I’m beginning to understand that loneliness is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.
I’ve found that when I am able to coach myself into expecting nothing from others, I am truly self-sufficient; I don’t need or miss anything in the form of a contribution from another person. However, when I think of companionship as a right that I have earned in exchange for my own contributions, or as a God-given right due to the nature of my existence as a part of a social context, then I become angry, sad, and lonely.
So if loneliness exists only within a specific framework of expectation, then does it exist at all? And if it does, does that matter, and is it inherently “bad”? In my experience, the expectation of companionship not only defines loneliness, but begets it. On this premise, to understand loneliness, we must examine the concept of companionship.
Companionship is a “meeting of minds”. It is a state wherein two or more people (for the sake of simplicity, I will focus on two) understand and appreciate each other in whole or in part, and this is mutually comprehended; at some times and in some relationships it is a learning process. Is there anything in this that is beneficial? Perhaps, in the ideal. But does the ideal ever exist in reality? Whether it’s well-intentioned advice on marriage given by a person who does not know either party involved, pithy “advice” intended to drag another down into the mud from which he worked very hard to crawl, passive-aggressive behavior engaged in order to force a spouse into a parental role, or more obvious forms of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse, relationships are defined not by attempts to foster companionship, but by violence. One does everything one can to force the other to become one’s concept of what the other should be. Stuffing another into a box is always violent, because the box of one’s preconceptions will always be too small; sometimes it only results in a squished nose, but at other times one must hack off limbs.
I do not accept this violence as companionship. I do not accept it as desirable. Yet I have never known anyone on an everyday basis who is willing, or perhaps able, to engage at a higher level. I can think of a few people whom I suspect would be capable, but practical experience assures me that this is only because I don’t know them well enough to know better.
Violence works. If one submits to it, one will not be able to avoid changing: in ways determined by others. Given the alternative of “companionship” that is exclusively available as a series of violent acts, I submit that loneliness is not a bad thing, but a very good thing. Embracing loneliness may in fact be the only way to maintain and build one’s self in the direction one wishes.
However, embracing loneliness can have some awkward consequences. Isolation erodes social skills. In someone (like myself) who possesses only marginal skills to begin with, this can become a source of embarrassment. For example, the anxiety I now experience even around people I like is intense enough that I limit my time around others, and the amount of time I find tolerable diminishes each year.
Embracing loneliness inspires resentment. The world accepts the substitution of violence for companionship, and a person who does not becomes a focal point for the bitterness of others. For example, I genuinely (not sarcastically) say, “Please”, “Thank you”, and “May I” - to everyone. Even my husband. I do this as an acknowledgment of the humanity, dignity, and separateness of the person to whom I am speaking. I do not have the right to demand anything of another; I can only make a request, which the other has the right to honor or deny. [Oh yes, I do make demands of my husband. But all things being equal and when we're not fighting, I use the "magic words".] My husband has recently been explaining to me that politeness is offensive, because others see it as erecting a barrier. I have two observations about this. One: the barrier exists, I do not build it; Two: the people who find politeness offensive are exclusively those whose relationships with themselves and others are confined and defined by contempt.
Finally, embracing loneliness leaves one misunderstood. One who does not engage in false intimacy, one who does not justify and explain oneself, will be judged within the hearts of others according to the limits of those other hearts. Politeness used in relating to another who understands only contempt will be interpreted as a “slap in the face”. Kindness expressed to another who is not capable of kindness will not be interpreted as kindness. Delight expressed in the presence of another who is not capable of delight will not be interpreted as delight. One who embraces loneliness must accept this as unchangeable and, in the end, unimportant:
because the price to pay for loneliness is heavy, but the reward is greater yet:
the lonely person is free:
free to live fully, abundantly, without help but also without hindrance:
to make life whatever he so wishes and wills:
to fathom the depths of joy:
to live.