Читать книгу The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов - Страница 13

As noted above, there remain competing hypotheses regarding the nature of solitude and its implications for well‐being. Indeed, these fundamentally opposed differential characterizations of solitude represent the most pervasive theme in the historical study of solitude as a psychological construct. From its early roots through to today, researchers have sought to depict and portray solitude as inherently “bad” versus “good.” As we will see, these attempts to singularly define the implications of solitude for well‐being as an either/or dichotomy appear to represent an oversimplification of what has emerged as a much more complex phenomenon.

The notion that solitude has negative consequences has a long history and can literally be traced back to biblical times (Genesis 2:18, And the LORD God said “It is not good for the man to be alone”). For example, from an evolutionary perspective, solitude is maladaptive because social affiliations are essential to the survival of the human species, offering protection against predators, cooperative hunting, and food sharing (Barash, 1977; Hamilton, 1964; Trivers, 1971). Notwithstanding, many theorists and researchers have also long called attention to positive aspects of being alone (Middleton, 1935; Merton, 1958; Zimmerman, 1805; for a review, see Long & Averill, 2003). For example, over 300 years ago, Montaigne (1685) argued that individuals should strive for experiences of solitude not only as a respite from societal pressures, but also to free themselves from dogma, conventional ways of thinking, and the power of the group. This highlights two domains that have endured as consistently ascribed benefits to spending time alone, namely that solitude is an important and unique context for restoration (Staats & Hartig, 2004) and personal growth (Maslow, 1968).

Historical theoretical arguments regarding the costs and benefits of solitude have come from a wide range of psychological perspectives. For example, developmental psychologists have asserted that excessive solitude during childhood can cause psychological pain and suffering (Freud, 1930), damage critically important family relationships (Harlow, 1958), impede the development of the self‐system (Mead, 1934), and prevent children from learning from their peers (Piaget, 1926). Yet, other developmentalists have espoused the notion that solitude provides a facilitating environment for psychological maturity, self‐discovery, and self‐realization, particularly during critical periods for development such as infancy/early childhood (Winnicott, 1958) and adolescence (Larson, 1990).

Social psychologists consider affiliation with others to be a basic human need (Horney, 1945; Shipley & Veroff, 1952), and the failure to meet this need to belong can have profoundly negative implications for well‐being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Yet, social psychologists also argue that when solitude is autonomously motivated (i.e., derived from finding value or interest in the activity, Deci & Ryan, 2000), it is experienced more positively and can serve as a context for self‐regulation, stress reduction, and restoration (Berman et al., 2008; Leung, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2018).

From the perspective of clinical psychology, social isolation has been traditionally viewed as a target criterion for intervention (Lowenstein & Svendsen, 1938), and as a symptom of several psychological disorders (DSM‐I; APA, 1952). Yet, it has also been suggested that creativity and artistic talents may develop in response to long periods of painful social isolation (Middleton, 1935; Storr, 1988; Thoreau, 1854).

Contemporary approaches to the psychology of solitude now acknowledge that time alone is neither inherently good nor bad, and that solitude has a very complex relationship with well‐being (Coplan et al., 2018). In trying to decipher these complexities, researchers have started to focus on the different causes of solitude, and how those causes contribute to different consequences of being alone. As well, we are just beginning to understand how contextual factors might impact the pathways linking the causes and consequences of solitude. In this regard, these approaches ask how, for whom, and under what circumstances, do experiences of solitude differentially contribute to costs and benefits of well‐being?