant, individualistic, determined to succeed on the strength of their own belief in self; that they could overcome all obstacles that nature and happenstance could place in their path to fulfillment. They could do this, they had to do this, where geographic space was not at a premium and they carved out a place for themselves in the wilderness.

In countries like Japan and China and India with their overwhelmingly large populations versus their finite geographies, religious and political social order - as opposed to law and order - insisted that people accommodate one another's near presence. And that closeness also meant that the country prospered when the people worked willingly, in tandem with each another.

In Japan, crime as it is known in the countries of the Western Hemisphere is virtually absent. People are safe to walk anywhere they wish, at any time of day or night. Of course that is also because people do walk everywhere and anywhere at any time of day or night. Day-time, night-time, there are crowds of people out and about, going about their business.

In the United States and in Canada, close proximity to others is a matter of choice, not necessity. There is ample room for everyone. People are less dependent upon one another. And they become, in these societies, alienated from one another, reliant on their own devices, driving themselves in their personal vehicles from place to place.

People are not seen on the streets where they live, engaged in any kind of activity. They remain in their houses. Children are not permitted to play untended in the outdoors. Crime is too present. There is a disconnect, not seen in immigrant societies that settle there, who bring their comfort of clannishness with them.

Egos loom large in individualistic societies. People believe in their singularity in a way that people from collective societies do not. Individuals are infused with a sense of their own importance, whereas in collectivist societies people are aware of the importance of their society, and their place within that society. In collectivist societies the pegboard is round, and so are the pegs. Square pegs are hammered into place.

In collectivist societies there is a general air of humility. Even grumpily. There is an appreciation for the whole. It is comforting, and the shared values and traditions give meaning to life. People rarely feel abandoned or alone, to face life's vicissitudes on their own. They are reliant on others surrounding them, on the constructs of the collective; social, political or religious.

In singularly individualistic countries where people are felt to be empowered to do as they wish as long as they adhere to society's laws that are put in place for the protection of individual rights, people are able to pursue their own agendas. At least those who are capable of doing that. Those who fall through the cracks of missed opportunities are bereft of comfort, but advanced state assistance.

Little wonder at the runaway success of social networking Internet sites to fill the emotional and social gaps people in North America, for example, feel are missing in their lives. Emotional and social support at a remove; a virtual collectivity. On sites such as Facebook, people can have it both ways; enhancing their ego, while at the same time achieving the comforting satisfaction of friendly support.

The consequences of the individual framework of national social life as opposed to the collectivist one are grave and unsettling, but perfectly understandable. As David Brooks's article points out: "People who live in the densest social networks tend to flourish, while people who live with few social bonds are much more prone to depression and suicide."

We like to think of ourselves as responsible, individualistic, capable, and able to get on with our lives without the interference and aggravation of too much social-emotional inter-relationships. And when we're young and vibrant and life is urgently demanding that we live it to the fullest, we are anxious to forge on, on our own, leaving childhood and entanglements behind.

Then the years having passed and our lives fleeting behind us, with scant few years before us, we recall the friends we made along the way and wonder whatever happened to them. We're not surrounded by family members, we've become distant, and often estranged. Friends come and go, and most of them have gone on to other interests, just as we have.

Suddenly there are no social supports, no familiar and comforting entanglements to engage us and comfort us. Not that this could not occur, and must most certainly in some respects, in collectivist societies. As gregarious as we are by nature, we are also self-absorbed, selfish, and we tend to distance ourselves from others when there are no social traditions in place to bond us.

Life, though we scarcely recognize it when we are young, is a long search for meaning, fulfillment, satisfaction and companionship.