Despite juxtaposing two words that can be seen as mutually contradictory, the present title is not oxymoronic but thematically editorial. Understandably, the adjective ” solo” means alone, while “society” represents living together in a community. Nevertheless, our present theme relates to the current inclination to elect to live singular or solitary lives.
We are not credentialed as sociologists; the observations articulated in this writing are exclusively based on our perceptions, information garnered from the television news media, newspapers, magazines, and nuanced experiences. Nevertheless, our sources of information are consistent in confirming our present thematic, social phenomenon.
It seems evident, that Man’s progress to modern humankind was catalyzed by Man’s choice to live in a community, mutually sharing the responsibilities necessary for survival and, thematically, the many benefits derived from interaction with others. The beneficial dynamics of societal interaction were stereotypically implicit in such communal living. However, Recently, salubrious social interaction, to his material detriment has become less common. .
Our information reveals a universal shift from traditional societal interaction to a more solitary, virtually reclusive lifestyle. As reported, there appear to be far fewer communal activities, joint undertakings, and socialization at parties and neighborhood barbeques, and lesser attendance at places of public assembly such as movie houses, theaters, restaurants, and other places of public assembly. Such adverse development was significantly exacerbated by the advent of the pandemic, causing many people to interact and be employed, virtually, from home rather than in the company of others by the prophylactic necessity to avoid human contact.
In recent years there appears to be a trend to singularity in which young adults, for example, are dedicating more time to personal self-improvement through regular attendance at the gym rather than socializing with others and apparently, marrying later. Concerns for financial success and physical fitness, have overtaken, those relative to the future of spouse and family.
We must confess to a lack of knowledge as to the etiologic history of this toxic societal condition; but do observe that its toxicity was exponentially catalyzed by the advent of the facile, but societally regressive “smartphone; rendering anachronistic, the vital societal dynamic of interactive, communication, The regressive trend is exemplified by the practice of young people engaging in video games on their hand-held appliances rather than read books and at dinner time, under the table, surreptitiously consulting their smartphones, for information or communication. We were non-plussed to observe that it is not uncommon for many young toddlers to be afforded smartphone technology.
The empirical sequelae of such toxic and societally disabling trend to insular, non-social behavior are ubiquitously harmful to the individual psyche, in addition to its impactful challenge to the essential dynamics of human society. We have often declared that the human persona and self-image are empirically created from the experienced reactions of other people with whom we have social commerce. It has been our often-stated belief that the exponential increase in depression and anxiety of the young generation has been due to the loss of stable identity, resulting from the relegation of normal interaction to the limited contact, afforded by society’s use of hand-held electronic digital messaging. .
Self-absorption and personal insularity are not empirical prerequisites for humanistic empathy, the contemplation of one’s inner self nor the aspiration to understand the world scene. Socrates’ admonition to Mankind to: “Know thyself,” manifestly becomes an impossible goal.
Mankind has often experienced the tragic impact of human apathy. The wise and eloquent holocaust survivor, Elie Weisel, memorably declared: “The opposite of love, is not hate, it is indifference.”
For some time, we had agonized over the dilemma: ” How could a demonstrably visible ogre, like Donald Trump, possibly be elected by the American voters? Our ultimate answer appears to be: by the numerical combination of the stereotypical, populist underbelly of the Nation, supplemented, (thematically) by the current, growing population of the singular, reductively, self-interested citizenry.,
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 