[arthur_sav]

We've lost the community aspect. Previously, communities were essential for survival but nowadays it's easier than ever to be independent.

Work remote from your computer. Buy food, water, sex and get dopamine hits from social media.

When you don't really need anyone, it's hard to be vulnerable and try to open up to new people. So here we are, we have everything at our fingertips and yet we're empty.

[kelseyfrog]

Lost? It was dismantled and it was done with intent. Let us not forget the people who did it and how they did it. "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." - Margaret Thatcher It's much harder to build something than it is to tear it down.

[tsol]

How did Thatcher make it so Americans don't really bother to know their neighbors anymore(can your believe people used to borrow a cup of sugar from their neighbors-- now I feel like that'd make be seen as crazy)? How did she make it so that people feel like calling is weird and people should just text(and dropping by unannounced is just annoying, even if your a friend, which in the past was considered an occasion to show hospitality)? Did Thatcher make society secular so they don't meet and socialize at church every Sunday(with the subtext that the all knowing and all good wants us to do it even if we don't feel like it)? There are definite changes to society.

[raxxorrax]

I think it is the cities really. It should be easier to connect to people there, right? The opposite seems to be true in my experience. Sure, you cannot select the people in your nearer community, but they seem to be far more engaging. My experience at least as someone that mostly lived in the city. Maybe it has something to do with having more of a stake yourself.

[kelseyfrog]

Please don't mistake my including that quote as asserting that Thatcher single-handedly lowered social trust. I used it as an example that sums up a broader ideological goal of a larger group of people. We both agree on the implications of such a change. Maybe you agree that some people pushed for systems which resulted in this conclusion and some occurred by other factors?

[tsol]

I see what you're saying, and it does indeed play a part in the grand picture. Many of the causes, though, are choices we made as a society. People don't want religion even if your tell them it offered important social benefits. They don't want to be forced to go somewhere one day a week, and they don't want a moral leader telling them they need to be love each other more, for example.

People also don't want to value just the presence of strangers, the way the in some countries the culture treats it as an honor just to invite people over to your home. Even in America a sense of neighborhoodliness was seen as a virtue in the past. That, though, is a positively strange idea in modern day America, in fact. I wouldn't even try to say I consider an honor to invite the awkward guy we work with over and talk with him(not saying I necessarily do have those virtues myself, I'm also a product of our times). People would not understand it at all.

I chose these particular examples because they were so common in the past and are now controversial. I'm sure someone will tell me they don't need religion or that some strains divided people more. I'm also sure some people will tell me it's weird and possibly even pointless to insist we all invite each other and make friends, even with the awkward people that have a hard time socializing, and I'm sure some will say they don't need that to be happy anyways.

Looking at large scale trends, though, these are things that were important to American society in the past that are now not so common. They were foundational to societies cohesivenessm. And they just haven't been replaced completely with institutions that replace those functions-- which is the key issue here. You don't have to be religious or invite lots of house guests-- I'm not saying that-- but damn if those kinds of things didn't provide benefits for society. And those also certainly aren't all the institutions that needs to be replaced.

I'm not entirely sure who pushed for these changes, but I do know people today relish them-- and even if their great grandparents can't out of the grave and said "I can tell your first hand these are the institutions that kept us from being lonely" I think many would still outright reject them.

[kelseyfrog]

> I'm not entirely sure who pushed for these changes.

If a historical analysis isn't your thing(and I get that), the next best thing anyone can do is look for it in the present. Anywhere we see people pressing for the individualization of responsibility, assuming the inability of groups of people to affect positive change, or the "I'm not responsible for anyone but myself" attitude, we see a person with this mindset realizing a reality where everyone is more distant, alone, and lonely.

[seneca]

I think this is off-base. Not being a political Collectivist has very little to do with participation in civil society. Americans were far more Individualist in the past and had a much stronger civil society. Conservatives also tend to be more Individualist, but are also more involved in civil society, mostly through churches.

This opinion just doesn't reflect reality.

As always, the best analysis of the decline of civil society is Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone (and his subsequent research to supplement). It's a bit academic, and sometimes biased, but it spells the issues out quite well

[mensetmanusman]

Happened all over the world in different systems. My friends from Ukraine recall living under the iron curtain when religious gatherings were banned and the communists trying to spread fear of neighbor (you could be ratted on) and the benefit those in power achieved when the citizens didn’t trust each other.

I think the powers that be benefit when citizens don’t trust each other in almost every hierarchical system because it’s a more stable condition (people aren’t banding together for the greater good).

[mandmandam]

I believe Thatcher was used there as an example of the prototypical predatory neo-cunt, sucking value out of the common good and funneling it into privatized friends hands in a most-vicious negative feedback loop.

In America, Reagan did a lot of the same shit; as did daddy Bush, Clinton, W, Obama, Trump and now Biden. There is bipartisan corporate oligarchy kleptocracy, and the Brits have caught up by defanging any people power in the Labour party via vile smear campaigns.

In both countries the tactics are the same - buy the media, the police, and the politicians. Sell weapons to the worlds worst regimes. Deregulate finance and environmental protections, subsidize fossil fuel bastards, and privatize healthcare and every other common nationalized good from water to waste.

The widespread fear and distrust and doubt you speak of is spread through the media with full intent by these people, so as to get away with more shit more easily.

[gonehome]

I think it’s more of a subtle shift that that?

Tech enables people to maintain communities digitally over distance and self select into ones they match with on metrics better than just location.

This has pros and cons. The con is people used to socialize with local people and groups (because it was the only option) and now do that less.

The pros include being able to communicate with people you wouldn’t be able to otherwise (like we’re doing now), if you’re growing up in a small town this is huge.

I think we’re missing a good way to connect the digital communities to the real world more frequently. Maybe metaverse will help, maybe better cities with cheaper COL so people can move around more easily, maybe remote work? I don’t know - we’re still in the middle of a big transition.

[lobocinza]

We are in the discontinuity between national states and burbclaves.