Signs and objects in op-ed articles on loneliness in the US and Singapore newspapers: a semiotic interpretation

5.1 Thematic analysis

Our sensemaking of textual data, i.e., descriptions about loneliness, was guided by the principles of thematic analysis. As a grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1999), thematic analysis requires qualitative researchers to code, a process of assigning value to a foundational text of words, an interaction, description, speech, narration, or conversation (Anderson 2014). Coding invokes researchers to engage in a tedious process of reading, rereading, and explicating narrative texts so that concepts, patterns, themes, and even anomalies will come to the fore. Such concepts and themes can be broken down into subthemes, or these can be brought to a higher level of categorizing by coalescing them and creating overarching thematic concerns or splitting them up to see how subthemes can emerge. Anderson (2014) and Lindlof and Taylor (2011) called this process axial coding, in which researchers dig deep into textual data, make further categorizations of subthemes emerging from the narrative data, build connections, break down core themes into more specific and interconnected categories, find revealing patterns of thought, capture illuminating insights, and decide which major themes warrant a space in the analysis. For example, after listing down significant details, codes, or themes, one can pick three or four of these themes that are most interesting, related, or revealing so that a pattern can be noticed, or an overarching thematic concern can emerge. For instance, if we put together the themes “loneliness is a state of mind”, “loneliness is a deeply personal emotion occupying the human psyche”, and “loneliness is how one perceives it to be”, we can make a contention that loneliness resides in the mind (sign), and if individuals choose to be lonely, they can also choose not to be lonely (Cacioppo and Cacioppo 2018) and this is a deliberate choice they can always make (object). In short, loneliness resides in the mind (sign) which can grow immensely or diminish significantly depending on how the individual wants it to be (object), albeit dependent on the mental capacity of each individual to deal with this condition entangled with the freedom and will in making a choice, e.g., the choice of maintaining a positive mindset.

5.2 Hermeneutic interpretivism

Using thematic analysis and being constantly mindful of the fundamental elements of semiotic interpretation, the themes and patterns emerging from descriptions regarding loneliness helped us capture signs and symbols of loneliness (ideas that stand for something bigger), and the objects that they signify (their possible interpretations), with the three of us, the readers, researchers, and writers of this study, acting as interpretants of these sign-object relations (Peirce 1955). We are different individuals, but we were one with the texts in this interpretive journey. Despite our differences, we shared a common understanding. Despite our divergent ideas and beliefs about the topic in question (loneliness) and the world around us, we became the collective and holistic understanding that we have of this sign-object relation, and this understanding is captured both in our minds and the reader of this text right now interacting with us (insofar as understanding is happening within the cognitive capacity of the readers and their awareness of topic and context).

This method of sensemaking is hugely influenced by hermeneutic interpretivism or hermeneutic empiricism (Anderson 2014). Concerning the meaning of interpretation, hermeneutic interpretivism places value, validity, and bearing on the implications for symbolic human existence (Anderson 2014), and it treats interpretation in the context of fundamental philosophical questions about being and knowing, lived experience, symbols and their social meanings, and practical life (George 2020). As researchers of this study actively engaged in hermeneutic interpretation, our different selves, personalities, and idiosyncrasies gradually faded in the process, and our shared understanding of loneliness as a concept as depicted in written texts, along with our aesthetic yet grounded experience about the world in which we live and our interaction with others, came to the fore. As Ricoeur (1974) posited, hermeneutic interpretation makes apparent the plurality of meanings in a speech act or written text. It warrants deciphering the hidden meanings in the apparent meanings, in unpacking layers of meanings implied in the literal meanings so that a common understanding will come to the fore. Thus, through hermeneutic interpretivism, some meanings that are viewed as common, repressed, biased, or distorted can surface, and these sanction interpretivist researchers to pursue a more nuanced interpretation (George 2020) with a focus on the act of interpretation as their personalities dwindle. We achieved this through undertaking the role of an interpretant with focused attention on the signs and symbols evident in the descriptions of loneliness (captured in newspaper articles) as the subject of our hermeneutic interpretation allowing us to craft a horizon, a viewpoint, a nuanced understanding, a shared meaning and a new relationship in the lifeworld in juxtaposition to the authors’ descriptions on loneliness as a deep, melancholic human emotion.

5.3 Research questions

In this study, we attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. What signs do descriptive accounts about loneliness signify, and what objects do these significations suggest?

2. How do these sign-object relations accomplish awareness and understanding of loneliness as a deep and complex human emotion?

6.1 Loneliness is the absence of deep, meaningful human connection: the case of America

The rapid decline of deep, meaningful human connection is alarming. “… I made a critical mistake: I had largely neglected my friendships during my tenure, convincing myself that I had to focus on work,” told US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (The New York Times 2023). “Even when I was physically with the people I loved, I wasn’t present – I was often checking the news and responding to messages in my inbox… I felt ashamed to reach out to friends I had ignored. I found myself increasingly lonely and isolated, and it felt as if I was the only one who felt that way” added Murthy (2023), who, upon retirement, launched practical programs in the US to help Americans deal with this invisible and insidious emotion.

“… As the digital world captures more of our imagination and time, the material world recedes and becomes less real to us… We are made to enjoy the physical presence of other human beings. We are made to enjoy rainstorms or sunshine or walks in the woods. We are made to enjoy touchable things. We cannot escape or overcome this need through technology as it goes against the grain of our deepest human needs and longings” added Tish Harrison Warren (The New York Times 2022). She argued that technology has deprived us of the immense beauty and joy of spending time with our loved ones witnessing and feeling the rain, cracking jokes with friends, or enjoying a meal together with our families with all our senses fully activated – touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight. We spend less time noticing and interacting with this “touchable, smellable, feelable world” (Warren 2022). We seem to have lost sight of how it is to be human (Murthy 2023; Warren 2022).

Ward (2022) commented that the habit of Americans of choosing to be alone is dangerously startling and a striking departure from the past, in which technology, hectic lifestyle, and the persistent political divide have insidious roles to play. Americans rate activities as more meaningful and joyful with friends who are physically present because bodily interactions build deeper social connections producing memories that last a lifetime. However, he warned that “the sharp decline of our social lives is a worrisome development. Spending less time with friends is not a best practice by most standards, and it might contribute to other troubling social trends – isolation, worsening mental health (particularly among adolescents), rising aggressive behaviour, and violent crime” (The Washington Post 2022). A rising trend of isolationism in America worries medical and psychology experts because of its heavy mental toll on its people.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post seem to have shared this subtle, yet penetrating characteristic of loneliness gleaned from Americans, i.e., the menacing decline of deep, meaningful human connections between people – from their own families to the workplace, and other people around their networks such as their friends. Silence, detachment, and alienation are palpable. The consistent habit of isolating oneself is pervasive. Distancing oneself from the crowd is perceptible. However, despite being surrounded by a crowd of family, friends, and workmates, one might still feel lonely, isolated, and detached perhaps because no authentic and deep connection unravels in the relationship, and one can be left alone and lonesome in a big crowd. Almost everything seems to be a facade or make-believe. Relationships are superficial, and the social bond illusory.

“I am lonely” is the first sentence in Steven Petrow’s (2021) opinion article in The Washington Post (2021). “I have felt extremely lonely when I was not alone at all. There’s probably no more crushing loneliness than that experienced in a faltering relationship, which I realized during the end of my marriage” he added. Therefore, someone may be lonely but not isolated or they may be isolated but not lonely. One can definitely be lonely in a crowd (Chan et al. 2023). Loneliness, indeed, is a complex human emotion that can manifest itself in complex ways. Americans have become hugely atomized and polarized, addicted and distressed, and are a lonely crowd. They seem to need one another yet many decide to be isolated and be lonely (Kristof 2023). An “I”-focused world is inevitably a lonelier one (Hertz 2021), yet it seems that little is done in America to change this deleterious habit.

Reading and rereading the descriptions of the authors and the narratives of the characters in these descriptions in these American newspapers, we contend that seeking deep, meaningful human connections is a sign that awaits to be deciphered as it is a way for Americans to acknowledge and address loneliness becoming a threatening epidemic. Beyond the call for America’s health system to employ medical, clinical, or pharmaceutical interventions to cure the loneliness epidemic lies a simple but profound and fundamental tenet of being human: to seek, build, and maintain deep, authentic, and meaningful human connections possible through face-to-face, bodily conversations despite how mundane these conversations can be. Loneliness grows like a mammoth deep within Americans because of a plethora of reasons including the internet and advanced technology that disrupts human communication, increases work stress and societal expectations, and expands political polarisation, along with the rising capitalist and neoliberalist world that speeds up the pace of life and heightens the frustration and disappointment of American people. Therefore, loneliness, the outcome of diminishing human connections, emerged as a dominant sign in American newspapers warranting interpretation. “What does it mean? What object does this signify?” were the questions that were constantly etched in our minds.

Although we recognise the possibility that loneliness and being alone could also be a choice that can be an instrument for American people to cope with it driven by such desire to isolate themselves from a chaotic world, our persistent questioning led us to arrest a fundamental concept, that is, our material body has enormous power to connect with other human beings in its most authentic way in this material world in which we live. Our bodily existence allows us to see, feel, hear, smell, and notice the present moments, the now and the embodied self, as they unfold in our physical, material existence with others around us and the world, the reality in which we perceive and live (e.g., sharing a boisterous laugh with friends and family over jokes we used to hear over dinner). Our awareness of the power of the present as we enact our sense of self about the material world, along with how we become more cognizant of our senses and sensibilities, offers the tremendous possibility of making things happen as moments unfold in the present material world in which our consciousness of our bodily existence with this world becomes more vivid, palpable, and bears so much weight regardless of the joy or longing this may bring. These moments of now allow us to arrest serendipity and spontaneity, and nothing beats the power of our materiality or bodily existence with each other in the lifeworld to enjoy this spontaneity and serendipity of life.

Our bodily existence makes us more au courant with our reality and gives us strength to resist this penchant for something that is not there (e.g., mystery, fantasy, longing, or other forms of abstraction such as thinking about unreasonable expectations, desiring what is absent in the material world, or expecting the impossible to happen). This means that to deal with loneliness is to seek inner peace and calm with the self in the material world and to appreciate that our bodily existence with the physical world has the power to build, nurture, and sustain authentic human connections and worthwhile relationships (e.g., conversations with friends, dinner with family, hanging out over coffee with your partner or spouse, walking your dog in a park or the woods, playing chess with your workmate, having a drink after work, or bathing in the river or the rain). Simple yet real and human. To Hertz (2021), this also means “rushing less and stopping to talk more, whether to a neighbour, a postal carrier, or someone who appears to be lonely. It means breaking out of our self-suffocating digital privacy bubbles and engaging with those around us, even when our default is to scroll on our phones. It means showing more gratitude to those who care for others in society and saying thank you more to our partners, our friends, our colleagues”.

It also means that to deal with loneliness is for us to realize that meaning, joy, and fulfilment can be achieved through these physical activities for which our bodies and our senses are in sync with the pleasures, beauty, and suffering of life – smelling the petrichor of the coming rain, tasting a freshly baked local bread, touching the woods and rocks in the mountains, watching children play, and hearing the sounds of hummingbirds with the cold breeze from the mountains rippling through our skin, imploring us to tread down the distant past that enlivens past suffering, longing, and pain deposited in memories. We can achieve meaning and fight loneliness by understanding that our material existence with the world offers us enormous opportunities to do simple things that matter with people we care about which have a significant impact on our mind and bodily existence. As human beings, we tend to develop a habit of ignoring what is there, what can be seen, felt, touched, smelled, and tasted – the senses that make us human (Merleau-Ponty 1968; Murthy 2023; Warren 2022). We tend to desire something else, something that is beyond our reach, or something that is viewed as possible only in our wildest imagination. This object, the power of our material body to build intimate, deeper human connections in the real and material world, is a wake-up call to start rebuilding bridges and breaking fences that continually divide us. It is our way, a simple way, to rebuild deep human connections that we somehow take for granted, a medicine hiding in plain sight (Cummins and Zaleski 2023) requiring no or relatively little costs (Kristof 2023).

In this world in which we live, our material, temporal body is the most obvious perceived thing or object; however, this constant perception might lead to automaticity of perception. As a result, our very familiar, visible body tends to disappear in our very act of perception, or what is a commonly perceived body or object vanishes in plain sight (Shlokovsky 1917; on defamiliarization). We tend to take for granted our materiality; thus, we need to remind ourselves that our body is a powerful mechanism because of its inherent connection to our mind, our consciousness, or our soul. We become mindful of the space that our body occupies because we are conscious about it (In Descartes’s words, the fusion of material and mental substance, the blending of the res extensa or body, and the res cogitans or thinking). Perhaps, Americans are losing their deep, authentic human connections because of a growing disjuncture between their material body and their consciousness of the self and the social world, a despondent outcome of an increasingly capitalist, chaotic, and divisive world. Recalibrating back to paying close attention to our bodily existence exemplified by our breath, flesh, and the warmth of our blood, along with how our emotions are situated within our bodies connected to our psyche, we can argue that our bodily being-in-the-world has so much bearing with the socially constructed reality that we are confronted with. One of these realities is how feelings of loneliness and isolation can grow immensely inside us, within which our bodily existence with the world has a huge role to play.

We cannot neglect our actual bodiliness (Merleau-Ponty 1968) because this is the starting point of a reflective mind or lived consciousness. We should not marginalise the human body as “a mere abode of the mind but, on the contrary, the higher functions, including thought itself, should still be regarded as bodily functions referring not only to the human brain or the mind but to the whole body in its relational being-in-the-world” (Merleau-Ponty 1968) (italics ours for emphasis). To ignore the fundamental function of the human body in a fast-paced, capitalist, chaotic, and polarised society, and how our bodies have an inherent and profound link to our deeper consciousness and our moral decisions, is to succumb to the rising incidence of isolation, detachment, and loneliness that we are facing. As this continues, loneliness will become a widespread epidemic with unbearable fatal consequences to the human condition.

6.2 Loneliness made overt is a sign of human weakness: the case of Singapore

In Asian cultures, it seems difficult to openly talk about loneliness. In a culture that puts enormous efforts into celebrations, family gatherings, close-knit relations, rituals, and collectivism, some might portray a happy front on the surface, yet feel isolated, alone, and lonely deep inside (Tan 2018). In Singapore, young adults and the elderly might find it generally more acceptable to verbalize physical pains and illnesses, but it seems a taboo to confess some sense of sadness or loneliness deep inside them because this can be perceived as a moral failing, a lack of resilience, or not being able to live a fulfilling life (Ko 2021). In particular, elderly men in Singapore may feel the need to present a strong, stoical front, disengage from social interactions, express fewer emotions, and avoid seeking emotional or psychological help even if help is more than necessary (Ko 2021). This dangerous shift in emotions is evident yet remains hugely concealed leading to a development of a heightened sense of fear of their bleak and lonely future. They see themselves as a burden to their family which often escalates to existential concerns in which they question the meaning and purpose of continuing to live (Ko 2021).

From an interpersonal perspective, men may be socialized to be less expressive, choosing to shoulder burdens in life silently. They may be less willing to seek help from others, opting instead to face their challenges alone (Kuek 2023), a cultural trait that is palpable among Asian men as it seems to be ingrained since childhood. This could be because of the highly entrenched value of “face” that Asians espouse. Asians would tend to give “face”. Prestige, honour, status, dignity, and authority are all attributes to give to others, and also to be given by others (Yabuuchi 2004). Thus, they would also want to “save face”, which is to keep, at least the façade of it, the honour, status, dignity and authority that have been given to them. Thus, they try all means to save themselves from embarrassment or humiliation from a loss of “face’”, by not revealing anything about themselves that could be perceived as a weakness or flaw by others. Seeking help from others would be considered as a “loss of face”, and thus avoided at all costs.

“… Admitting that one is lonely can be uncomfortable for many people,” said Chan et al. (2023). “I’ve always cared about my family. Why is it that when I am older, no one seems to care about my matters? No one seems to ask if I’m okay, but I keep it within me [italics ours for emphasis],” Madam Khadija shared (as cited in Chan et al. 2023). She only dared to ask this question in front of Chan and her colleagues during a closed-door interview in 2023, but not once did she ask her son and grandson such a penetrating and disturbing question. All she showed was silence, albeit her facial expressions would manifest sadness and sorrow that, at most times, her family would ignore. “Even though we are physically present, we are not connecting with each other. If I talk to them, they will ignore me,” added Madam Lau, another research participant (as cited in Chan et al. 2023).

In most Asian societies, a heightened emphasis is placed on being self-reliant, self-sufficient, morally strong, and independent, making it difficult for individuals to acknowledge and show their vulnerability more openly such as feelings of loneliness, and reach out for support. Many Singaporeans are distressed due to ageing, unemployment, and lack of social and family support but are not coming forward to seek help. They appear to hunker down because of the stigma and stereotypes associated with loneliness such as being weak, a burden to one’s family, or not being able to live a fulfilled life. To them, it is better to be silent about this disturbing loneliness than to be viewed as weak such that interpersonal, social, governmental, and medical interventions need to be implemented to rescue a life albeit keeping mum about one’s disturbing emotions such as feeling lonely could also be viewed as a strength considering that one has to endure such feelings of loneliness deep within, away from the prying eyes of the crowd.

While loneliness is often characterised as an issue among the elderly, recent research increasingly demonstrated that young people in Singapore are not immune to it either (Lau 2024). In a report by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS 2024), young Singaporeans are more likely to divulge higher levels of isolation, detachment, and loneliness perhaps due to the rise of social media, the internet, and smartphones. However, IPS (2024) warned that more than half of young Singaporeans aged 21–34 would feel anxious about talking to other people in person about this seemingly perceptible isolationist behaviour, and the way forward is to communicate it online anonymously perhaps due to the fear of being identified; therefore, to be anonymous is a face-saving mechanism allowing them to avoid shame. To make loneliness and sorrow apparent in their action, facial expressions, and speech seems to create a perception that they are feeble; therefore, young people consciously develop the habit of concealing loneliness in many ways such as being silent, not giving attention and time to talk about it in the open, or segueing the focus only on the good things. “We just let it pass,” said one participant in Chan et al.’s interview (2023). “I often find myself only choosing to reveal the brighter and more positive sides of my life, while hiding the darker and more troubling issues, believing that I needed to work through them myself as it was just how things are”, added Jonathan Kuek (2023). “It is just the way things are” seems to be a worrying phenomenon that young Singaporeans seem to accept as their reality.

Shifting priorities of the modern world have brought a huge impact on the way young people view life and the world which cripple their social and interpersonal connections. As Chew said, “When you talk to the youths, they almost have checkboxes these days before they can consider marriage and parenthood. And these checkboxes are nearly all material in nature – they want a comfortable life, they want a good job, they want the ability to have a home – and then marriage comes next” (as cited in Lau 2024). The result is dangerously alarming – these young people would rather live in isolation which breeds anxiety and loneliness due to their materialist priorities that significantly diminish deeper, meaningful human connections. Feelings are suppressed as they are perceived to be hindrances to attaining goals that lead to tangible, material rewards.

To attempt to talk to someone about one’s struggles such as feelings of loneliness or deeper, melancholic sadness is still shrouded in taboo, and disclosing it may convey weakness and invite judgment, which at times, is a biased and ungrounded judgment. “For a lot of older Singaporeans, doing so may imply personal failings or poor relationships with family members or spouses. Further, airing one’s dirty laundry is frowned upon…” (Chan et al. 2023). Sustaining such heavy and disturbing emotion deep inside is being “trapped like a bird in a cage” yet seeking help seems to be a taboo to many (Chan et al. 2023). The elderly in Singapore may not be as familiar with mental health issues such as loneliness as younger folks, and to them, keeping their emotional suffering to themselves is a normal part of ageing. However, their main concern is not wanting to feel like a burden to their family and friends; therefore, they would rather keep their feelings of sadness within them as long as they can. Despite the insurmountable emotional pain, they remain quiet because to explicitly declare that they are lonely is to succumb to weakness, vulnerability, and human frailty.

Both the elderly and young Singaporeans somehow share this inherent cultural attitude: to not declare one’s suffering, to keep it as long as they can contain it, and just carry on with life because it is just the way things are. This seems to be a mantra that they share, and that is to quietly endure grieving circumstances and suffering despite how heavy its toll is on mental health. Therefore, confiding loneliness to others is a symbol of human weakness, and this emerges as a sign that warrants scrutiny. Why do Singaporeans, old and young, feel and think that it is human frailty and utter feebleness to tell others that they are lonely, sad, or desolate? Why is it difficult on their part to disclose their feeling of loneliness to others? Why is it hard to liberally show their volatility and vulnerability to others? If this were a sign, what meaning does it suggest?

In our collective ruminations, one concept came to the fore: in Asian cultures such as Singapore, we have been conditioned by our family and society at large to be strong, to man up, to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, and independent. In our sad and weak moments, we should not lose vigour. In our suffering, we should not falter. In our sorrow, grief, and pain, we should not break down. However, going deeper into this phenomenon allowed us to salvage a more frightening idea, an object that is worth practical deliberation among Asian cultures. We contend that this sign of confiding loneliness to others illustrating human weakness signifies something more sinister, that is, living a life of facade, living a life of disguise and deception to save one’s face, or living a life of pretence such that, as Asians, we project an image of strength although deep inside we are broken. We project an image of happiness (e.g., smiling faces, laughter, giggles) although deep within us lurk melancholy, desolation, and suffering that consume our very humanity. What, then, do these all suggest? What object do these all signify? Further interpretation led us to draw into the role of binary oppositions in living one’s life in an Asian culture, yet also simultaneously embroiled in an inner force that is double consciousness.

Reading and rereading those opinion articles allowed us to arrest a possible interpretation as to why many Singaporeans do not divulge loneliness which has bearing on who they are as a people and a community, that is, they tend to create a binary self (Elbow 1993), to frame their lives in terms of binary structures, of which they are ensnared into dichotomies that help explain who and what they are; however, they seem to only show the positive side of these dichotomies and hide those negative aspects on the opposite side of the pole. There is seemingly growing evidence that Singaporeans or Asians, in general, tend to portray a happy and content life by way of choosing what to project on social media or during interpersonal interactions, although deep within us are human beings that are volatile, disturbed, broken, sad, and lonely. As Asians, we tend to pursue trains of thought that constitute suffering, pain, and loneliness through dialogue with our inner self as audience. We find good reason to cultivate private, desert-island discourse on our loneliness, and become innovative in concealing this emotion from social exposure to avoid outright critique from the public. We tend to be less social for bringing more of our own mental amalgam to the colloquy (Elbow 1993) only for our own consumption with our inner self as the listener protected against public scrutiny.

It is difficult for human reason to grasp this phenomenon of our binary self, yet this is the closest we can arrive at deeper knowledge: to hold in mind this binary self (Elbow 1993) of concealing loneliness yet revealing make-believe happiness that is irreconcilable but one that explains our reality, context, and truth. As excruciatingly paradoxical as it is, this seems to be the closest explanation we can provide for both the elderly and young people of Singapore. Perhaps this is what they have in mind; they could not just put it into words. Perhaps our explanations of loneliness on these pages derive an understanding that both old and young Singaporeans can resonate with. Perhaps all these lead us back to the concept of “face”.

Saving “face” from perceived shame and stigma seems to draw a seemingly palpable and deeply ingrained cultural trait of Asian cultures (Bedford and Hwang 2003; Ho 1976; Hu 1944; Qi 2011, 2017; Wong and Tsai 2007). A stigma surrounds loneliness, and most Singaporeans are embarrassed to declare that they are lonely and are resistant to seeking help (Chan et al. 2023). Negative thoughts may discourage young and old from acknowledging or talking about these feelings of loneliness and sadness and doing so makes them tough (Tan 2018). They would rather portray a happy front on the surface yet feel isolated and alone deep down inside (Tan 2018), and to them, it is just how things used to be (Kuek 2023). This deeply rooted cultural trait of “saving and maintaining face” as a nuanced amalgam of their identity, dignity, pride, and honour (Qi 2011, 2017; Wong and Tsai 2007) has made them masters of disguise and deception whereby a seemingly happy face and a strong personality deliberately obscure their vulnerability, volatility, and human frailty.

Digging deeper, this binary self of living one’s life in an Asian culture that tends to conceal negative emotions (e.g., loneliness) and reveal positive emotions (e.g., happiness) driven by the concept of “face” can further be explained through the concept of double consciousness within which the binary self is simultaneously entangled. In the early 1900s, W. E. B. Du Bois defined double consciousness as the struggle faced by African Americans to remain true to black culture while at the same time adjusting and adapting to the dominant American society. Du Bois (1908) writes, “It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness… one ever feels his two-ness, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two un-reconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body”. This concept of double consciousness enables black Americans to see their double identities, in this case, the African self and the American self, culminating in a cohesive whole in an American society of widespread racism, oppression, and marginalization.

However, double consciousness is no longer limited to the lives of black Americans. Drastic changes in the past century have led scholars to question and expand the meaning of double consciousness as gleaned from peoples of different races, cultures, and traditions with unique circumstances and struggles. For instance, many ethnic Americans experience this rupture in consciousness while attempting to merge their specific traditions and beliefs with the values of the dominant White society and other societies within which they are immersing themselves. Double consciousness has evolved into a sensation and a space where other people of colour can feel, see, or view who they are and the reasons for their existence in the world. Double consciousness has transcended race, gender, time, space, and cultural understanding such that it can enable us to recreate its meaning unique to our circumstances yet echo the same principles of logic and thinking in terms of viewing who we are in relation to others.

Singapore, as an increasingly intercultural, multicultural, multinational, and multireligious country has ushered in unity and harmony in diversity, but at the same time, this melting pot of races, ethnicities, and cultures somehow fostered the increasing divide between foreign cultures and uniquely Singaporean traditions that are pitting with each other and forces its people to hunker down, to not air their dirty laundry out in the open, to hide its gaping hole, and to disguise loneliness and longing by masking it with a cheerful facade. Singapore’s economic prosperity and apparent affluence may project an assumption that the people are successful and are doing well, a seemingly masculine view of success. Masculine cultures perpetuate such narrow definitions of success where money, materialistic items, and socioeconomic dominance are prioritized (Hofstede 1980). Thus, while people may seem to own success, they may be excruciatingly lonely, yet the problem of loneliness is overlooked because they seem to look good on the exterior.

The Singaporeans’ habit of establishing a façade of happiness despite their sorrow, of concealing sadness and loneliness by deceiving others around them, is not only an apt illustration of maintaining “face” and crafting a binary self, but more importantly, it advances a new but complex and contested meaning of double consciousness (Du Bois 1908): being Singaporean and being Asian; a stronger identity on the surface, but a weaker, more vulnerable persona deep within; or a stoic personality to the front, but a soft, feeble, and broken self deep inside. This creates a fluid sense of in-betweenness of two souls, two thoughts, two un-reconciled struggles in one human body willing to be heard, to be felt, and to be free.

Singapore society continues to intensify its resolve for its citizens to place more emphasis on being resilient and successful to increase financial security and maintain the status quo such as achieving the 5 Cs: cash, credit card, condo, car, and career – a testament to how Singaporeans continue to yearn to achieve this societal validation as a measure of a fulfilled, content, happy life. However, this brings an alarming reality because it becomes a strong impediment for both young and old Singaporeans to let a weaker, more vulnerable, and broken self out in the open. Why? Perhaps because Singapore society favours the bold, the ambitious, the resilient, and the audacious self. Singaporeans would rather show a make-believe self of strength, success, and power to deceive others around them than expose feelings of loneliness, suffering, detachment, and isolation. The former seems to be the norm, the latter a prohibition. Singaporeans not disclosing feelings of loneliness and vulnerability represents an unfortunate paradox of life and galvanizes the binary existence of the self. Singaporeans not disclosing feelings of loneliness and vulnerability encapsulates the phenomenon of double consciousness that presents a disturbingly unfortunate irony: Singaporeans must ignore loneliness in order to thrive, to live, and to carry on with life, but with dangerously alarming and lethal consequences particularly to mental health.