Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

At a time when loneliness emerges as a major social issue in the post-pandemic world, this article aims to introduce the emerging field of the sociology of loneliness. We argue that, while loneliness studies have traditionally been dominated by psychology, the sociological perspective is increasingly recognized as crucial for understanding contemporary forms of loneliness. Over the past two decades, whether through qualitative, ethnographic, or statistical methods, a growing number of sociological studies have revealed new facets of loneliness across the lifespan. Drawing on an extensive review of this literature, our aim is to identify the specific contributions and distinct features of the sociological approach to loneliness. We show that, compared to other perspectives, this approach fundamentally invites us to consider loneliness not just as an intimate phenomenon, but above all as a social phenomenon, whose causes and consequences are primarily played out at the social and political levels. It therefore reveals structural dimensions of loneliness that are less emphasized in other approaches: the weight of social norms, its social factors and manifestations, the role of inequalities, and its multiple subjective forms. Finally, the article explores the field's main contemporary research horizons and outlines key directions for its further development, highlighting potential intersections with other social sciences.

Keywords

Sociology of loneliness loneliness studies loneliness social isolation review of literature COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Over the past few decades, loneliness has emerged as a significant focus of study across various academic disciplines, including psychology, public health, medicine, and gerontology. The humanities, particularly philosophy, history, and literature, have also engaged with this topic. Despite this broad interdisciplinary interest, sociology has been slower to fully engage with loneliness as a central issue. While sociological attention has increased in recent years, the field remains dominated by psychological approaches. This is surprising, given that loneliness is intrinsically linked to key sociological concerns such as social integration and societal cohesion. In this article, we contend that sociology plays a crucial role in both the theoretical and empirical exploration of contemporary loneliness. As Yang (2019) notes, loneliness is fundamentally a “social problem,” with origins rooted in social phenomena such as exclusion, poverty, life transitions, and bullying, and consequences that extend to social isolation, lonely deaths, community decline, and even shifts in democratic processes. The rise of movements like the Incels, driven by narratives of loneliness and its conversion into resentment (Tietjen and Tirkkonen, 2023), further underscores the social and political dimensions of loneliness. Drawing on a comprehensive review of this emerging field, we aim to illuminate the unique contributions of sociology to understanding loneliness in a post-pandemic world.

The study of loneliness is inherently interdisciplinary, though it has been predominantly shaped by psychology and gerontology. Initially, loneliness piqued the interest of philosophers and literary scholars (De Jong Gierveld, 1998; Mijuskovic, 2012), but it wasn’t until the rise of social gerontology in the 1960s (Mijuskovic, 1977) that it became a focal point for interdisciplinary research. Psychologists and gerontologists have since drawn on insights from the social sciences, nursing, and medical fields to explore this complex phenomenon. Notably, the foundational distinction between “isolation” and “loneliness”—concepts first delineated by a sociologist—has been central to this research. Loneliness is understood as a deeply subjective experience, characterized by the negative perception of “feeling lonely,” while isolation refers to an objective state of limited social contact (Weiss, 1973), and solitude denotes a deliberate choice to be alone. These conceptual distinctions were further developed in psychological literature, leading to the creation of measurement scales that enabled large-scale statistical studies (De Jong Gierveld and Van Tilburg, 2010; Perlman and Peplau, 1984; Russell et al., 1980). Such tools have primarily been employed to identify individual “risk factors” for loneliness and to analyze its various impacts on health, mortality, and overall well-being (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2006; DiTommaso and Spinner, 1997; Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010; Peplau, 1982; Rokach, 2013; Russell et al., 1984; Wenger et al., 1996).

The 1990s and 2000s marked the emergence of a distinct sociology of loneliness, as several studies began to develop a sociological perspective on loneliness that both complemented and diverged from the prevailing psychological approaches. Employing qualitative, ethnographic, and statistical methods, a growing body of sociological research has since uncovered new dimensions of loneliness across the lifespan. These studies highlight the varied experiences of loneliness, the impact of social inequalities, and the significant role of social and cultural contexts. A defining feature of this sociological work is its approach to loneliness as not merely an intimate or individual experience, but as a fundamentally social and political phenomenon, deeply embedded in the social ties, temporal frameworks, and societal structures in which it occurs. This perspective operates at multiple levels of analysis. Some studies adopt a macro-sociological and structural approach, utilizing statistical surveys to identify broad social variations in loneliness and assess the influence of societal, political, or cultural factors on a national or international scale. Others take a micro-sociological and interpretive approach, employing targeted case studies to explore the complexity and diversity of loneliness experiences by situating them within the specific social and cultural environments of the individuals concerned.

To foster a transdisciplinary exchange of knowledge on this subject, our article aims to provide an introductory synthesis of the sociology of loneliness. Despite the existence of a few pioneering studies that champion a sociological perspective on loneliness (Franklin, 2009; Yang, 2019), there has yet to be a comprehensive synthesis of this emerging field. To fill this gap, we undertake a broad review of the literature that emphasizes a sociological approach to loneliness. This review is not exhaustive and does not encompass all sociological work on loneliness; rather, it focuses on identifying the key structural trends and major developments within the field. We have considered studies that employ a sociological lens both in methodology and interpretation, explicitly treating loneliness as a social experience and examining its causes, manifestations, and consequences at the social and political levels. Given the interdisciplinary nature of loneliness studies, we have also included relevant contributions from related fields such as social psychology, gender studies, geography, and even medicine and public health, where the research aligns with sociological perspectives. Conversely, we have excluded certain sociological works that, despite their focus on loneliness, primarily address social isolation or do not fully embrace a sociological framework. In this review, we have deliberately expanded beyond the traditional focus on elderly loneliness to include emerging themes such as loneliness across different life stages, the impact of social media, and the experience of loneliness during the pandemic. It is noteworthy that research on loneliness is predominantly concentrated in societies where loneliness has become a recognized social issue, particularly in Europe, North America, and Japan. Countries like Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Japan have become research hubs, driven by both the visibility of loneliness in public discourse and the presence of leading scholars in the field.

In this article, we leverage our extensive literature review to first delineate the sociological perspective on loneliness within the broader field of loneliness studies (second section). We then explore its contemporary contributions and key findings (third section), before finally proposing directions for future research and development in a post-pandemic context (fourth section).

Building a sociological perspective: Four analytical gestures

To begin, we aim to more precisely define the sociological approach to loneliness. Our analysis of existing works reveals four key analytical gestures that collectively distinguish the sociological perspective within loneliness studies: (1) shedding light on the impact of social norms on loneliness; (2) identifying the social and political causes and consequences of loneliness; (3) demonstrating the role of social and territorial inequalities; and (4) exploring the diverse experiences of loneliness and coping strategies.

Shedding light on the impact of social norms on loneliness

Sociology plays a crucial role in understanding how loneliness, as a subjective emotion, is shaped by social norms and expectations. As Linda A. Wood (1986) highlights, loneliness is paradoxical: it is a deeply personal feeling, yet inherently social and relative. This social dimension arises because an individual's recognition of relational deficiencies is contingent upon societal consensus regarding the expected quantity and quality of social connections. The sociological perspective, therefore, seeks to uncover these social norms to better understand experiences of loneliness.

This focus on social norms has been a constant in sociological inquiries into loneliness. Early works linked loneliness to the dynamics of individualization and modernity. Norbert Elias, in The Loneliness of the Dying (2001 [1982]), associates the loneliness of dying individuals with the broader individualizing trends of modern societies, where death has become a doubly repressed event—both individually and collectively. The theme of individualization is central to numerous landmark studies on the evolution of American lifestyles (Olds and Schwartz, 2009; Riesman, 1953; Slater, 1990), which establish a direct connection between rising loneliness and the growing individualism that characterizes contemporary social norms. Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone (2001) is a well-known example, where he critiques the “collapse” of social fabric in American society and its effects on isolation and loneliness. Similarly, Franklin (2016) examines the increasing trend of loneliness in Australia, invoking Bauman's concept of “liquid modernity,” marked by speed, ephemerality, and mobility. Across these perspectives, loneliness is seen as a negative byproduct of modernity, offering a critical lens on contemporary society.

Sociological studies broadly demonstrate that the experience of loneliness, while subjective, is inseparable from the social promises and norms of a given society and era. For instance, understanding the loneliness of single individuals today requires considering social norms around romantic love and coupling as pathways to a “happy life” in contemporary societies (Ahmed, 2020; Lahad, 2012). Similarly, experiences of loneliness are often intertwined with feelings of failure, stigma, and social humiliation, particularly among certain sexual minorities (Carroll, 2013; Jones, 2022; Magnet and Orr, 2022). These studies remind us that loneliness remains a socially stigmatized experience, shaped by age-related norms and contexts (Neves and Petersen, 2024). This comparative perspective also reveals that, contrary to popular belief, loneliness levels are higher in collectivist societies than in individualistic ones, and are more closely associated with a lack of family connections in collectivist societies, whereas in individualistic societies, a lack of friendships is more prevalent (Heu et al., 2019, 2021; Lykes and Kemmelmeier, 2014; Surkalim et al., 2022; Swader, 2019).

Identifying the social and political causes and consequences of loneliness

Beyond social norms, the sociological approach underscores that loneliness is also a structural condition, deeply intertwined with the economic, social, and political context in which it arises. Unlike the psychological approach, sociology shifts the focus from individual or close-knit causes to systemic ones, exploring, for example, the role of the state and market dynamics in shaping loneliness. Noreena Hertz argues that the emergence of what she calls a “lonely century” is not just a result of new technologies, but also the dismantling of civic institutions, radical workplace reorganization, mass urban migration, and decades of neoliberal policies (Hertz, 2020). In the United Kingdom, research has shown that austerity measures, by cutting off access to public services and severing social ties, have directly contributed to increased depression and loneliness (Hitchen, 2016). The sociological perspective thus aligns with efforts to “repoliticize” loneliness, as feminist researcher Wilkinson (2022) advocates, emphasizing the need to expose the systemic production of loneliness, countering predominantly psychological narratives that frame loneliness as an “epidemic” to be addressed at the individual or community level (Kar-Purkayastha, 2010; Palgi et al., 2020). Scholars like Manuella Barretto further advance this view, considering loneliness as a matter of “social justice” (Barreto et al., 2024).

The sociological approach also reveals that loneliness can have significant social and political consequences. For a long time, research has primarily focused on the social impact of loneliness, illustrating how it can lead to cumulative processes of “social withdrawal” (Furlong, 2008; Teo et al., 2015), and result in extreme outcomes such as solitary death or suicide. For instance, studies have shown that loneliness is central to the hikikomori phenomenon in Japan, where young people seclude themselves at home, often for years (Furuhashi et al., 2013; Kato et al., 2011; Saito and Angles, 2013). Similarly, the phenomenon of kodoku-shi, or dying alone without anyone to claim the body, is not only observed in Japan but is increasingly seen in Europe and North America as well (Klinenberg, 2002; Prickett et al., 2024). Beyond these social consequences, recent sociological research is delving into the political ramifications of loneliness, exploring how it can transform into a political force within public or digital spheres. Loneliness plays a pivotal role in the formation of resistance collectives against feminist discrimination (Wilkinson, 2022) and in the rise of conservative movements. For example, in the Incel movement, loneliness is weaponized as a political tool, reshaping it into anger or hatred toward women through the affective mechanism of resentment (Tietjen and Tirkkonen, 2023).

Demonstrating the role of social and territorial inequalities

Sociological research underscores that loneliness is not experienced equally by everyone, highlighting the role of social, territorial, and racial inequalities in shaping these experiences. This perspective deconstructs the mechanisms underlying the “social determinants” or “risk factors” of loneliness often highlighted in major epidemiological studies. Sociological studies seek to understand why loneliness disproportionately affects the most marginalized, vulnerable, or discriminated segments of the population (Bu et al., 2020; Ernst et al., 2022). For example, Erik Klinenberg (2002) shows that the surge in solitary deaths during the 1995 Chicago heatwave can be traced to the invisibility of elderly individuals, compounded by fear of crime and inadequate local public services. Other studies reveal how loneliness can be a response, either endured or chosen, to systems of oppression and mechanisms of discrimination, such as the profound impact of social humiliation on the loneliness experienced by Black transgender individuals (Mosley, 2022).

The sociological perspective further illuminates the links between loneliness and social poverty, showing how loneliness can result from the cumulative breakdown of the social ties that connect individuals to society, whether among the elderly or the young (Nicolaisen and Thorsen, 2014; Pan Ké Shon and Duthé, 2013; Qualter et al., 2021; Rokach and Neto, 2005). For instance, Serge Paugam's research in the Strasbourg region of France demonstrates that precariousness can lead to a cumulative loss of the various “social attachments” that connect individuals to others and to society—whether through family ties, elective participation, organic participation, or citizenship. This process of social disconnection manifests both in the loss of support (which individuals might otherwise rely on in facing life's challenges) and in the loss of social recognition, fostering a sense of chronic loneliness (Paugam, 2018).

Exploring the diverse experiences of loneliness and coping strategies

Finally, to “sociologize” loneliness is to pay attention to the multiplicity of social experiences it encompasses and the range of emotions that it evokes. The sociological perspective reveals the diversity of forms, meanings, and intensities of loneliness. Robert Weiss's foundational work distinguishes between “social” loneliness (stemming from an experienced lack or deficiency in social ties) and “emotional” loneliness (a subjective state often linked to the absence of a significant attachment figure) (Weiss, 1973). Another seminal work by Moustakas introduces the concept of “existential loneliness,” which refers to the awareness of one's individuality in the face of life's major decisions and the inevitability of death (Moustakas, 2016)—a form increasingly examined in contemporary research (Sjöberg et al., 2018). These different “types” of loneliness help explain why the most socially isolated individuals are not necessarily the most lonely (Hortulanus et al., 2006; Klinenberg, 2013; McPherson et al., 2006; Wenger et al., 1996): loneliness can manifest within painful attachments in family, professional, or social relationships, or during life transitions such as migration, the loss of a loved one (Utz et al., 2013), post-trauma experiences (Stein and Tuval-Mashiach, 2015), or within professional environments (Bell et al., 1990; Wright, 2012).

Similarly, there is a growing trend in research toward a more comprehensive approach to individual and collective ways of coping with loneliness over the course of life trajectories (Dumm, 2008; Sagan and Miller, 2017). For instance, Marie-Noëlle Schurmans (2003) demonstrates that loneliness, even though it remains an undesirable state associated with suffering, can be sought as a means of achieving a sense of freedom: through the analysis of multiple life narratives, she distinguishes between the loneliness of “rejection” (triggered by loss) and that of “withdrawal” (associated with individual retreat). Fenton Johnson highlights the creative potential of loneliness at the individual level (Johnson, 2020), while Ann Cvetkovich argues that loneliness can also embody hope, containing within it the “hopeful potential for collectivity” (Berlant et al., 2022). In line with this perspective, feminist sociologists Shoshana Magnet and Celeste Orr explore the “potentialities of loneliness,” proposing that it can offer new avenues for resisting or rethinking feminist movements and political change (Magnet and Orr, 2022).

Sociology of loneliness: Contemporary contributions

The sociological perspective has uncovered new dimensions of loneliness. In this section, we explore how sociological research contributes to the field of loneliness studies by focusing on three key contemporary areas: youth loneliness, the role of digital technologies, and the gendered nature of loneliness. These research fronts, while not exhaustive, highlight significant contributions by sociologists to our understanding of contemporary loneliness.

From loneliness in old age to loneliness among adolescents and young adults

Loneliness studies, historically centered on older adults, are increasingly addressing the rise of loneliness among younger populations. The sociological perspective sheds light on the structural and generational dynamics underlying this shift. International studies indicate that loneliness is rising among the youngest age groups, including in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, with young people now constituting the most affected demographic globally (Barreto et al., 2021; diJulio et al., 2018). Although this trend predates the pandemic, it has been exacerbated by it (Berhuet et al., 2020; Bu et al., 2020; Buecker et al., 2021). While psychological studies often attribute youth loneliness to immaturity, lower resilience, or lack of crisis experience (Wickens et al., 2021), sociological research contextualizes this phenomenon within the structural challenges of “coming of age.” Young people are particularly vulnerable to loneliness due to high geographical and residential mobility, unemployment, job insecurity, and migration—factors that are structurally linked to the emergence of loneliness (Bu et al., 2020; Fardghassemi and Joffe, 2021; Van de Velde et al., 2023).

Studies also show that academic pressure and competition, especially in uncertain labor markets, can exacerbate loneliness during adolescence and early adulthood (Chao et al., 2015; Dupont, 2010; Janta et al., 2014; Medora et al., 1987). For example, adolescence-related loneliness can be influenced by socioeconomic status, feelings of inadequacy in school, or health issues (Qualter et al., 2021). Additionally, concepts like hikikomori (youth secluding themselves in their parents’ homes) and kodoku-shi (dying alone) from Japan illustrate the growing complexity of loneliness, with phenomena such as hikikomori now being observed across a broader age range (Furuhashi et al., 2013; Kato et al., 2011, 2017; Saito and Angles, 2013). These phenomena underscore the impact of social norms and the role of social shame in experiences of withdrawal throughout the life course, as highlighted in other research (Hemberg et al., 2022).

Digital loneliness

The sociological approach also illuminates a central issue in loneliness studies: digital loneliness. Sociological research critically examines how digital technologies transform relationships and deconstructs the notion that social media is solely a generator of loneliness. Instead, it reveals that digital connections can both entrench loneliness and mitigate it. On the one hand, extensive research highlights how intensive use of digital technologies can contribute to loneliness. Studies show that digital interactions may lead to various forms of social withdrawal and an increasing reluctance to engage in face-to-face communication (Morahan-Martin and Schumacher, 2003; Turkle, 2011). For instance, Sherry Turkle's work, which describes digital media as facilitating “being alone together,” suggests that these platforms allow users to maintain a comforting distance while managing relationships, ultimately fostering a rejection of relational risk and a fear of emotional connections (Turkle, 2011). Other studies indicate that social media use, particularly among adolescents and young adults, can lead to peer comparison, exacerbating feelings of failure and loneliness (Hemberg et al., 2022; Van de Velde et al., 2023).

On the other hand, sociological studies explore how social media can alleviate loneliness under certain conditions. Research highlights the gains in “social capital” that digital media can provide (Casilli, 2010; Quan-Haase and Wellman, 2004; Seepersad, 2004) and examines the benefits of online communities, such as intimate confessions on YouTube (Balleys et al., 2020), interactions with “friends” on Facebook (Ellison et al., 2007), and image-sharing on Instagram (Pittman and Reich, 2016). These studies also explore the new forms of political sociality that emerge from digital interactions, as seen in the role of Twitter during the Arab Spring, where it facilitated information sharing and activism among geographically dispersed participants (Tüfekçi, 2017). Additionally, the Incel movement illustrates how digital spaces can simultaneously serve as a refuge from the world and as a platform for forming new solidarities (Regehr, 2022).

Gendered inequalities and loneliness

Finally, the sociological approach significantly contributes to understanding gendered inequalities in the experience of loneliness. Since the 1980s and 1990s, sociological studies have focused on the figure of the single woman, challenging the traditional association between female singleness and loneliness. These studies reveal that this association is rooted in social representations and norms, rather than reflecting the actual experiences of many single women (Allen, 1989; Anderson et al., 1994; Burnley and Kurth, 1992). Sociologist Erika Flahault emphasizes that the figure of the single woman remains fundamentally transgressive in contemporary society (Flahault, 2009). It is not singleness itself that leads to loneliness, but rather the burdens of caregiving, such as elder care (Van Pevenage et al., 2018) or child care (Chatot, 2018), which contribute to feelings of social isolation. This understanding is evolving through feminist perspectives on aging and adulthood (Calasanti and Slevin, 2006; Lahad, 2012, 2017; Reynolds, 2013). Kinneret Lahad, for example, shows how the social expectation for “still single” women to “wait” for a future husband is being challenged by alternative narratives that encourage women to stop waiting and pursue autonomy (Lahad, 2017).

Simultaneously, recent research has begun to explore aspects of male loneliness, though these studies remain relatively marginal. Notably, Adrian Franklin, Barbara Barbosa Neves, and Nicholas Hookway's work on Australian men's loneliness reveals that men in Australia are not only more affected by loneliness than women but also less likely to seek help, contributing to higher suicide rates among men. Their research calls for further exploration of the links between gender cultures and the “bases for belonging” (Franklin et al., 2018). Emerging studies on queer experiences of loneliness also highlight how loneliness can be a response—whether suffered or chosen—to systems of oppression and social humiliation (Carroll, 2013; Mosley, 2022). For instance, Carroll Jones (2022) demonstrates that many medicalized intersex individuals choose loneliness as a way to cope with feelings of shame and interphobia imposed by medical practices.

The sociology of loneliness in a post-pandemic world: Key research avenues

The COVID-19 pandemic and the widespread adoption of “social distancing” measures have thrust the issue of loneliness back into the spotlight, prompting a renewed focus on its sociological dimensions. In this section, we outline several key research avenues that could shape the future of loneliness studies, particularly in terms of enhancing its interdisciplinary connections with fields such as social psychology, psychology, and philosophy. While not exhaustive, these directions reflect significant themes that have emerged in early post-pandemic research and offer a framework for advancing this field in the years ahead.

The pandemic has not only intensified existing loneliness trends but also raised new questions. Like other periods of crisis, it has served as a critical juncture, revealing underlying social dynamics and opening new paths for scientific inquiry.

Loneliness and inequalities over a lifetime: Toward an intersectional approach?

Just as the heatwaves of the 2000s revealed a significant “neighborhood effect” in the vulnerability of the elderly (Klinenberg, 2002), the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a powerful indicator of existing social, racial, and territorial inequalities in loneliness. Data shows that while social distancing measures have led to increased levels of loneliness across all age groups (Ernst et al., 2022; Palgi et al., 2020), these measures have also exacerbated pre-existing inequalities, particularly among young adults, individuals with lower levels of education, and inactive urban residents (Bu et al., 2020; Wickens et al., 2021). Loneliness is known to have a complex relationship with inequality, affecting multiple dimensions beyond income, including health, mobility, age, territory, and gender. Recent developments suggest that an intersectional approach to loneliness could provide a deeper understanding of how inequalities manifest and accumulate throughout the life course, and how they intersect with power relations (Collins and Bilge, 2020; Crenshaw, 2017).

There is already a growing interest in decolonial, queer, and feminist approaches to loneliness (Magnet and Orr, 2022), which aim to illuminate structural inequalities by examining them at the intersections of different systems of oppression. To move beyond these primarily theoretical reflections, emerging studies are beginning to operationalize these approaches at an empirical level, attempting to deconstruct how the experience of loneliness is shaped by social relations of gender, class, and race (Carroll, 2013; Jones, 2022; Mosley, 2022). One key challenge is to better integrate the factors of age and generation, as these are increasingly recognized as structuring elements in understanding the particularly sharp rise in loneliness among disadvantaged youth, young minorities, and young migrants (Bu et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2020). Qualitative studies, for example, show that these young people, situated at the intersection of multiple power relations, can experience an “accumulation of loneliness” at social, political, and existential levels (Dedryver and Knai, 2021; Van de Velde et al., 2023). As seen in the field of mental health, these investigations could aim to better understand the multiple sources of inequality in loneliness, not only in the experience itself but also in the search for help and access to resources. Particular attention should be given to the unequal and racializing effects of the healthcare system, which can further exacerbate loneliness among marginalized populations.

Bridging the gap between the sociology of loneliness and the sociology of emotions

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of understanding how experiences of loneliness are intertwined with a range of individual and collective emotions, such as fear, anxiety, shame, hope, and uncertainty, but also joy and pleasure. The pandemic has impacted the different “types of loneliness” identified in sociological research in various ways. For instance, it has generated “existential loneliness” associated with the fear of “dying alone” or the burden of “rebuilding one's life” in isolation (Van de Velde et al., 2023), as well as “social” or “relational” loneliness due to physical separation from others, often linked to mental distress (Wickens et al., 2021). For others, the pandemic may have led to a form of “political loneliness” or “structural isolation,” stemming from a sense of abandonment by society (Klinenberg and Leigh, 2023). A key area of future research lies in conceptually identifying the primary emotions associated with different sources of loneliness. The sociology of social bonds is well-equipped to initiate this theoretical work by establishing connections with the burgeoning field of the sociology of emotions and affects (Ahmed, 2004; Bericat, 2016).

Such an approach, which focuses on emotions, would allow us to treat loneliness not solely as an experience of distress, but as a potentially complex and evolving phenomenon that can oscillate between positive and negative emotions (Kirouac and Charpentier, 2018; Schurmans, 2003; Van de Velde, 2018). While it is crucial to acknowledge that loneliness remains fundamentally associated with suffering, this perspective seeks to highlight how individuals or groups navigate its emotional complexity over time. The pandemic experience challenges the traditional dichotomy between “chosen loneliness” and “suffered loneliness,” as it has been shown that initially suffered loneliness can be positively reappropriated. For example, some young Canadians who received emergency state aid during the pandemic were able to reframe their loneliness as a time for deceleration and regaining control over their life trajectories (Van de Velde et al., 2023). Recent studies are also beginning to explore how certain emotions potentially associated with loneliness—such as hope, a sense of belonging, or even rage and resentment—can mitigate or collectivize the experience (Berhuet et al., 2020). It is essential, however, to avoid idealizing loneliness or framing it solely as a transformative opportunity. Instead, emerging research aims to explore different forms of “emotional work” (Hoschschild, 1979) associated with loneliness and to examine the conditions that enable individuals to overcome feelings of loneliness, whether through personal coping strategies or collective efforts (McKenna-Plumley et al., 2021; Rokach and Sha’ked, 2013; Schoenmakers et al., 2015).

Digital connections, the body, and loneliness: Building a new paradigm

The lockdowns imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic created a prolonged situation of physical isolation, forcing us to rely almost entirely on virtual platforms to stay connected with others. This large-scale “experiment” has highlighted the need for new approaches to transcend the polarized debate in sociological work on digital loneliness, which has traditionally been divided into “for” and “against” camps. As Bianca Fox (2019) noted before the pandemic, this field was highly contentious, with some researchers condemning new media as a cause of loneliness, while others argued that these media serve as catalysts for socialization. However, early studies on the relationship between loneliness and media use during the pandemic have shown that those who felt the most isolated were often those who lacked access to digital connections (Kovacs et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2020). The accelerated digitization of social life during the pandemic has indeed demonstrated that emotional, educational, professional, and even civic connections can be created and maintained through digital tools, even on a large scale. Moreover, these studies have highlighted the ambivalent relationship users have with social media, which can either exacerbate or alleviate loneliness depending on the context and circumstances.

The frontier in loneliness studies has now shifted toward developing empirical protocols to identify the social conditions under which digital social connections effectively mitigate loneliness, and conversely, the circumstances in which they exacerbate it. To this end, the sociological approach to loneliness is evolving away from an overly homogeneous view of digital connections. Previously, digital interactions were often treated as a monolithic entity, but in reality, they encompass a variety of social, friendly, familial, and community ties, each with its own temporality and emotional impact. The pandemic has also brought to the forefront the physical aspect of loneliness—the lack of physical contact, touch, tenderness, and sexuality—which, until now, has been relatively neglected in both sociology and psychology in favor of more relational forms of suffering. For example, an anthropological study based on pandemic journaling projects has revealed the significant impact of a lack of “body attunement,” interaction, and physical presence in shaping the experience of loneliness, suggesting that loneliness should be approached as an “embodied and emplaced relational and ecological phenomenon” (Parsons et al., 2024). Sociological research could significantly contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of the body in experiences of loneliness. There is potential for fruitful interdisciplinary collaborations, particularly with cognitive sciences, which have linked the absence of physical contact to basic needs akin to hunger (Cacioppo and Patrick, 2008; Tomova et al., 2020).

Ethics, politics, and loneliness: Toward a “political sociology” of loneliness

Long regarded as a private, intimate issue, loneliness has increasingly become a social and political concern. In response to prolonged lockdowns, new “policies of loneliness” have been implemented to counter isolation, whether through community organizations, citizen initiatives, or national public agencies. For instance, the establishment of a Ministry of Loneliness in Japan aims to address the rising rates of loneliness and suicide among young people (Sakamoto et al., 2021), coordinating various local and intergenerational initiatives (OPLI, 2023; Wake and Ohwa, 2023). Simultaneously, the pandemic has accelerated the destigmatization of public discourse surrounding loneliness and mental health.

In this context, there is a growing need to develop a political sociology of loneliness that seeks to better understand the “politics of loneliness” by deconstructing the frameworks, narratives, and social norms that shape these emerging measures (Wilkinson, 2022). Additionally, it is crucial to elucidate and compare how different societies relate to loneliness. Significant progress has already been made in this direction, particularly in sociology and social gerontology (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2012; Heu et al., 2019), but the pandemic provides a unique and timely opportunity to advance these discussions further.

Building on existing research in this area (Jopling and Howells, 2018; Masi et al., 2010), a key line of inquiry would be to identify the various forms of intervention that are prioritized in different societies—such as joining, listening, gathering, and supporting—and to analyze what these actions reveal about social representations of “living together.” For example, the acceptability of health-related distancing measures varied significantly from one country to another, reflecting different social and political perceptions of loneliness. A comparative analysis of the ethical and social debates that took place during and after the pandemic could shed light on these differences in how loneliness is socially accepted or, conversely, stigmatized. Another crucial issue would be to explore the evolving interactions between the key actors in the fight against loneliness—namely, the state, the market, and community organizations.

Conclusion: Integrating the sociology of loneliness into loneliness studies

As loneliness emerges as a significant social issue in the post-pandemic world, sociology holds a crucial role in understanding the underlying causes of contemporary loneliness and in shaping effective public policies to address it. Sociology can contribute to uncovering the social inequalities that exacerbate loneliness, targeting interventions across different life stages, and developing more nuanced approaches to address these challenges, as discussed in the second section of this article. However, as highlighted throughout this article, the sociology of loneliness remains an emerging field that has yet to be fully integrated into the broader discipline of loneliness studies. To enhance its contributions and capitalize on its complementarity with other fields, the sociology of loneliness faces two key challenges.

The first challenge is to strengthen internal dialogue and cohesion within the field itself. Despite its rapid development, the field exhibits fragmentation, with subthemes and national research areas often operating in silos. This compartmentalization hinders sociological research on loneliness from taking its rightful place in the interdisciplinary scientific community. A more systematic dialogue among existing studies is essential, particularly at the theoretical level, where a closer integration of research on isolation, loneliness, and singleness could significantly advance the epistemology of the discipline and enrich loneliness studies overall. Additionally, greater empirical integration, focusing on loneliness across various life stages and target populations, would help unify and strengthen the field.

The second challenge is to foster better interdisciplinary collaboration between sociologists and other social science disciplines that remain underrepresented in loneliness studies, such as urban planning, geography, architecture, and political science. Such collaboration would provide a deeper understanding of the territorial and political dimensions of loneliness. To develop targeted and effective policies, it is increasingly necessary to adopt a more integrated view of the inequalities associated with loneliness at local, national, and global levels. Erik Klinenberg's research on “dying alone” during the Chicago heatwave (2013) exemplifies the importance of a territorialized approach, highlighting the role of neighborhood dynamics and public services in mitigating the risk of solitary deaths. This insight is echoed in various local and ecological studies within sociology that directly address feelings of loneliness. As crises related to the environment, health, and extreme weather conditions are likely to increase in frequency across many countries, this transdisciplinary collaboration becomes even more critical.

Footnotes

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Canada Research Chair Program.

ORCID iD

Cécile Van de Velde

Author biography

Cécile Van de Velde earned a PhD in sociology from the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris in 2004. She then served as an associate professor at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) before joining the University of Montreal in 2015 as a professor of sociology. There, she leads the Canada Research Chair on Social Inequalities and Life Course. Her current research explores the experiences of loneliness across different stages of life, as well as the feeling of revolt among young adults.

References

Ahmed

(2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotions. Abingdon: Oxon.

Ahmed

(2020) The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke University Press.

Allen

(1989) Single Women/Family Ties. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Anderson

Stewart

Dimidjian

(1994) Flying Solo: Single Women in Midlife. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Balleys

Millerand

Thoër

, et al. (2020) Searching for oneself on YouTube: Teenage peer socialization and social recognition processes. Social Media + Society 6(2): 2056305120909474.

Barreto

Doyle

Qualter

(2024) Changing the narrative: Loneliness as a social justice issue. Political Psychology 45: 157–181.

Barreto

Victor

Hammond

, et al. (2021) Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences 169: 110066.

Bell

Roloff

Van Camp

, et al. (1990) Is it lonely at the top?: Career success and personal relationships. Journal of Communication 40(1): 9–23.

Berhuet

Mansencal

Étienne

, et al. (2020) 10 ans d’observation de l’isolement relationnel: Un phénomène en forte progression - Les solitudes en France–édition 2020. Paris: Éditions de la Fondation de France.

10.

Bericat

(2016) The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress. Current Sociology 64(3): 491–513.

11.

Berlant

Cvetkovich

Gould

, et al. (2022) On taking the affective turn: Interview with Lauren Berlant, Ann Cvetkovich and Deborah Gould. Cultural Studies 36(3): 360–377.

12.

Steptoe

Fancourt

(2020) Who is lonely in lockdown? Cross-cohort analyses of predictors of loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health 186: 31–34.

13.

Buecker

Mund

Chwastek

, et al. (2021) Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin 147(8): 787–805.

14.

Burnley

Kurth

(1992) Never married women: Alone and lonely? Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 18(2): 57–83.

15.

Cacioppo

Patrick

(2008) Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. New York: WW Norton & Company.

16.

Calasanti

Slevin

(2006) Age Matters: Realigning Feminist Thinking. Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis.

17.

Carroll

, 2013. Lonely affects and queer sexualities: A politics of loneliness in contemporary western culture . Doctoral Dissertation. McMaster University.

18.

Casilli

(2010) Les Liaisons numériques. Vers une nouvelle sociabilité? Paris: Le Seuil.

19.

Chao

Monini

Munck

, et al. (2015) Les expériences de la solitude en doctorat. Fondements et inégalités. Socio-logos. Revue de l'association française de sociologie 10. http://socio-logos.revues.org/2929 .

20.

Chatot

(2018) Le congé parental: Une traversée en solitaire? Sociologie et Sociétés 50(1): 21–43.

21.

Collins

Bilge

(2020) Intersectionality. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

22.

Crenshaw

(2017) On Intersectionality: Essential Writings. New York: The New Press.

23.

Dedryver

Knai

(2021) ‘It’s easily the lowest I’ve ever, ever got to’: A qualitative study of young adults’ social isolation during the COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(22): 11777.

24.

De Jong Gierveld

(1998) A review of loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology 8(1): 73–80.

25.

De Jong Gierveld

Dykstra

Schenk

(2012) Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe. Demographic Research 27: 167–200.

26.

De Jong Gierveld

Van Tilburg

(2010) The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: Tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. European Journal of Ageing 7(2): 121–130.

27.

De Jong Gierveld

Van Tilburg

Dykstra

(2006) Loneliness and social isolation. In: Vangelisti

Perlman

(eds) Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.485–500.

28.

DiJulio

Hamel

Muñana

, et al. (2018) Loneliness and social isolation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan: An international survey. The Economist & Kaiser Family Foundation.

29.

DiTommaso

Spinner

(1997) Social and emotional loneliness: A re-examination of Weiss’ typology of loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences 22(3): 417–427.

30.

Dumm

(2008) Loneliness as a Way of Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

31.

Dupont

(2010) Seul parmi les autres: Le sentiment de solitude chez l’enfant et l’adolescent. Toulouse: Érès.

32.

Elias

(2001 [1982]) Loneliness of the Dying. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

33.

Ellison

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 1143–1168.

34.

Ernst

Niederer

Werner

, et al. (2022) Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Psycarchiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wjx5v.

35.

Fardghassemi

Joffe

(2021) Young adults’ experience of loneliness in London’s most deprived areas. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 660791.

36.

Flahault

(2009) Une vie à soi. Nouvelles formes de solitude au féminin. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

37.

Fox

(2019) Emotions and Loneliness in a Networked Society. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Franklin

(2009) On loneliness. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 91(4): 343–354.

39.

Franklin

(2016) A lonely society? Loneliness and liquid modernity in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues 47(1): 11–28.

40.

Franklin

Barbosa Neves

Hookway

, et al. (2018) Towards an understanding of loneliness among Australian men: Gender cultures, embodied expression and the social bases of belonging. Journal of Sociology 55(1): 124–143.

41.

Furlong

(2008) The Japanese hikikomori phenomenon: Acute social withdrawal among young people. The Sociological Review 56(2): 309–325.

42.

Furuhashi

Tsuda

Ogawa

, et al. (2013) État des lieux, points communs et différences entre des jeunes adultes retirants sociaux en France et au Japon (Hikikomori). L'Evolution Psychiatrique 78(2): 249–266.

43.

Hawkley

Cacioppo

(2010) Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 40(2): 218–227.

44.

Hemberg

Östman

Korzhina

, et al. (2022) Loneliness as experienced by adolescents and young adults: An explorative qualitative study. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 27(1): 362–384.

45.

Hertz

(2020) The Lonely Century: A Call to Reconnect. London: Hachette UK.

46.

Heu

Hansen

van Zomeren

, et al. (2021) Loneliness across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness: A qualitative study. Personal Relationships 28(2): 379–405.

47.

Heu

van Zomeren

Hansen

(2019) Lonely alone or lonely together? A cultural-psychological examination of individualism–collectivism and loneliness in five European countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45(5): 780–793.

48.

Hitchen

(2016) Living and feeling the austere. New Formations 87: 102–118.

49.

Hortulanus

Machielse

Meeuwesen

(2006) Social Isolation in Modern Society. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

50.

Hoschschild

(1979) Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 85(3): 551–575.

51.

Janta

Lugosi

Brown

(2014) Coping with loneliness: A netnographic study of doctoral students. Journal of Further and Higher Education 38(4): 553–571.

52.

Johnson

(2020) At the Center of All Beauty: Solitude and the Creative Life. New York: WW Norton & Company.

53.

Jones

(2022) The harms of medicalisation: Intersex, loneliness and abandonment. Feminist Theory 23(1): 39–60.

54.

Jopling

Howells

(2018) Connecting Communities to Tackle Loneliness and Social Isolation. Learning Report. London: British Red Cross.

55.

Kar-Purkayastha

(2010) An epidemic of loneliness. The Lancet 376(9758): 2114–2115.

56.

Kato

Shinfuku

Sartorius

, et al. (2011) Are Japan's hikikomori and depression in young people spreading abroad? The Lancet 378(9796): 1070.

57.

Kato

Shinfuku

Sartorius

, et al. (2017) Loneliness and single-person households: Issues of Kodoku-Shi and Hikikomori in Japan. In: Okkels

Kristiansen

Munk-Jorgensen

(eds) Mental Health and Illness in the City. New York: Springer Science, pp.1–15.

58.

Kirouac

Charpentier

(2018) Solitudes et vieillissement: Les expériences d’aînés qui vivent seuls. Sociologie et Sociétés 50(1): 157–182.

59.

Klinenberg

(2002) Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

60.

Klinenberg

(2013) Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

61.

Klinenberg

Leigh

(2023) On our own: Social distance, physical loneliness, and structural isolation in the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Problems 71(4): 1216–1230.

62.

Kovacs

Caplan

Grob

, et al. (2021) Social networks and loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 7: 2378023120985254.

63.

Lahad

(2012) Singlehood, waiting, and the sociology of time. Sociological Forum 27(1): 163–186.

64.

Lahad

(2017) A Table for One: A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

65.

Lykes

Kemmelmeier

(2014) What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45(3): 468–490.

66.

Magnet

Orr

(2022) Feminist loneliness studies: An introduction. Feminist Theory 23(1): 3–22.

67.

Masi

Chen

Hawkley

, et al. (2010) A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review 15(3): 219–266.

68.

McKenna-Plumley

Graham-Wisener

Berry

, et al. (2021) Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK. PLoS One 16(10): e0258344.

69.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Brashears

(2006) Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review 71(3): 353–375.

70.

Medora

Woodward

Larson

(1987) Adolescent loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison of Americans and Asian Indians. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 28: 204–211.

71.

Mijuskovic

(1977) Loneliness: An interdisciplinary approach. Psychiatry 40(2): 113–132.

72.

Mijuskovic

(2012) Loneliness in Philosophy, Psychology, and Literature. Indiana: iUniverse.

73.

Morahan-Martin

Schumacher

(2003) Loneliness and social uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior 19(6): 659–671.

74.

Mosley

III (2022) Ecstatic loneliness: Black genders and the politics of affect in Mykki Blanco's “Loner”. Feminist Theory 23(1): 76–92.

75.

Moustakas

(2016) Loneliness. Halstad: Pickle Partners Publishing.

76.

Neves

Petersen

(2024) The social stigma of loneliness: A sociological approach to understanding the experiences of older people. The Sociological Review 73(2): 362–383.

77.

Nicolaisen

Thorsen

(2014) Who are lonely? Loneliness in different age groups (18–81 years old), using two measures of loneliness. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 78(3): 229–257.

78.

Office for Policy on Loneliness and Isolation (2023) You are not alone. Tokyo. https://www.notalone-cao.go.jp/english/.

79.

Olds

Schwartz

(2009) The Lonely American: Drifting Apart in the Twenty-First Century. Boston: Beacon Press.

80.

Palgi

Shrira

Ring

, et al. (2020) The loneliness pandemic: Loneliness and other concomitants of depression, anxiety and their comorbidity during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Affective Disorders 275: 109–111.

81.

Pan Ké Shon

Duthé

(2013) Trente ans de solitude…et de dépression. Revue Française de Sociologie 54(2): 225–261.

82.

Parsons

Mason

Wurtz

, et al. (2024) “I want the world back”: Pandemic loneliness, bodies, and places. Ethos (Berkeley, Calif) 52(2): 274–291.

83.

Paugam

(2018) Attachements et solitudes: Entretien avec Cécile Van de Velde. Sociologie et Sociétés 50(1): 113–127.

84.

Peplau

(1982) Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

85.

Perlman

Peplau

(1984) Loneliness research: A survey of empirical findings. In: Peplau

Goldstone

(eds) Preventing the Harmful Consequences of Severe and Persistent Loneliness. Rockville, MD, US: National Institute of Mental Health, pp.13–46.

86.

Pittman

Reich

(2016) Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words. Computers in Human Behavior 62: 155–167.

87.

Prickett

Timmermans

McGowan

(2024) The Unclaimed: Abandonment and Hope in the City of Angels. New York: Crown Publishing.

88.

Putnam

(2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

89.

Qualter

Hennessey

Yang

, et al. (2021) Prevalence and social inequality in youth loneliness in the UK. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(19): 10420.

90.

Quan-Haase

Wellman

(2004) How does the Internet affect social capital. Social Capital and Information Technology 113: 113–135.

91.

Regehr

(2022) In(cel)doctrination: How technologically facilitated misogyny moves violence off screens and on to streets. New Media & Society 24(1): 138–155.

92.

Reynolds

(2013) The Single Woman: A Discursive Investigation. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

93.

Riesman

(1953) The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

94.

Rokach

(2013) Loneliness Updated: Recent Research on Loneliness and How It Affects Our Lives. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

95.

Rokach

Neto

(2005) Age, culture, and the antecedents of loneliness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 33(5): 477–494.

96.

Rokach

Sha'ked

(2013) Together and Lonely: Loneliness in Intimate Relationships—Causes and Coping. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.

97.

Russell

Cutrona

Rose

, et al. (1984) Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of Weiss's typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(6): 1313–1321.

98.

Russell

Peplau

Cutrona

(1980) The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(3): 472–480.

99.

Sagan

Miller

(2017) Narratives of Loneliness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives from the 21st Century. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

100.

Saito

Angles

(2013) Hikikomori: Adolescence without End. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

101.

Sakamoto

Ishikane

Ghaznavi

, et al. (2021) Assessment of suicide in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic vs previous years. JAMA Network Open 4(2): e2037378.

102.

Schoenmakers

van Tilburg

Fokkema

(2015) Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping options and loneliness: How are they related? European Journal of Ageing 12(2): 153–161.

103.

Schurmans

(2003) Les solitudes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

104.

Seepersad

(2004) Coping with loneliness: Adolescent online and offline behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7(1): 35–39.

105.

Shah

SGS

Nogueras

van Woerden

, et al. (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic: A pandemic of lockdown loneliness and the role of digital technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22(11): e22287.

106.

Sjöberg

Beck

Rasmussen

, et al. (2018) Being disconnected from life: Meanings of existential loneliness as narrated by frail older people. Aging & Mental Health 22(10): 1357–1364.

107.

Slater

(1990) The Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point. Boston: Beacon Press.

108.

Stein

Tuval-Mashiach

(2015) Loneliness and isolation in life-stories of Israeli veterans of combat and captivity. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 7(2): 122–130.

109.

Surkalim

Luo

Eres

, et al. (2022) The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj 376: e067068.

110.

Swader

(2019) Loneliness in Europe: Personal and societal individualism–collectivism and their connection to social isolation. Social Forces 97(3): 1307–1336.

111.

Teo

Fetters

Stufflebam

, et al. (2015) Identification of the hikikomori syndrome of social withdrawal: Psychosocial features and treatment preferences in four countries. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 61(1): 64–72.

112.

Tietjen

Tirkkonen

(2023) The rage of lonely men: Loneliness and misogyny in the online movement of “involuntary celibates” (incels). Topoi 42(5): 1229–1241.

113.

Tomova

Wang

Thompson

, et al. (2020) Acute social isolation evokes midbrain craving responses similar to hunger. Nature Neuroscience 23(12): 1597–1605.

114.

Tufekci

(2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven: Yale University Press.

115.

Turkle

(2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. London: Hachette UK.

116.

Utz

Swenson

Caserta

, et al. (2013) Feeling lonely versus being alone: loneliness and social support among recently bereaved persons. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 69(1): 85–94.

117.

Van de Velde

(2018) Présentation: Sociologie de la solitude: concepts, défis, perspectives. Sociologie et Sociétés 50(1): 5–20.

118.

Van de Velde

Boudreault

Berniard

(2023) Youth loneliness in pandemic times: A qualitative study in Quebec and Ontario. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 28(1): 2223671.

119.

Van Pevenage

Dauphinais

Dupont

, et al. (2018) Déclinaisons de la solitude: Le recours aux temporalités chez les conjointes aidantes âgées. Sociologie et Sociétés 50(1): 45–66.

120.

Wake

Ohwa

(2023) Social vulnerability of older adults and COVID-19: findings from surveys of professionals providing care in Japan. In: Harrikari

Mooney

Adusumalli

, et al. (eds) Social Work During COVID-19. London: Routledge, pp.145–157.

121.

Weiss

(1973) Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT paperback series, p.278.

122.

Wenger

Davies

Shahtahmasebi

, et al. (1996) Social isolation and loneliness in old age: Review and model refinement. Ageing & Society 16(3): 333–358.

123.

Wickens

McDonald

Elton-Marshall

, et al. (2021) Loneliness in the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations with age, gender and their interaction. Journal of Psychiatric Research 136: 103–108.

124.

Wilkinson

(2022) Loneliness is a feminist issue. Feminist Theory 23(1): 23–38.

125.

Wood

(1986) Loneliness. In: Harré

(ed) The Social Construction of Emotions. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, pp.184–209.

126.

Wright

(2012) Is it lonely at the top? An empirical study of managers’ and nonmanagers’ loneliness in organizations. The Journal of Psychology 146(1–2): 47–60.

127.

Yang

(2019) Loneliness: A Social Problem. London: Routledge.

Sociology of loneliness: An introduction

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Building a sociological perspective: Four analytical gestures

Shedding light on the impact of social norms on loneliness

Identifying the social and political causes and consequences of loneliness

Demonstrating the role of social and territorial inequalities

Exploring the diverse experiences of loneliness and coping strategies

Sociology of loneliness: Contemporary contributions

From loneliness in old age to loneliness among adolescents and young adults

Digital loneliness

Gendered inequalities and loneliness

The sociology of loneliness in a post-pandemic world: Key research avenues

Loneliness and inequalities over a lifetime: Toward an intersectional approach?

Bridging the gap between the sociology of loneliness and the sociology of emotions

Digital connections, the body, and loneliness: Building a new paradigm

Ethics, politics, and loneliness: Toward a “political sociology” of loneliness

Conclusion: Integrating the sociology of loneliness into loneliness studies

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References