Lars Svendsen Dispels Assumptions About Loneliness

In A Philosophy of Loneliness, Svendsen doesn't so much elucidate the topic of loneliness as he complicates it, thereby dispelling our many illusions.

A Philosophy of Loneliness

Publisher: Reaktion
Price: $19.99
Author: Lars Svendsen
Length: 240 pages
Format: Paperback
Publication date: 2017-03

Future historians will be able to glean much about the zeitgeist of the new millennium simply by perusing some of the titles of Norwegian philosopher Lars Svendsen’s books: A Philosophy of Evil, A Philosophy of Fear, A Philosophy of Boredom, and his latest to be translated into English, A Philosophy of Loneliness. Indeed, each book might easily make a chapter in a lengthier study of the early 21st Century.

In some ways A Philosophy of Loneliness is a bit of a departure from Svendsen’s other monographs. He begins, for instance, with a caveat that's worth quoting in full since it helps to explain why what follows is nothing close to a coherent “philosophy” of loneliness, at least in the more prosaic sense of the word, to wit, a systematic theory.

Almost all I thought I knew about loneliness proved false. I thought more men than women were lonely, and that lonely people were more isolated than others. I assumed that the significant increase in the number of single dwellers would notably impact the number of lonely individuals. I thought social media generated more loneliness by displacing ordinary sociability. I also believed that loneliness, despite being a subjective phenomenon, could be better understood in the context of social surroundings than individual disposition. I believed that the Scandinavian countries had higher degrees of loneliness, and that these numbers were increasing. Furthermore, I assumed that this increase was connected to late modern individualism and that individualistic societies had higher rates of loneliness than collective societies.

He confesses, “Never have I worked with a subject that overturned to such an extent all the assumptions I brought to the table.”

Herein lie both the appeal and frustration of the book. As readers, we search desperately, perhaps naïvely, for a cause and effect formula, for ready facts that will help us to identify the causes and cures for loneliness, and those desires are duly thwarted. This is not a book that will help leaders or managers design public policies that will put an end to loneliness.

On the other hand, as Daniel J. Boorstin points out in his book, Cleopatra’s Nose, just as important as the great philosopher or creator is the “negative discoverer”. “The negative discoverer is the historic dissolver of illusions,” Boorstin says. “The history of Western science confirms the aphorism that the great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.”

Unlike more traditional philosophy books, Svendsen’s draws from and analyzes numerous empirical studies. He is aware that by doing so some will question whether his book is appropriately titled, but defends his decision to do so by arguing that “the distinction between philosophy and science is rather recent -- and this new turn towards empirical sciences can be regarded as a return to a traditional mode of philosophy, rather than a radical departure from philosophy as such.”

Some sections do indeed read like psychology papers. For example, the chapter entitled “Who are the Lonely?” is so replete with numerical schema and explications of various studies that one finds oneself overwhelmed by such contradictory data. Which is precisely the point.

What makes identifying the lonely so problematic is that loneliness is subjective, and therefore any definition of loneliness is tricky. To be alone is not necessarily to be lonely, and solitude can be revitalizing. Svendsen rightly points out that in English it is difficult to determine whether loneliness should be considered a feeling (generally considered physical) or an emotion (generally considered mental). Moods tend to be existential in nature and communicate our sense of being in the world, while emotions tend to be more specifically situational. Moreover, because loneliness may be perceived as a social failure, many will be unwilling to admit to being lonely, perhaps even to themselves. Others, instead, may have relatively rich relationships and still identify themselves as lonely.

Ultimately, Svendsen defines loneliness loosely as “social withdrawal, a feeling of discomfort or pain that informs us that our need for attachment to others is not satisfied.” Which begs the question: Is loneliness an individual problem or a social one?

In one of the most provocative chapters, “Loneliness and Trust”, one is struck by the extent to which many Western societies seem to be structured so as to preclude trust and to foster loneliness. “Countries whose inhabitants exhibit higher degrees of interpersonal trust are consistently those with a relatively low prevalence of loneliness. Similarly, countries with low trust levels are consistently those with high loneliness levels.”

If it is true that “if you learn to trust others, and to interpret their words, expressions and gestures as less threatening, you will also be able to relate more immediately to them, and therefore improve the conditions necessary for forming attachments”, it would appear equally self-evident that Western nations are not in a particularly trusting mood. In the US, Donald Trump was elected on a platform promising a wall along the border with Mexico, and almost immediately after taking office issued a travel ban on immigrants from Muslim countries. In Europe, Brexit must also be considered another compelling example of “withdrawal” and lack of trust.

Of course, citizens of Western nations are also regularly subjected to the terrifying theater of airport security and alarming daily headlines about hacked email accounts, identity theft, sweeping governmental data collection, various financial crises, CCTV, church sex scandals, and mass shootings (particularly in the US, where guns are ubiquitous). So, wherefore trust?

Svendsen does not answer the question, but warns, “mistrust prevents you from reaching outside yourself. By shutting others out, you also shut yourself inside. And loneliness will most likely accompany you there.”

Always conversational in tone, in the last chapter of the book, “Loneliness and Responsibility”, Svendsen is even more intimate than usual, at times addressing the reader directly and making it clear that he is aware that his audience may very well consist of “the lonely” so difficult to empirically identify.

“I cannot tell you why you are lonely, if in fact you are. I have discussed some of the social circumstances and psychological characteristics that increase a person’s chance of experiencing loneliness, but it is up to you to determine the relevance this discussion has for you, in terms of the causes and basis of your particular loneliness. Perhaps some of the material presented in this book can also function as a corrective for your self-understanding.”

In A Philosophy of Loneliness Svendsen does not so much elucidate the topic of loneliness as he complicates it, thereby dispelling the many illusions we may have harbored about our understanding of it. Leafing through my own edition, I find I have highlighted numerous passages that warrant greater reflection. Many of them are in fact positive, such as Svendsen’s assertion that “loneliness creates a space in which we can reflect on our relationship to others, and feel how much we actually need them.” Or this provocative passage about solitude in our era of omnipresent technology and social media: “Solitude is a freedom space, and establishing a private sphere is key to securing such freedom.”

Neither a systematic theory nor a self-help book, A Philosophy of Loneliness is a valuable contribution to the literature of “negative discovery”.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.