The four ethnographic examples discussed in the previous step illustrate just how varied the experience of loneliness can be. From being ‘unneeded’ in post-socialist Moscow to the strategic aloneness of West African migrants, and from ritualized cycles of longing and return in Greenland to the structural disconnections confronting Japanese youth, each case reveals loneliness as a deeply situated phenomenon. These accounts not only challenge universalist definitions but also highlight how loneliness is shaped through social expectations, political transformations, economic pressures and cultural values. In short, anthropology teaches us that loneliness is never just about being alone.

Loneliness is not simply an individual psychological state, but a profoundly social, cultural and biological experience. It is embedded in collective norms, institutions and histories, as well as in environments, bodily sensations and moral expectations. Attending to both the diversity and situatedness of loneliness brings into focus the fundamentally relational constitution of subjectivity – not as a private, interior realm of feeling, but as shaped through encounters with others, inflected by landscapes, mediated by language and sustained by the social and cultural frameworks that make certain experiences intelligible or meaningful. In this sense, the emotion of loneliness is not only about being disconnected from others, but about how that disconnection is understood, felt and lived within a particular context.

Recognizing loneliness as a complex emotion – one that emerges at the intersection of biologically rooted needs for connection and culturally mediated ideals of relatedness – allows us to move beyond narrow or pathologizing definitions. While loneliness is often painful, it is not necessarily a sign of disorder. It may instead reflect a disruption in what we expect from others, or from the world around us. It is an expression of what it means to be a social being, born into networks of dependence and recognition, and yet vulnerable to their breakdown.

This tension is especially visible in contemporary life. On the one hand, our biological wiring reminds us that humans are profoundly social creatures – our brains are finely attuned to relational cues, and our well-being rests on feeling connected. On the other hand, contemporary societies often set up barriers to connection, even as they valorize autonomy and interpersonal closeness. Work, migration, urbanization and digital technologies all mediate how we connect, but they can just as easily obstruct it. Cultural norms may elevate the importance of intimacy and constant interaction, while structural realities – economic precarity, individualism, mobility – make these forms of connection harder to sustain. We crave connection, yet we also frequently deny ourselves social interaction, whether by choice or by circumstance.

In the face of what has been termed a ‘loneliness epidemic’, the solution cannot lie in pharmaceutical fixes or simply encouraging people to ‘reach out’. Rather, addressing loneliness requires attending to the broader social worlds that give rise to it – worlds marked by shifting values, unmet expectations and uneven access to forms of care and recognition. An anthropological approach reminds us that emotions are not private, isolated states to be managed individually, but shared experiences shaped in and through collective life. Loneliness is a social fact: a condition that emerges where relationships falter, expectations fail or the world no longer feels responsive.

Author: Michael Stasik