"Alone Together" by Jennifer Senior: A Singletude Response

On November 23, "Alone Together" was the cover story of New York Magazine. Since I love it when the mainstream media addresses singles issues, I dashed over here to tell you about it. Unlike those brief pop newsflashes with their useless trivia ("4 of 5 Single Women Say they Want to Get Married,"anyone?), this article has heft and meat, even if I got the sense that a few of the marital stats used to dress up this hearty fare had passed their expiration date. Overall, though, the article takes an in-depth look at living single in the country's most populated metro center and, in the end, reaffirms it as a natural and healthy condition.

The fact that singles now live alone in one of every two New York City apartments prompted writer Jennifer Senior to question the stereotype of the lonely, isolated cat lady. In the process, although she trots out the same overblown Waite and Gallagher statistics about how much happier and healthier married people are (see my review of Dr. Bella DePaulo's Singled Out to better understand how this data is manipulated to support an agenda), she ultimately uncovers the truth that has quietly shaped half the American population--that social health is about depth and variety of connection, not marriage. And due to that finding, it should come as no surprise that, despite their tough veneer, cities are often the most fertile grounds for establishing and maintaining all-important social networks. Here are some of the article's highlights:

*Even though people are more likely to live alone in urban environments as opposed to less populated areas, city dwellers are less likely to feel lonely.
*Singles feel more connected when surrounded by other singles and are therefore less likely to be lonely in the city than out in the 'burbs.
*The unhappily married feel lonely as often as or more often than singles.
*A large network of close friends and acquaintances increases happiness and health as much as a good marriage. Urbanites tend to have more friends.
*Singles tend to have more friends and leave home to socialize more frequently than couples.
*Intimate friendships aren't the only benchmark of emotional health. Casual acquaintances (i.e., friends of friends) and colleagues increase our sense of well-being, too.
*The Internet communication that so many in the young single generation favor, long vilified for its propensity to isolate, is, in fact, a valuable means of socialization.
*Living alone in itself may provide personal satisfaction due to its association with maturity, independence, and achievement.

Senior fleshes out these claims with research evidence, expert interviews, and some editorializing that seems mostly on the mark and singles-friendly. She also raises a point that resonated with me and might with you, too. Specifically, if you are among the millions of professional singles who never step off the workaday treadmill, you may be particularly vulnerable to loneliness because your--pardon the pun--single-minded attention to work may preclude developing social contacts. I have to admit right about now I'm hearing strains of "People who need people/Are the luckiest people in the world..."

Now I know there are some critics who will be offended by the article's unabashed crushing on NYC and cities in general. In its defense, when I lived in a semi-rural area, I did feel more lonely than I do now, although I suspect that was due more to a difference of perception than actual hours spent socializing. Still, the potential for connection, as desired, that teems right outside my door in a big city is itself a comfort that I didn't have in a small town, and perhaps that sense of connectedness is almost as important as time spent in the presence of others. Nevertheless, while cities may be hotbeds for happening singles, the most important factor in your social success is how dedicated you are to cultivating connections. Even in a city as enormous as New York, like Senior, I am easily isolated by my work if I don't consciously make time for family, friends, dating, and outside activities.

In any event, I am pleased to see a high-profile magazine put a mostly positive spin on singlehood, confronting the myth of loneliness head-on and discrediting it. I observe so many writers purporting to do the same, who instead end up infusing their articles with nagging doubts about whether all those seemingly happy singles are really just donning a brave facade, intentionally hoodwinking traditionalists, or disconnecting from their true emotions. Senior takes the opposite approach, addressing prejudices right away and dispelling them. Whether you're a denizen of Greenwich Village or the plains of Wyoming, I encourage you to read this portrait of the coming era for singles.


What do you think about Senior's assertions in "Alone Together"? If you live alone, do you feel lonely? Do you think any loneliness that you feel is either ameliorated or exacerbated by the size of the town or city in which you live? Do you think you spend more time socializing and have more acquaintances than your coupled friends do? Do you find your social network as emotionally satisfying as a romantic relationship?


Fun Link of the Day


(This is your reference point for the dubious marital stats.)




Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!

Forbes Best Cities for Singles, 2008

I'm late to the game on this one, folks, but on September 4, 2008, Forbes announced its annual rankings of the most singles-friendly American cities. This year, Atlanta tops the list, bumping last year's champ, San Francisco, to second best, while Dallas takes home the bronze.

The cities were rated on six factors--number of singles, culture, nightlife, job growth, cost of living, and online dating activity. Atlanta's solid scores on job growth and nightlife propelled it to first place. Although San Francisco scored poorly on job growth and cost of living, it held onto second because it houses more singles than any other U.S. city (a whopping 30% of its residents are unmarried) and has a thriving cultural scene. Last year's runner-up, New York, dropped to eighth in view of its inflated cost of living, stalled job growth, and stagnant online dating scene. Dallas, on the other hand, saw a meteoric rise from ninth to third due to its affordability, job growth, and hot nightlife, even as former third-place finisher, Los Angeles, plummeted to sixteenth, following New York's downward trajectory for the same reasons. Rounding out the top 10 were Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Boston, New York, Orlando, and Phoenix. The worst city for singles was Jacksonville, sitting dead last in fortieth place.

Cities boasting a claim to number one in any category included the aforementioned San Fran for most singles, L.A. for richest culture, NYC for hippest nightlife, Austin for fastest job growth, San Antonio for most affordable cost of living, and Charlotte for most happening online dating scene. Their counterparts languishing at the bottom of the ladder were Tampa-St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Charlotte (a city of extremes, apparently), Milwaukee, New York (another city of extremes), and Memphis. To see a complete list of cities and how they fared among singles, click here.

A cursory glance at these results suggests that Texas is muy caliente, which should come as no surprise to those who are used to its blistering summers. The Southeast, however, is a mixed bag, and the Rust Belt and Midwest aren't exactly singles meccas.

Of course, not everyone will agree with some of the measures used to draw these conclusions. For instance, the nightlife rating was determined by calculating the total restaurants, bars, and nightclubs per person. However, a report on the quantity of eateries in a metro area says nothing of their quality or attractiveness to the single population. As another example, only data from Match.com was used to assess each city's online dating culture, a measurement which excludes many other online dating heavyweights. For a more detailed explanation of the scoring system, read this.

Still, the Forbes study, fast becoming the definitive ranking system for singles searching for a change of pace via a change of place, provides valuable data that not only reveals which cities are home to the most singles but how each city serves its singles. So if you like to hit the bars on the weekend, you may want to pack your bags for New York, whereas if you intend to circulate online, Charlotte might be more your speed. Wherever you hang your hat, though, take your positive singletude with you!


Do you live in or near any of the cities on the Forbes Best Cities for Singles list? If so, how do you think your city stacks up? Do you think the measures used for this study can provide valid conclusions about which cities are best for singles? If not, what measures would you use?


Fun Link of the Day


Do you have a question for Clever Elsie about some aspect of the single life? Have a rant or rave about singlehood? Write in, and you just might see your question in a Singletude Q&A or your rant or rave in a Singletude Sound-off!