About the Author
Eric Klinenberg is a professor of sociology at New York University and the editor of the journal Public Culture. He has written several books including Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media, and Modern Romance. (Bowker Author show more Biography) show less
Image credit: Eric Klinenberg
Works by Eric Klinenberg
Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic… (2018) 477 copies, 15 reviews
Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone (2012) 376 copies, 17 reviews
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1970
- Gender
- male
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Occupations
- professor of sociology
- Organizations
- New York University
Members
Reviews
1 
rivkat | Sep 24, 2024 |
rivkat | Sep 24, 2024 | 
This is my 500th review. Good grief.
Despite the subtitle, ‘Going Solo’ is a very non-sensationalist book. I wouldn't say that it's 'trailblazing' or 'revelatory' either. It isn’t trying to evangelise for living alone, but neither does it condone scaremongering about singletons destroying society. Rather, it uses evidence from interviews of some three hundred Americans of all ages who live alone to comment on the individual and societal effects of the phenomenon. The explanation provided for the rise of living alone in 20th century is twofold: more people can afford to and individualism is valorised in the Western world. The paradoxical nature of this desire is neatly summed up at one point in the chapter on aging alone:
As this quote illustrates, the book is inevitably America-centric. Towards the end Klinenberg looks to the Nordic states for housing policies that the US could learn from, while noting that the political environment in urban America is not at all conducive to their adoption. There is very little about British housing trends to be found here, although some of America’s are very familiar.
What I found more frustrating was semantic confusion in the chapters on younger people living alone - it was unclear whether the text was discussing people who lived alone and/or people who were single. Whereas the (better developed) section on the elderly noted that many of those who’d left or lost a partner enjoyed dating without cohabitation or marriage, it often seemed to be assumed that younger people only lived alone when not in a romantic relationship. I found this rather baffling, especially when movements like the somewhat painfully named ‘quirkyalone’ were brought in. The author didn’t seem to be sure whether they were talking about whether twenty and thirtysomethings didn’t want to get married or why they wanted to live alone. The two questions are not the same and conflating them made for incoherence.
Consequently, I found the earlier chapters less enlightening than the latter. Also, the book couldn’t help but make me feel a little bitter. I’ve never lived alone, but it’s something I aspire to do if I can ever afford it. I’ve spent nearly all of my adult life in one of the most expensive cities in South East England, alternately studying and working in the public sector, which has required house-sharing. Whilst this has its advantages, not least financially, at the age of thirty I’m pretty damn tired of it. Yet there is Britain’s ongoing housing disaster to contend with if I want my own flat (ideally shared with a small dog named Guillotine). I wonder how much longer living alone can continue to increase when housing affordability is deteriorating so markedly in urban Britain. This is outside the scope of ‘Going Solo’, although to its credit it does discuss independent housing options for those who can't afford a whole flat.… (more)
Despite the subtitle, ‘Going Solo’ is a very non-sensationalist book. I wouldn't say that it's 'trailblazing' or 'revelatory' either. It isn’t trying to evangelise for living alone, but neither does it condone scaremongering about singletons destroying society. Rather, it uses evidence from interviews of some three hundred Americans of all ages who live alone to comment on the individual and societal effects of the phenomenon. The explanation provided for the rise of living alone in 20th century is twofold: more people can afford to and individualism is valorised in the Western world. The paradoxical nature of this desire is neatly summed up at one point in the chapter on aging alone:
Fear of losing one’s independence haunts most of those who grow old in contemporary societies, as does anxiety about becoming dependent on other people or institutions. These are among the deepest insecurities generated by the cult of the individual. For when our dignity and integrity require the self-perception of personal autonomy, we experience profound humiliation - a loss of face - if we are forced to acknowledge that we can no longer make it on our own.
At some level, of course, none of us is truly independent. Collective belief in the myth of autonomy obscures the fact that our prized individualism is directly underwritten by social institutions: the family, the market, the state. Related fantasies - of self-reliance, or the self-made man, for instance - lead us to ignore the webs of interdependency that give even the most antisocial among us the strength to go it alone.
As this quote illustrates, the book is inevitably America-centric. Towards the end Klinenberg looks to the Nordic states for housing policies that the US could learn from, while noting that the political environment in urban America is not at all conducive to their adoption. There is very little about British housing trends to be found here, although some of America’s are very familiar.
What I found more frustrating was semantic confusion in the chapters on younger people living alone - it was unclear whether the text was discussing people who lived alone and/or people who were single. Whereas the (better developed) section on the elderly noted that many of those who’d left or lost a partner enjoyed dating without cohabitation or marriage, it often seemed to be assumed that younger people only lived alone when not in a romantic relationship. I found this rather baffling, especially when movements like the somewhat painfully named ‘quirkyalone’ were brought in. The author didn’t seem to be sure whether they were talking about whether twenty and thirtysomethings didn’t want to get married or why they wanted to live alone. The two questions are not the same and conflating them made for incoherence.
Consequently, I found the earlier chapters less enlightening than the latter. Also, the book couldn’t help but make me feel a little bitter. I’ve never lived alone, but it’s something I aspire to do if I can ever afford it. I’ve spent nearly all of my adult life in one of the most expensive cities in South East England, alternately studying and working in the public sector, which has required house-sharing. Whilst this has its advantages, not least financially, at the age of thirty I’m pretty damn tired of it. Yet there is Britain’s ongoing housing disaster to contend with if I want my own flat (ideally shared with a small dog named Guillotine). I wonder how much longer living alone can continue to increase when housing affordability is deteriorating so markedly in urban Britain. This is outside the scope of ‘Going Solo’, although to its credit it does discuss independent housing options for those who can't afford a whole flat.… (more)
"Today, as cities and suburbs reinvent themselves, and as cynics claim that government has nothing good to contribute to that process, it's important that institutions like libraries get the recognition they deserve. After all, the root of the word "library," liber; means both "book" and "free." Libraries stand for and exemplify something that needs defending: the public institutions that -- even in an age of atomization and inequality -- serve as bedrocks of civil society. Libraries are the kinds of places where ordinary people with different backgrounds, passions, and interests can take part in a living democratic culture. They are the kinds of places where the public, private, and philanthropic sectors can work together to reach for something higher than the bottom line.”… (more)
Too American for me. Though data from other countries is mentioned, the entire book is rife with " we Americans are used to being alone, look at Thoreau!" Honestly, if I read one more reference to Thoreau I am going to spit. This guy lived rent free in a friend's cottage on a tiny lake and wrote his best work "on Civil Disobedience" because he didn't want to pay tax.
So he lived alone, briefly.
As with this book, the lens is focused too tightly on the subject. Look outside the border or the lake or whatever and see how the rest of the world lives....… (more)
So he lived alone, briefly.
As with this book, the lens is focused too tightly on the subject. Look outside the border or the lake or whatever and see how the rest of the world lives....… (more)
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 11
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 1,310
- Popularity
- #19,606
- Rating
- 3.7
- Reviews
- 44
- ISBNs
- 56
- Languages
- 3
He does criticize global messaging on “social distancing,” when the message should have been “physical distancing; social closeness protects people.” That includes reaching out to people who live alone, masking to protect others, and so on. As a reminder, we were uniquely bad to prisoners and nursing home residents, who died at much higher rates than in other countries, in part because of how little we did to support the people who were supposed to take care of them. At the same time, individual Americans often wanted very much to help others—one of the things that motivated the Black Lives Matter protests, along with “biographical availability”—that is, being able to show up because other things weren’t in the way.
Perhaps surprisingly, loneliness didn’t rise much if at all—people responded to physical isolation by reaching out in other ways. But “structural isolation”—"feeling abandoned by government or marginalized by society at large—was a greater emotional burden than they had anticipated.” People who lived alone missed touch, but—as I recall—people who lived with others “had a hard time dealing with the loss of their option to not be alone.” Social infrastructure like public parks was really important, as was some way to engage in collective action. Migrants were at higher risk of emotional distress, as were women.
Klinenberg argues that it’s not enough to blame US individualism, especially given our strong history of voluntarism; Americans are more likely to go religious services and get married than Europeans, and “America’s underlying proclivities for violence don’t explain why homicides dropped so precipitously in the decades leading up to the pandemic.” Instead, he points to specific choices. Trump’s endorsement of violent rhetoric increased violence, including notable spikes in assaults wherever he had rallies. Unlike most other places, “instead of coordinated collective action, Americans would largely be free to do as they pleased.” Trump “urged citizens to distrust scientific experts and gave tacit permission to ignore public health guidelines that they disliked.” This was corrosive to the functioning of civil society, and it feeds on itself—you have to look out for yourself, because no one else will, though maybe the people most like you may share your interests. In surveys, “Denmark, Sweden, South Korea, and Australia—all countries with contentious politics” still had a majority of respondents say that their nation “is now more united than before the coronavirus outbreak.” In France, Germany, Japan, and the U.K., the numbers were between 39 and 47. The United States “was the one clear outlier in the study, in a class by itself,” with only 18% agreeing. We are not ready for the next time.… (more)