Why do Americans feel disconnected at this moment in history? I suggest two reasons:
First, we are likely to marry later: at age 21 in 1950-1960 and at age 29 in 2024 [1]. Marriage helps to connect people to their spouse and/or their children. This might make young people feel less connected.
Second, and more importantly, sociologist Robert Putnam has noted a decline in social capital over time – specifically in the United States. He write:
“The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all “social networks” [who people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [“norms of reciprocity”].”
Social capital can be measured in a variety of ways. Sometimes, sociologists ask the question in a survey: “do you think most people are trustworthy?” An affirmative answer (from many people) indicates that that particular country is high in social capital. Another way to measure social capital has to do with simply counting up how much time people spend in voluntary associations (voluntary social networks, such as bowling leagues, charitable organizations, and so on.)
Putnam noted that social capital increased in the United States from about 1890 – when it was fairly low – to 1960 – when it was at its highest point. Then it declined from about 1960 until today.
Several variables have tended to change along with social capital:
1. Economic equality. Society was relatively unequal in the Gilded Age around 1890, when robber barons like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were in charge. It became more equal by the 1960s, or (more broadly) the “great leveling”, which was a period from about 1940-1970 of maximum economic equality. After that, society became less economically equal again.
2. Political polarization. Political polarization was very high in the late 1800s; the Republicans and Democrats were always at odds, but accomplished little. By the 1960s, polarization decreased, to the point where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be passed in the senate by a vote of 73 to 27, by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats.
The big question, then, is why social capital increased and then decreased again. Putnam suggests that the 1960s were a “hinge point” that led to cultural disagreements.
Disagreements about cultural values make voluntary associations difficult to manage, because we cannot decide how to talk about these issues within our organization. I suggest that these disagreements are also related to differences about which enemy to fight or which problem to solve. For example, if our society can’t agree on whether to be more socialist or more capitalist, more religious or more secular, it’s harder to organize for or against either one.
I personally don’t know how to make America agree on these issues – it’s just not my area of specialty. However, I will focus on one topic – cultural disagreements about relationships – that I think is important to Nexus State Theory. Nexus State Theory provides advice about relationships in the form of valuing both being by oneself and being with others. This is important because it’s somewhat removed from the kinds of cultural questions that people have been divided about.
Advice that goes beyond “types of masculinity”
Nexus State Theory doesn’t posit that men and women approach relationships differently, or that different relationship advice is applicable to men vs. women. In this way, Nexus State Theory avoids the issues of “toxic masculinity” and other gendered concerns. This is not to say that toxic masculinity isn’t a real thing – it’s just not what Nexus State Theory is about.
Suppose one has managed to be less toxically masculine? Then what? Is there any further advice that transcends gender stereotypes? This work is meant to be that kind of advice.
A 2025 Atlantic article notes that “Teens Are Forgoing a Classic Rite of Passage,” i.e. dating [2]. The author writes:
“Even under conditions of a gender cold war, many girls might get on fine—but boys could suffer more. When psychologists told me that young people can flourish in the absence of romance, that was assuming they have close friends to rely on and to teach them social graces (including one as simple as making conversation). Boys and young men, who aren’t as likely to have such tight bonds, tend to learn those skills from women. Maybe they have a sister or a mother or female friends who can help with that—but if not, Cox told me, being single might put them at a real emotional and developmental disadvantage. That might make them less prepared to date.”
The author is arguing, it would seem, that just saying “don’t be toxic” isn’t enough to teach “social graces” to boys and young men in particular. And yet, the boys “learn those skills from women,” suggesting that the skills themselves aren’t all that gendered after all. From this perspective, it may be helpful to have a theory of relating that, like Martin Buber’s I and Thou philosophy, doesn’t refer to gender at all. Again, not that gender can’t be worth talking about – it’s just not what I’m going to talk about. In the remainder of this work, there is not going to be much reference to “men” and “women,” if any. (There is not going to be too much reference to dating or relationships, for that matter – perhaps some at the end.)
Autonomous and dyadic optimism can be pursued at the same time
Nexus State Theory is meant to encourage optimism about both autonomous actions (such as meditation, walking in nature, and inventing helpful stories to give meaning to one’s actions) and dyadic actions (being with partners or friends). Neither autonomy nor dyadic interaction can be the sole answer to these concerns. Autonomy alone is not what most people want; but to always be with a partner is impossible. However, it is possible to have both autonomous and dyadic optimism at the same time. One can always be optimistic about both just as one can be optimistic about neither. If one works on enjoying being alone, one is not thereby sacrificing one’s connection with others. (And vice-versa.)
As one starts dating, it is possible to feel needy or to think that there is something wrong with being alone. Without sacrificing one’s drive or passion for being with others, it is helpful to have a sense of self that persists even when one is interested in others.
Attachment Theory
Attachment Theory was developed by many researchers. John Bowlby in the 1950s, Mary Ainsworth in the 1960s, and Mary Main in the 1980s contributed to the idea.
The central story in Attachment Theory is about the behavior of toddlers when separate from their parents. At around age two, the toddler is presented with the “Strange Situation Test” where their parent brings them to a room and leaves them alone with some toys. Most toddlers will become upset when this happens. If the toddler becomes upset, but is then consoled when their parent returns, they are said to be “secure.” If they become upset, but are inconsolable even when their parent returns, they are “anxiously attached” or “anxious-ambivalent.” And if they do not become upset even when the parent leaves, they are “avoidant.” However, the avoidant toddlers can be shown to be secretly distressed – if their vital signs are monitored, signs of stress are detectable.
The interpretation is that the parent of the secure toddler has responded to their needs in a “contingent” way – perhaps mirroring back their emotions in an “as if” or pretend way to show that the emotion is real, but is not distressing to the parent. The parent of the secure toddler might actually become distressed when the toddler becomes distressed. And the parent of the avoidant toddler might be more absent or nonresponsive.
When the toddler grows up, they often remain secure, anxious, or avoidant; this can be detected in a number of ways. One way is to administer a survey. Another is to interview the person about their childhood. In the latter case, the content of the interview responses is not what suggests an attachment type. Rather, if the person answers somewhat incoherently, they are thought to be insecurely attached – anxious or avoidant, depending on the type of incoherence. It is worth noting that insecure attachment is very common, and that most people have it to some degree. Anxiousness and avoidance are often plotted on two axes, so one can be more or less anxious and more or less avoidant. One can be both anxious and avoidant, for which the term “disorganized” is sometimes used. This is one origin of my comment that one can pursue both autonomous and dyadic optimism (one can also pursue neither): a securely attached person is optimistic about both while a person with more disorganized attachment is optimistic about neither.
I will suggest that Nexus State Theory is related to attachment in that anxiously attached individuals have more trouble being alone, while avoidantly attached individuals have more trouble being together. Therefore, attachment security involves having a positive expectation for both being alone and being with others – just as Nexus State Theory recommends. In this work, for the first three parts, I will focus on finding pleasure in being alone. In the fourth and last part, I will turn to dyadic regulation – finding value in being with others.
Love and kindness
I would suggest that concerns about attachment theory are less important than love and kindness. Love is possible even if one has low expectations about getting pleasure from being with others or by being alone. Love is irrational and powerful in that way. It is even possible to be loving and kind without being aware of any particular emotions: in my view, love and kindness are actions more than emotions; they reflect an implicit concern for others’ well-being. Therefore, I must view Nexus State Theory as secondary to concerns about love; however, the topic of love, like the topic of American politics, simply is not the central subject of this work. That said, as far as selecting a dyadic partner is concerned, the priority is not that they have a particular attachment type, but that they treat you (and you treat them) with love and kindness.
Passion and drive
One characteristic of our time is that many people are very passionate, politically. They have strong values and concerns. These concerns can be valid and I would argue that it is important to apply that passion to autonomous and dyadic regulation. As I have argued, having a neutral view of self and relationships is actually a valid response to our political situation.
[1] See Figure MS-2 in: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/marital.html
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2025/03/teen-dating-milestone-decline/681971/
Nexus State Theory 