阅览孤单是一种健康盛行病

阅览孤单是一种健康盛行病吗？
   作者：By Eric Klinenberg
    来历：学习
    　　Earlier this year， Britain appointed its first“minister for loneliness，” who is charged with tackling what Prime Minister Theresa May called the “sad reality of modern life.”
    　　Public-health leaders immediately praised the idea—and for good reason. In recent decades， researchers have discovered that loneliness left untreated is not just psychically painful； it also can have serious medical consequences. Rigorous epidemiological1 studies have linked loneliness and social isolation to heart disease， cancer， depression， diabetes and suicide. Vivek Murthy， the former United States surgeon general， has written that loneliness and social isolation are “associated with a reduction in life span similar to that caused by smoking 15 cigarettes a day and even greater than that associated with obesity.”
    　　But is loneliness， as many political officials and pundits2 are warning， a growing “health epidemic”？ I don’t believe so， nor do I believe it helps anyone to describe it that way. Social disconnection is a serious matter， yet if we whip up3 a panic over its prevalence and impact， we’re less likely to deal with it properly.
    　　Anxiety about loneliness is a common feature of modern societies. Today， two major causes of loneliness seem possible. One is that societies throughout the world have embraced a culture of individualism. More people are living alone， and aging alone， than ever. Neoliberal social policies have turned workers into precarious free agents，4 and when jobs disappear， things fall apart fast. Labor unions， civic associations， neighborhood organizations， religious groups and other traditional sources of social solidarity are in steady decline. Increasingly， we all feel that we’re on our own.
    　　The other possible cause is the rise of communications technology， including smartphones， social media and the internet. A decade ago， companies like Facebook， Apple and Google pledged that their products would help create meaningful relationships and communities. Instead， we’ve used the media system to deepen existing divisions， at both the individual and group levels. We may have thousands of“friends” and “followers” on Facebook and Instagram， but when it comes to human relationships， it turns out there’s no substitute for building them the old-fashioned way， in person.
    　　In light of these two trends， it’s easy to believe we’re experiencing an “epidemic” of loneliness and isolation. Surprisingly， though， the best data do not actually show drastic spikes5 in either loneliness or social isolation.
The main evidence for rising isolation comes from a widely reported sociology journal article claiming that in 2004， one in four Americans had no one in their life they felt they could confide in6， compared with one in 10 during the 1980s. But that study turned out to be based on faulty data， and other research shows that the portion of Americans without a confidant7 is about the same as it has long been. Although one of the authors has distanced himself from the paper （saying， “I no longer think it’s reliable”）， scholars， journalists and policymakers continue to cite it.
　　The other data on loneliness are complicated and often contradictory， in part because there are so many different ways of measuring the phenomenon. But it’s clear that the loneliness statistics cited by those who say we have an epidemic are outliers. For example， one set of statistics comes from a study that counted as lonely people who said they felt “left out” or “isolated，” or “lacked companionship”—even just “some of the time.”That’s an exceedingly low bar， and surely not one we’d want doctors or policymakers to use in their work.
　　One reason we need to be careful about how we measure and respond to loneliness is that， as the University of Chicago psychologist John Cacioppo argues， an occasional and transitory feeling of loneliness can be healthy and productive. It’s a biological signal to ourselves that we need to build stronger social bonds.
　　Professor Cacioppo has spent much of his career documenting the dangers of loneliness. But it’s notable that he relies on more measured statistics in his own scientific papers than the statistics described above. One of his articles reports that around 19 percent of older Americans said they had felt lonely for much of the week before they were surveyed， and that in Britain about six percent of adults said they felt lonely all or most of the time. Those are worrisome numbers， but they are quite similar to the numbers reported in Britain in 1948， when about eight percent of older adults said they often or always felt lonely， and to those in previous American studies as well.
　　Professor Cacioppo is one of the leading voices advocating for better treatment of loneliness. But， as he has written， “to call it an epidemic of loneliness risks having it relegated8 to the advice columns.”
　　In particular， overstating the problem can make it harder to make sure we are focusing on the people who need help the most. When Britain announced its new ministry， officials insisted that everyone， young or old， was at risk of loneliness. Yet the research tells us something more specific. In places like the United States and Britain， it’s the poor， unemployed， displaced9 and migrant populations that stand to suffer most from loneliness and isolation. Their lives are unstable， and so are their relationships. When they get lonely， they are the least able to get adequate social or medical support.

I don’t believe we have a loneliness epidemic. But millions of people are suffering from social disconnection. Whether or not they have a minister for loneliness， they deserve more attention and help than we’re offering today.
　　本年早些时分，英国政府录用了有史以来第一位“孤单大臣”，负责处理辅弼特蕾莎·梅所言的“现代日子中的可悲实际”问题。
　　随即，公共卫生领导人赞扬了这一提议——其赞扬是有理由的。近几十年来，研讨人员发现，假如对孤单症状不加以医治，不只会形成精神上的苦楚，也会引发严峻的疾病。谨慎的盛行病学研讨标明，孤单以及人际阻隔与心脏病、癌症、抑郁症、糖尿病和自杀等问题相关。前美国卫生局局长维韦克·墨菲写道，孤单以及人际阻隔“会导致人寿数缩短，其损害程度相当于每天吸15支卷烟，甚于肥胖症所带来的损害。”
　　可是，孤单真的如许多政治官员和威望人士所正告的那样，逐步成为“健康盛行病”了吗？我不这么以为，我也不信任这样描绘孤单有助于任何人。缺少社会交往是一个严峻的问题，但假如咱们对其盛行和影响感到惊惧，咱们就不太或许正确处理它。
　　对孤单感到焦虑现已成为现代社会的遍及特征。现在，孤单的发生或许有两个首要原因。一是因为全世界都遍及承受了本位主义文明。与以往任何时分比较，现在越来越多的人开端茕居并单独老去。新自由主义的社会方针现已将工人变成了不稳定的自由职业者，一旦失掉作业，作业就会立刻土崩瓦解。工会、民间集体、社区安排、宗教集体以及其他可以供给社会凝聚力的传统来历现在也正在削减。日复一日，咱们愈加感遭到自己变得孤苦伶仃。
　　另一个或许的原因是因为智能手机、交际媒体以及互联网等通讯技能的兴起。十年前，脸书、苹果和谷歌等公司许诺，他们的产品将有助于树立有意义的人际关系和社会集体。而现实却与之相反，咱们所运用的这些媒体反而加深了个人与集体层面已有的隔膜。咱们或许在脸书和Instagram等交际媒体上有不计其数个“朋友”和“粉丝”，但当论及人际关系时，咱们仍需求老办法，即面临面的沟通。
　　鉴于这两种趋势，咱们很简单就会信任自己正在阅历一场以孤单和孤立为特征的“盛行病”。但令人惊奇的是，有准确的数据显现，人们的孤单和孤立感并没有呈现出急剧的添加。
　　一篇广为报导的社会学期刊文章称，在2004年，有四分之一的美国人以为自己没有可以信任的人，而在20世纪80年代，只要十分之一的美国人以为自己没有可以信任的人。这成为人们孤立感上升的首要依据。但结果标明，这项研讨是根据过错的数据。而其他研讨显现，现在无密友的美国人份额与长期以来的情况根本相等。尽管其间一位作者已與该论文划清界限（他表明，“我已不再以为它是牢靠的”），可是学者、记者以及方针制定者仍持续对其进行引证。
　　其他关于孤单的数据则既杂乱又常常自相矛盾，部分原因是因为衡量这一现象的办法多种多样。但很明显的一点是，坚持孤单病延伸说法的人所引证的统计数据都是异常值。例如，有一组统计数据来历于其间一项研讨，该研讨以为，感到“被疏忽”或“被孤立”，或许“缺少陪同”的就算作孤单的人——即便仅仅“偶然”感到也是如此。这是一个十分低的门槛，并且咱们必定不期望医师或方针制定者将此规范应用于他们的作业之中。
　　咱们需求审慎考虑怎么衡量和回应孤单感的一个原因是，正如芝加哥大学心理学家约翰·卡西奥普所以为的那样，偶然且时刻短的孤单感或许有益于身心并且能进步功率。关于咱们本身来说，这也是一个生物信号，提示咱们需求树立更严密的社会关系。
　　卡西奥普教授在他的职业生涯中花费了很多时刻来证明孤单所带来的损害。但值得注意的是，他自己的科学论文是根据愈加准确的统计数据，而不是上述说到的数据。他在一篇文章中指出，约有19%的美国老年人说他们在承受查询前一周的大部分时刻里都感觉到孤单，而在英国，约有6%的成年人说他们总是或大部分时刻都感到孤单。尽管这些数字令人担忧，但这与1948年英国发布的数据十分类似，其时约有8%的老年人说他们常常或总是感到孤单。无独有偶，美国之前发布的研讨数据也是如此。
　　卡西奥普教授是倡议对孤单症状进行更好医治的领军人物之一。可是，正如他写道，“把孤单称作孤单盛行病，冒有把其归入读者问答专栏的风险。”
　　特别是，夸张这一问题会使咱们更难以保证去关注到那些最需求协助的人。当英国宣告其新部成立时，官员们坚称，不管年轻人仍是老年人，都面临着孤单的风险。但是，这项研讨为咱们供给了一些更为切当的东西。在美国和英国这样的当地，最简单遭到孤单和孤立摧残的是那些赤贫、赋闲、颠沛流离以及移民的人群。他们的日子缺少稳定性，人际关系也是如此。当他们感到孤单的时分，得到满足的社会或医疗支撑的或许性也最小。
　　我以为，咱们并没有患孤单盛行病，但的确数百万人正在忍耐与社会脱节之苦。不管是否设置孤单大臣，他们都需求咱们给予更多的关怀和协助。
　　1. epidemiological： 盛行病学的。
　　2. pundit：（常常承受咨询的）威望，专家。
　　3. whip up： 挑起，激起……的激烈爱情（或热心）。
　　4. neoliberal： 新自由主义的（对立国家过多干涉经济，着重自由市场的重要性）；precarious： // 风险的，不确定的。

　5. spike： （数量或比率的）激增。
　　6. confide in： 信任，向……吐露隐秘。
　　7. confidant： 至交，密友。
　　8. relegate： 把……归类。
　　9. displaced： 无家可归的。 阅览感评