1.	What is Deresiewicz’s thesis?

Deresiewicz claims that due to the continuous ability of direct communication between people of the younger generation as well as the various technologies present to “solve” the issue of boredom, they equate solitude, the antithesis of the connectedness that they desire, to loneliness, an undesirable and shunned state, and as a result overcompensate by replacing it in its entirety with socialization through various forms of media.

After claiming that the modern self yearns to be recognized and acknowledged by others to satisfy its self-definition in his introduction, Deresiewicz states that “Technology is taking away our privacy and our concentration, but it is also taking away our ability to be alone” (92). Deresiewicz believes that isolation is vital in defining ourselves not only to others, but to us as well. He further explains by clarifying that it is our willingness to use technology to communicate with one another and not technology itself which is resulting in our lack of isolation.

Deresiewicz provides examples in which students of his fear just the prospect of being alone and as such work together for independent assignments. By work together I don’t mean collaborate; rather work within the vicinity of one another for the company and its effect of comfort. He uses statements made by psychologists which claim “our brains developed to interpret complex social signals” (96). We are so influenced by what others have to think or say about it, it is directly affecting the workings of our brain. Deresiewicz believes “we no longer believe in the solitary mind” and that what we do rarely is solely for ourselves and often incorporates the thoughts of others (96).


2.	Would you characterize his claim as one of fact?  One of value?  Explain your choice with examples.

While Deresiewicz does make several statements regarding the usage of social media, he fails to provide any concrete evidence of it in the form of statistics and instead uses personal anecdotes and general belief to get his point across. One such statement is shown after he acknowledges the Internet along with its benefits where he claims “Now we are sending text messages on our cellphones, posting pictures on our Facebook pages, and following complete strangers on Twitter” (94). Conveniently, Deresiewicz does not acknowledge that not all of us are doing these things, though it may be implied. However, each of these statements has their own benefits. We may need to message people for notification, or post pictures of documentation of the things we’ve done, or adding strangers to garner a larger following for a fundraiser. While it is true that we need to ensure that we do these things to a certain extent, Deresiewicz does not explicitly state what that extent is nor does he provide data for any of these occurrences. So while he does make many claims, said claims lack objectivity and proof, namely in the form of facts.

Throughout his essay, he regularly refers to various cultural areas from romanticism to modernism and post modernism along with each of their societal values at the time. Even disregarding era-based values, those of his own are often present in his essay.  Deresiewicz explains how isolation has progressed from a valued state to an avoided one. While this causality may imply a claim of fact; the actual benefits lost are values, the merits of which are evident in his writing. Deresiewicz values the benefits of being alone and requests that we look at them also before we fall into an era in which all of our isolation is replaced with communication, rendering it ineffective and useless.

3.	What types of evidence does he use to support his claim?  Again, be specific and provide examples.

Deresiewicz employs the use of various types of evidence to get his point across. The first to be used in his essay is anecdotal. He details how the relative of a teenager told him that said teenager sent 3000 messages a recent month, totaling up to about one every 10 waking minutes. Not only does he not know their waking minutes, but he makes an unjust assumption that the teenager has never been alone for more than 10 minutes using false data extrapolation. It is more than likely that the majority of those messages were sent together at the same time. However, he claims that “she’s never alone for more than 10 minutes at once. Which means, she’s never alone” (92). As someone who does text semi regularly, I can verify that my communication is not equally distributed in my waking time and often, if not always stems from what I am doing at the time. If I’m working on an assignment, it’s sure to be less than if I were watching TV.

Deresiewicz also often uses testimonial evidence, namely in the form of beliefs and values of various scholars and societies in a general time period to show how beliefs have changed and progressed throughout the development of humanity. He utilizes the subconscious belief that what is older tends to be wiser to get his point across. Deresiewicz explains how the prospect of isolation has slowly been eschewed and correlates to how cultural trends and beliefs have progressed over time.

Building off of the proofs provided by the works which he cited, Deresiewicz uses analogical evidence to compare and clarify what he is trying to explain to us. Unfortunately, many of his examples are lost on me as I am unfamiliar with the works cited, such as Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway or references to various speeches such as Thoreau’s analogy of “fishing ‘in the Walden Pond of [our] own natures’” (96).

4.	What do Deresiewicz’s vocabulary and citations indicate about his target audience?  (who is he ‘speaking’ to in presenting his argument?)

In regards to Deresiewicz’s continuous referral of various historical essayists, philosophers, and critics as well as the high level of vocabulary used, he seems to be directing his paper to scholars which have a knowledge and lexicon of those particular fields of study or students currently learning about them. The general education an average student receives wouldn’t be enough for them to understand the various references and analogies placed in his paper.  He often refers to academics such as Thoreau, Emerson, Woolf, Freud, and a slew of others to get his point across. Only those who have extensively studied these scholars would understand their works and Deresiewicz’s comparison of them. Not only does he reference their beliefs, but also specific works and novels of theirs such as Mrs. Dalloway and the occurrences that happened within them. Deresiewicz also uses various cultural and religious terminologies such as “the sadhu and the yogi”, a primarily Indian term referencing devout followers (92).

5.	What does Deresiewicz want his readers to do or think about?

Deresiewicz wants his readers to be more self-aware of their actions and how their rejection of isolation is ultimately leading to their downfall and isolating them from themselves. He wants them to acknowledge that the various states of idleness, boredom, isolation, and solitude are not synonymous with one another and that they are often created by us as a result of the others. According to him, these states are not necessarily negative and are vital for self-realization. His essay provokes us to think about this cultural belief that isolation is bad rather than directly give us an alternative or a way to overcome this fear of loneliness. Deresiewicz wants readers to view solitude through other perspectives and potentially grow to think of it on a positive note rather than a negative one. He does however acknowledge the negative connotations that come as a result of doing so, even going so far as to say “solitude… isn’t very polite” (98). In an era where we are pushed to acknowledge and respect the beliefs and feelings of others, it can feel very alienating to go against the norm, even though in doing so we are creating a new norm. A norm that people may be afraid to go against in the future.  Deresiewicz implores us to remember that “to hold oneself apart from society, is to begin to think one’s way beyond it” (97). If we want to progress this society, we can’t think within the limitations of this society.