The loneliness epidemic, what the series show

The term epidemic implies a rapid and generalised rise. It has been used in several public reports and has justified the creation of dedicated administrative arrangements in a few countries: the United Kingdom appointed a minister responsible for the issue in 2018, Japan in 2021.

Its uptake was helped by the availability of one-off surveys producing high percentages, often commissioned by organisations with an interest in the subject. Yet an isolated survey, with no point of comparison, can say nothing about a trend.

Analyses of series comparable over time, notably Claude Fischer's on the United States and several European studies, find no general rise in reported loneliness across several decades.

A meta-analysis published in 2021 by Susanne Buecker, Maike Luhmann and their colleagues, limited to young adults and covering more than four decades of surveys, finds a slight and gradual rise, with nothing comparable to a sudden break. These nuances matter: a trend measured in one age group says nothing about the others.

The debate is not closed for all that. Genuinely comparable series are rare, often start late and cover only a few countries, which leaves an uncertainty both sides acknowledge. The absence of a demonstrated rise is not a demonstration that there has been no rise.

Several objective indicators have moved: the proportion of single-person households has risen sharply in rich countries, and participation in some forms of associational life has declined, a trend Robert Putnam popularised in 2000 with Bowling Alone.

Those developments are documented and robust. They do not translate mechanically into felt loneliness, since the two variables are weakly correlated. Living alone is often a chosen situation, which surveys associate with forms of sociability directed outside the home.

Surveys conducted during periods of health restrictions measured clear rises, followed in several countries by a return close to previous levels.

Those measures pose a difficulty of their own: the conditions of administration changed at the same time as the phenomenon measured, which complicates comparison with earlier waves. Many face-to-face surveys moved online or to the telephone, and the populations who respond through those channels are not the same.

The term makes a subject legible and mobilisable. Researchers in the field, including those documenting associations with health, have published several warnings against its use. A medical metaphor applied to a subjective experience also has the effect of presenting it as a pathology, which it is not.

The question is not whether loneliness matters, which nobody disputes, but whether it is rising, which the available data do not generally support.