Can Solitude be Recaptured for the Sake of Intimacy?

  • Maria R. Markus
Chapter

Abstract

This paper deals with one particular aspect of personal life in late modernity: the devaluation of “solitude.”1 It seeks the explanation for a dramatically expanding phenomenon: people’s willing exposure of some of the most intimate aspects of their lives to total strangers. This search leads to an investigation of two recent cultural trends: the striving for “visibility” and “connectedness” (or “connectivity”). These concepts are analyzed in some detail and illustrated with a few empirical examples. I argue that they transform what has been previously understood as “personal relationship” into that of “connectivity” and reduce the meaning of the “public” to “publicity.” I suggest further that when connectivity and visibility become dominant, the space for solitude narrows. Thus, the argument will progress to a brief elaboration of the concept of solitude and its importance for relationships of intimacy. Solitude is not loneliness and it is not isolation, it does not cut persons off from the outside world. Rather, it is a shelter from external noise in which reflection and self-reflection become truly possible, autonomy gains its meaning, and relationships can flourish. Solitude, I argue, empowers people to face the world on their own terms.

Keywords

Public Sphere Private Sphere Social Validation Late Modernity Virtual Connection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition ( Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (2000), Liquid Modernity ( Cambridge: Polity).Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (2003), Liquid Love ( Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2007), Liquid Times ( Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  5. Buchholz, E. S. (1997), The Call of Solitude: Alonetime in a World of Attachment ( New York: Simon and Schuster).Google Scholar
  6. Castells, M., M. Fernandez-Ardevol, J. L. Qui, and A. Sey (2007), Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective ( Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (2002), Regulating Intimacy ( Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Deresiewicz, W. (2009), “The End of Solitude,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-Solitude/3708, accessed 18 January 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Dowrick, S. (1995), Intimacy and Solitude ( New York: W.W. Norton & Company).Google Scholar
  10. Glanville, B. (2008), “The Teacher Takes Legal Action Against Nude Photo Sacking,” AM: News and Current Affairs, ABC Radio, May 9, http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2240616.htm, accessed 5 October 2008.Google Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern Societies ( Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Gierveld, J. J. (1998), “A Review of Loneliness: Concepts and Definitions, Determinants and Consequences,” Review in Clinical Gerontology, vol. 8, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleick, J. (1999), Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything ( New York: Pantheon).Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1989), Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere ( Boston: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  15. Heller, A. (1985), “The Dissatisfied Society,” in The Power of Shame ( London: Routledge and Kegan Paul ), 300–15.Google Scholar
  16. Honneth, A. (1995), The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts ( Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  17. Honneth, A. (2003), “Invisibility: On the Epistemology of ‘Recognition’,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary, vol. 75, no. 1, 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Illouz, E. (2007), Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism ( Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  19. Illouz, E. (2008), Saving the Modern Soul (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  20. Inness, J. C. (1992), Privacy, Intimacy and Isolation ( New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, S. (2009), “How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live,” Time, 15 June, 28.Google Scholar
  22. Markus, M. R. (1987), “Women, Success and Civil Society,” in S. Benhabib and D. Cornell (eds), Feminism as Critique ( Cambridge UK: Polity Press ), 96–109.Google Scholar
  23. Markus, M. R. (2001), “Decent Society and/or Civil Society,” Social Research, vol. 68, no. 4, 1011–30.Google Scholar
  24. Markus, M. R. 2010, “Lovers and Friends: ‘Radical Utopias’ of Intimacy?” Thesis Eleven, no. 101, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCulloch, J. (2009), “Switching Off,” Sunday Life, 29 March, 15–16.Google Scholar
  26. Modersohn-Becker, P. (1998), Paula Modersohn-Becker: Letters and Journals, G. Busch and L. von Reinken (eds), ( Evanston: Northwestern University Press).Google Scholar
  27. Reiman, J. H. (1984), “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood,” in F. D. Schoeman (ed.), Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ), 300–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosa, H. (2003), “Social Acceleration: Ethical and Political Consequences of a De-Synchronized High-Speed Society,” Constellations, vol. 10, no. 1, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rössler, B. (2005), The Value of Privacy ( Cambridge: Polity).Google Scholar
  30. Seligman, A. B. (1998), “Between Public and Private,” Society, vol. 35, no. 3, 30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson, A. (2009), “What Price a Friend? Just 20 Cents on Facebook,” The Sun Herald, 13 December, 3.Google Scholar
  32. Wittel, A. (2001), “Toward a Network Sociality,” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 18, no. 6, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Young, I. M. (1987), “Impartiality and the Civic Public,” in S. Benhabib and D. Cornell (eds), Feminism as Critique ( Cambridge UK: Polity Press ), 56–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria R. Markus

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations