Tom Jobim and João Gilberto, in the song entitled “Wave”, which they composed together, say that “it is impossible to be happy alone”. Was it the world view they brought, were they just giving a poetic sense to the composition or is there even some truth in the statement? As far as is known, of his 67 years of life, Tom lived single for only the first 19 years of his youth, and his partner João Gilberto went through four consecutive marriages until his death in 2019. to believe that there is no other way to be happy, according to the reference they have built for themselves.
But would this apply to everyone in general? Myth or truth? For millennia, the sacred commandment of “Grow up and multiply” has been applied to men and women in a literal and obligatory way. Assumed as a "natural rule", the recipe for growing, choosing a partner and procreating remained unchanged for any living species on the planet until very recently, while it was believed that happiness would be directly linked to this "natural order of things", as was defended by the psychologists of the time. And it is not uncommon to find scholars of the human psyche categorically stating that lonely people are more likely to develop physical and mental disorders because of loneliness, which raises this important question: not living next to another person could be synonymous with unhappiness or even a premature death sentence stemming from isolation and depression?
Such a belief is currently quite questionable. And the difference would not be in the routine followed by people themselves, but in the way we understand the meaning of life itself, starting with the cultural issue at the time of our parents until the concepts assimilated later. When we talk about the influence generated by culture, we cannot ignore the widespread beliefs in that historical period of 40 or 50 years ago, when remaining without a partner – deliberately or circumstantially – was clearly perceived as an anomaly. For parents at the time, if a young man took too long to reveal an interest in girls, suspicions about his virility began to be raised, or they sought to find out if he had a psychic problem, such as exaggerated shyness, for example, or even hormonal.
Among the girls, what was frightening was the context of prejudice that they would inevitably face with the label of “spinster”, the rejected girl who did not arouse interest to the point of “staying for auntie”. It should be said in passing that the image of the “spinster” was not just that of the “poor thing” who could not get married, but that of irreversible inclusion in a context of prejudice that condemned her to isolation even by her schoolmates, who saw her as a threat to your relationship. Treating them close to prostitutes, the families watched over them so that they did not hit on their men, easy targets – according to the widespread belief – of these “minds”, who invariably offered themselves in search of adventure, since they had no men to control them.
“Catch your goats, my goat is loose”, was the popular saying most common in that period of explicit oppression on young people so that they would not delay the moment to look for their partners. And if, for those who did not live at that time, a statement like this can come as a legend, those who are over 50 have no doubt what it meant – having lived it or witnessed it among friends – and the strength that such a thought had for influence your life. The fear was so real that parents of girls began to move to marry them as soon as they reached adolescence, and boys were not infrequently initiated in sexual life by their own parents, who took them to brothels, when an eventual refusal was a reason for constraints or even severe punishments. Parents who had children resisting the “rite of passage” or evading husband suitors, in turn, suffered strong social pressure, which is why they themselves took the lead in the “problem solution”.
The recurring practice was to follow the guideline of encouraging debauchery with boys, and of modesty under surveillance exercised over girls. In order to do so, the parents acted actively, to the point that the boy's virile performance and sexist posture was a subject to be proud of in family circles, as well as offering a "dowry" to attract the daughters' suitor not having the connotation of buying a husband for her. they. Young people from the age of 18 were systematic victims of widespread social bullying, starting with their own parents, who monitored their behavior in every possible and imaginable way. Early and “eternal” marriages, therefore, were the rule, the only shortcut to getting rid of this external pressure, even if this condemned the children to live in solitude for two. Among women, the model was to close their eyes to the parallel life of their husbands, who would later get involved with those who really interested them; and among men, the consensus prevailed that “now I can do whatever I want”.
You may also like
- Discover the two states full of learning: loneliness and solitude!
- Get inspired by movies, songs and books that talk about loneliness
- Learn how loneliness can bring healing in certain moments of life
We know today that many “happy marriages” at that time were far from an honest and respectful relationship between people, reflecting only the hypocrisy of a society that encouraged male chauvinism and female submission, thus sponsoring the unhappiness of both behind their lives. a curtain of harmony and false moralism.
Fortunately in these new times, the context of relationships has evolved to more honest perceptions of people's emotions, and to more subtle practices than those of that time. One of them was to technically separate concepts such as solitude and solitude, the latter so recent that, when typed on modern computers, its automated correctors may not identify it as an integral word in the language. The reason is simple: if people are still not clear on the difference, it is natural that they do not include it among the entries in digital dictionaries, and even in Word it appears underlined by an error line.
But as for you, who are reading this now, do you already understand the distinction between solitude and loneliness? It would not be surprising that he saw them as synonyms, even though, more and more, the terms take on very different meanings. “Loneliness” refers to something internal and not always visible to the observer, and that installs itself slowly and gradually until it completely takes possession of its victim. On the other hand, “loneliness” is characterized by a deliberate choice to be alone. As its consequences are almost always known only by those who experience them, it is natural that many still find it difficult to understand the real difference between one and the other. The individual suffering from loneliness is a “carrier”, as we say of someone who has contracted a disease, since he finds himself taken by it in a similar way, no matter if at the level of a temporary syndrome, prolonged disorder or permanent depression. The same cannot be said of those who adopt solitude as a way of touching their lives, since they place themselves as the active subject of a choice and not as a victim of something over which they cannot exercise control.
Thus, we have well characterized the effects of one and the other on the human mind, referring the reader to the question that gave the title to this text: can someone be alone and still be happy? The answer is yes! Because, as we have already seen, when it comes to loneliness – involuntary and unwanted – its impact on this individual will hardly be positive, leading him to go through a trajectory of unhappiness and suffering. And don't underestimate its potential to produce damage, because if nothing is done about it, loneliness can evolve into increasingly serious emotional, physical and spiritual effects, resulting from insecurity, fear, self-depreciation, lack of love- or a feeling of nihilism, with consequences that can take the person to extremes, such as the desire to take their own life.
Solitude, on the other hand, can result not only in an emotional state under control, but also be accompanied by an intense feeling of happiness due to the many advantages it can produce, depending on who adopts it, and who might not experience it otherwise. This is because it only concerns the state of privacy that one chose to maintain, and in which experiencing a certain degree of isolation is not associated with suffering, but with pleasure.
Some currents that defend the need for socialization of the human species may wonder if such a choice would be a normal thing. Here is another important question: how would the human concept of “normality” be defined, if not as a parameter based on an alleged (and mistaken) uniformity of the whole? This idea starts from the premise that the “herd effect” would be a situation inherent to our species, and whoever rejected it would constitute the “anomalous” portion of humanity. However, we know that this is not the case, and that the world advances much more because of the minority that breaks the barrier of the mediocre than because of the majority that reproduces the rule. Audacity, as we know, is not a virtue of those who reject the idea of ​​integrating the exception, and that explains everything.
As will be shown, the routine that does not include the presence of another person can bring a wide range of possibilities, which would be unfeasible in a traditional environment of conviviality. The list of benefits can even surpass the disadvantages many times, depending on the degree of autonomy of those who opt for it, and which can extend from the merely emotional to the physical field to the point of changing the person's entire life context for the better. . Let's look at some examples:
• Decisions may prove to be safer, as they are not subject to hesitations arising from conflicting views;
• What is seen as an exhausting routine in everyday life can become a permanent learning opportunity, when all creativity is put at the service of simplifying tasks;
• The activity agenda can prove to be much more useful and productive, filled only with what improves the quality of life;
• Dealing only with what is good for you, without the interference of other people's moods, the emotional receives a substantial "upgrade" in terms of tranquility and distance from conflicts;
• Time can be programmed to cultivate more positive practices, with significant effects, both physically and emotionally;
• Health suffers fewer setbacks when we take care of our own food, which is not tied to other people's preferences;
• The range of activities becomes more pleasurable based on conscious choices in line with personal skills;
• You are completely free to choose whatever gives you more pleasure and less obligation;
• The ability to concentrate is greatly increased as it is not subject to constant external interruptions;
• To get rid of an aggressive or unpleasant scene, just change the channel or change the screen for a book, for example;
• Solitude makes it possible to eliminate any and all opportunities to incorporate harmful habits “by osmosis”;
• Criteria are established to define priorities;
• By organizing your life in a personal way, you have much more free time to take care of yourself;
• The distribution of tasks throughout the day is more rational as it is free of pressure;
• The way in which the economy is dealt with undergoes profound adjustments, as expenses are directed towards what is effectively necessary or cost-effective, in the face of a pleasure that compensates for the sacrifice.
Of course, the advantages are not limited to what was listed above, and even if you discover some things that you can't do without someone's company. But nothing prevents that they can be done when together with friends or using a circumstantial company without having to give up the solitude that is committed to preserving. There will always be like-minded people to share moments that ask for company, without giving up either thing. Otherwise, there would be no ascetics in absolute harmony with their decision to spend the rest of their lives in a cave in the mountains, or inhabitants of lost paradises who go against their origins to marry and have children in the most polluted city on the planet. And if there's one thing that behavioral scholars have been observing for some time and increasingly agreeing with each other, it's that it doesn't matter whether you choose to be alone, together with someone in the traditional format or in a gay relationship, to have a new company every week or if you opted for a polyamorous romance until the last of your days: the formula will always be valid as long as the choice is yours and it leaves you well with yourself, convinced that you have found the best way to be happy. The rest is detail!
