Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4585 Article “She’s Surrounded by Loved Ones, but Feeling Alone”: A Relational Approach to Loneliness Hugo Valenzuela‐Garcia 1,2, *, Miranda J. Lubbers 1 and Jose Luis Molina 1 1 Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain; E‐Mails: hugo.valenzuela@uab.cat (H.V.‐G.), mirandajessica.lubbers@uab.cat (M.J.L.), joseluis.molina@uab.cat (J.L.M.) 2 Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain * Corresponding author Submitted: 7 June 2021 | Accepted: 7 September 2021 | Published: 15 December 2021 Abstract Loneliness poses one of the significant problems of our modern post‐industrial societies. Current research on loneliness has been developed primarily by psychology, biomedicine, nursing, and other health‐related disciplines, showing a sur‐ prising number of variables and risk factors involved in the experience of loneliness, along with positive correlations with premature mortality and morbidity. However, most of these analyses overlook the social interactions and context in which loneliness is experienced. Drawing on a subsample (N = 24) of Spanish “mothers” from impoverished families, the article proposes a mixed‐method approach (both relational and interpretative) that may potentially complement quantitative approaches, showing relational and contextual factors that may contribute to a better understanding of the subjective dimension of loneliness. Keywords loneliness; mothers; poverty; social support; Spain Issue This article is part of the issue “In Good Company? Personal Relationships, Network Embeddedness, and Social Inclusion” edited by Miranda J. Lubbers (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain). © 2021 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu‐ tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction 5.5% average), 50.0% had no friends (21.1% on aver‐ age), and 75.0% considered their interpersonal relation‐ One of the most striking findings from our research on ships unsatisfactory (23.0% on average). This study also the socio‐emotional impact of poverty in Spain after shows that the experience of loneliness was particularly the 2008 crisis was a deleterious feeling of loneliness notorious among poor women. Paradoxically, we also experienced by impoverished individuals. Most intervie‐ found that these Spanish mothers surrounded by dense wees had small and unconnected social networks, and kinship relationships frequently acknowledged a more suffered various physical and mental health problems. intense feeling of loneliness than other individuals with When other poverty‐related factors concurred (e.g., less favourable economic environments and very frag‐ unemployment, family ruptures, etc.), the degree of iso‐ mented social networks (e.g., single adult males, elders, lation experienced was even higher (Valenzuela‐Garcia or youths). In other words, the subjective feeling of lone‐ et al., 2020). A survey administered to over 1000 respon‐ liness did not always correspond with the objective quan‐ dents in 2020 in Madrid (Vidal & Halty, 2020, p. 125) tity and quality of the individual’s social relationships, as also showed that, in the lower socioeconomic strata of already stated by Weiss (1973). the population, 77.0% suffered from loneliness (in con‐ How do social factors and context affect the experi‐ trast with the average in all strata, 34.6%), 33.2% experi‐ ence of loneliness in the particular case of these impov‐ enced lack of company (2.8% in the upper stratum and erished Spanish mothers? When reviewing mainstream Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 350 contributions on the field, we found that most research ing some collectives more than others (e.g., women, on loneliness is quantitative, adopts a psychological elders and youths, disabled people, unemployed, and or biomedical perspective, is individual‐centred, and single adults) (Victor & Yang, 2012, p. 94; Vidal & Halty, focuses on risk factors and outcomes’ causality (youth, 2020). Most research on loneliness also takes a quantita‐ mental illness, etc.). When relational dynamics were con‐ tive approach (Stein & Tuval‐Mashiach, 2015a; Vasileiou sidered, contextual factors (e.g., culture, gender, history, et al., 2017) and is individual‐centred. Data is usually economic situation, etc.) were often overlooked. Thus, gathered through surveys observing sociodemographic although factors triggering loneliness are well identified, variables (e.g., age, gender, marital status, education, most studies do not disclose “how/why” contextual and etc.) and the experience of loneliness is documented relational factors may interplay, causing the lived experi‐ through closed answers, such as frequency of the feeling ence of loneliness (e.g., how/why loneliness affects more of loneliness (“sometimes,” “always,” etc.), frequency of women than men, the poor rather than the wealthy, or being social (“once a week,” “less than once a month,” the sick rather than the healthy). etc.), the context of socialisation (“at social events,” This article aims to identify the main causes affect‐ “clubs”), availability of someone to talk to, and the like ing the subjective experience of loneliness in Spanish (Coyle & Dugan, 2012; De Jong Gierveld, 1998). Usually, mothers embedded in dense kinship networks through answers are later aggregated into a composite index to a mixed‐methods approach based on the interac‐ detect correlations between risk factors and outcomes. tion between individual factors (e.g., adult women), Thus, although these quantitative approaches success‐ contextual contingencies (e.g., poverty), and social fully detect “what” causes the feeling of loneliness interactions (i.e., egocentric network analysis). In line (factors), they usually do not clarify “how/why” these with Hersberger’s (2003) methodological proposal to mechanisms interact in a given context, or “how/why,” combine relational and interpretative appraisals, our under similar circumstances, some people experience approach may complement the extensive quantitative loneliness while others do not. In a nutshell, most data available, contributing to our understanding of the approaches fail “to address the existential aspect of lone‐ nuances of loneliness’s complex phenomenon. liness” (Stein & Tuval‐Mashiach, 2015a, p. 212, emphasis The following section will present a brief state of the added) and to understand “the fundamental meaning of art of conventional research on loneliness, followed by the lived experience of loneliness” (Pinquart & Sörensen, the methodology, results, and conclusions. 2001, p. 245; see also Karnick, 2005). 2. Theoretical Background 2.2. Relational and Qualitative Approaches to Loneliness 2.1. Loneliness, a Vast Field of Research Beyond the mainstream quantitative and correlational approaches to loneliness, we also found alternative rela‐ Loneliness can be defined as “the unpleasant experi‐ tional and qualitative‐oriented appraisals. ence that occurs when a person’s network of social rela‐ Weiss’ (1973, 1974, 1998) seminal theory of social tions is deficient in some important way, either qualita‐ needs sustains that specific social provisions are criti‐ tively or quantitatively” (Perlman & Peplau, 1981, p. 3). cal protective factors against loneliness (for a synthesis Unlike solitude (i.e., the state of being alone), loneliness see Cutrona & Russell, 1987). According to Weiss (1973), involves a subjective and negative experience (Russell et loneliness entails a complex set of feelings resulting from al., 2012; Yang & Victor, 2011). It is subjective because unsatisfied social relationships that may generate social some individuals may experience loneliness despite high (i.e., lack of integration into a meaningful social network) social embeddedness levels, while others may not feel and/or emotional loneliness (i.e., absence of an attach‐ it despite objective low frequency or quality of social ment or emotional bond with another person). Weiss contacts (Ozawa‐de Silva & Parsons, 2020). It is negative (1974) established six different social provisions (or func‐ because the perceived absence of satisfying social rela‐ tions) which, when lacking, may cause the feeling of tionships involves suffering that may ultimately lead to loneliness: attachment (i.e., emotional closeness from psychological distress (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Hawkley which one derives a sense of security); social integra‐ & Cacioppo, 2010; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001, p. 245). tion (i.e., a sense of belonging to a group that shares Attention to loneliness has recently become a pros‐ similar interests, concerns, and recreational activities); perous field of research, producing a plethora of pub‐ reassurance of worth (i.e., recognition of one’s compe‐ lications in the disciplines of psychology, nursing, and tence, skills, and value by others); reliable alliance (i.e., biomedicine (Stein & Tuval‐Mashiach, 2015a; Stek et al., the assurance that others can be counted upon for tan‐ 2005), for loneliness is associated with higher risks of gible assistance); guidance (advice or information); and premature mortality (Holt‐Lunstad et al., 2015) and opportunity for nurture (or the sense that others rely morbidity (Waldinger et al., 2015). However, loneliness upon one for their well‐being). Later, psychologists pro‐ and health can both influence each other (Ortiz‐Ospina duced several scales and instruments to measure social & Roser, 2020), and literature suggests an extraordi‐ dispositions, demonstrating their validity and reliability nary breadth of risk factors and outcomes influenc‐ (Cutrona & Russell, 1987). Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 351 According to Cutrona and Russell (1987, p. 40), hood strategies, including participants and non‐clients of Weiss’ social provisions are very much in line with social and charity services. The second project was devel‐ the contemporary use of social support in social net‐ oped between 2019 and 2020 in four different geograph‐ work analysis, which considers three types of support— ical spots in Spain (N = 20), it was explicitly addressed emotional, tangible, and informative (see Schaefer et al., to charity users, and particular attention was paid to the 1981)—embedded in one’s network through different emotional effects of poverty. Criteria for case selection kinds of relationships, e.g., intimates, relatives, friends, included being resident in Spain, an age of 18 years or co‐workers, etc. (McCarty et al., 2019; Thoits, 2010). older, and being income poor. From a relational perspective, it is assumed that high Both projects used non‐probabilistic purposive sam‐ degrees of cohesion, network diversity, and reciprocity pling (to maximise diversity in gender, age, house‐ are crucial factors in reducing loneliness (De Jong hold composition, nationality, locality, and employment Gierveld, 1998, pp. 74–75). However, overall network status). The whole sample consisted of 81 people, size by itself is not a consistent loneliness predictor in 47 women and 34 men, with an average of 48.2 years cross‐sectional analyses (Kovacs et al., 2021, p. 1) since (range 19–80). Most were born in Spain (n = 66). networks primarily composed of kinship ties present a Twenty‐one respondents lived within nuclear families higher risk of loneliness than those that are more het‐ (e.g., couple with children), five in a couple without chil‐ erogeneous (Dykstra, 1990). Cacioppo et al. (2009) also dren, 11 were single parents with children, 30 were sin‐ show that network density can have negative effects dur‐ gle, seven divorced, one widow without children, eight ing periods of change (e.g., divorce). Thus, the extent to lived in three‐generation households, and six lived in which network size, structure, or composition help pro‐ other types of households. At the time of the inter‐ tect against loneliness during periods of prolonged isola‐ view, 46 people were working temporarily, and the rest tion remains understudied (Ortiz‐Ospina & Roser, 2020). remained in a state of long‐term unemployment, were Furthermore, these relational‐oriented perspectives do retired, pensioners, or had other employment statuses. not detail how social dispositions are distributed and Nine had no formal educational training, 23 accom‐ interact (and to what extent) within a contextual setting, plished basic studies, 36 secondary or technical training, causing either emotional or social loneliness. and 13 higher studies. For relational approaches to loneliness to gain full potential, context needs to be considered beyond 3.1. Sampling individual‐centred perspectives: For this article, we specifically focus on women (N = 24) [Loneliness] is not just a matter of individual psy‐ embedded in family households of different kinds chology or cognition, but [it is] inherently social, cul‐ (nuclear families, divorced mothers with children, tural, and relational… framed as an emergent rela‐ extended families, new family arrangements, etc.), which tional process tied to social practices and places, showed remarkedly similar characteristics in terms of themselves embedded in political economy, struc‐ contextual setting (poverty and economic needs), per‐ tural violence, and gendered cultural expectations, sonal characteristics (women, mothers, embedded in raced, and classed. (Ozawa‐de Silva & Parsons, 2020, family structures, with health problems and depres‐ pp. 613–620) sion), and network volume, structure, and composition. For the sake of representation, we chose four typical In summary, loneliness has been mainly approached by cases (i.e., case studies) of wives embedded in nuclear quantitative and individual‐centred perspectives from families, a case that shows recurrent trends of the whole the health sciences. Although qualitative research on subsample. Differences and patterns among all the cases loneliness is gaining momentum, it is still scarce and lim‐ will be briefly synthesised in the results section. ited to health and age group studies (Lindgren et al., 2014; Stanley et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2020) that frequently 3.2. Mixed‐Methods Approach disregard contextual factors fundamental to unravel some of the complexities and nuances of loneliness. Both research projects adopted a mixed‐method Next, we will describe the methods, followed by the approach consisting of multi‐sited fieldwork (Falzon, results of our analysis of subjective loneliness in the case 2009), face‐to‐face qualitative semi‐structured inter‐ of Spanish mothers, and will end with the conclusions. views (with a length of between and 1.5 and 4 hours), and computer‐assisted personal interviews. Anthropological 3. Methods and Ethics fieldwork is a non‐invasive technique of contextual observation that provides a considerable amount of The article draws on two cross‐sectional research data about the context (socioeconomic, cultural, physical projects about personal networks and poverty in post‐ environment, sensory aspects), the processes and actors 2008 crisis Spain between 2016 and 2020. The first involved, the nature of the interactions, and all those project was developed in Catalonia (N = 61) between seemingly tiny details which are often taken‐for‐granted 2015 and 2020 and focussed on households and liveli‐ but nevertheless may explain the different reactions of Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 352 individuals exposed to the same phenomenon. The field‐ tional, financial, and material support. Next, we asked work was carried out in the charitable care centres and about the attributes of each nominee: for example, the their various dependencies, in public spaces, workplaces, type of relationship, the emotional closeness, or the per‐ and, when possible, in the informants’ homes. The semi‐ ceived relative financial situation (would you say that structured interview consisted of three parts: The first the financial situation of [nominee’s name] is “much collected primary sociodemographic data (age, marital better,” “a little better,” “more or less the same,” or status, number of children, level of studies, etc.) and the “worse” than yours?). For the cases here selected, we second explored the individual’s life history focusing on draw on the following data: sex; type of relationship labour, health, household practices, and family situation. with ego (“father,” “friend,” “professional worker,” etc.); The final part explored the emotional aspects involved perceived degree of proximity (“I feel close,” “I feel in the experience of poverty and isolation. All inter‐ very close,” etc.); interaction frequency (“I meet very views were recorded, transcribed, and analysed, apply‐ often,” “often,” “rarely,” etc.); duration of relationship ing codes and contextual data, with the prior consent (“less than 1 year,” “between 1 and 5 years,” “more of informants. than 5 years,” etc.); the perceived financial situation of the alter from the ego’s point of view (“better than 3.3. Interviews, Data, and Coding me,” “same as me,” “worse than me”); and occupational background (“high,” “medium,” “low professional pro‐ The semi‐structured interview consisted of four main file”). Finally, to visualise the network, we gathered infor‐ parts, exploring: (a) life history (e.g., socioeconomic back‐ mation on the relationships between the alters (does ground, academic and professional experiences, poten‐ Y1 know Y2, Y3, Yn?). For further details see Lubbers tial poverty triggers, etc.); (b) change of habits and dete‐ et al. (2020). rioration of social relationships (leisure, nature of rela‐ tionships, type of support received, etc.); (c) interaction 3.5. Ethics within the charity context (e.g., access, support, net‐ work, etc.); and (d) emotional aspects of poverty (e.g., Both research projects comply with the ethical research feelings, perceived social deficiencies, the experience standards with human subjects. Names and direct iden‐ of loneliness, stigma, etc.). We further explored qualita‐ tifiers were anonymised, and sensitive information was tive aspects of the relationships and feelings between removed. All participants were informed about the ego, primarily family, distant relatives, neighbours, and study’s objectives and procedures, their voluntary partic‐ friends based on the network graphics. Elicitation and ipation, and their right to leave the interview at any time. introspection were fundamental during the interviews, All individuals who participated in the research were pro‐ using the network graphs as a guide to gain qualitative vided with an informed consent document that both par‐ depths (Hersberger, 2003). All the interviews were car‐ ties signed, and the UAB ethics council approved the ried out in friendly and quiet spaces, without time limi‐ research proposal. tations, to allow the interviewee to introspect and thus transmit her experience in her own words. As Stein and 4. Results Tuval‐Mashiach (2015b) show in the case of Israeli vet‐ erans, the process of sharing their emotional load with 4.1. General Patterns and Trends someone ready to pay attention without judgment was a pivotal element to explore these feelings and emotions: Before engaging in detail with four cases selected from “We all need to sense that others experience, feel, think, the subsample (N = 24), we will summarise some main evaluate, and altogether view the world as we do… this trends and patterns: In the subsample, 13 women were is what motivates people to tell stories of those experi‐ wives/mothers embedded in nuclear families; seven ences” (Stein & Tuval‐Mashiach, 2015b, p. 13). were divorced mothers (one widow) with children; two were part of extended families (husband, children, and 3.4. Network Analysis other members, such as mother or mother‐in‐law); and two lived in couple without children. The average age For personal network analysis, we used the open‐source was 50.2, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of Egonet software, which integrates questionnaires, anal‐ 67 years. Twenty‐two women had children (an aver‐ ysis, and visualisation (McCarty et al., 2019), allowing age of 2.5 children per woman, a maximum of six and the empirical study of the current social relationships a minimum of one), and most had suffered a process the individual (ego) maintains with the rest of the net‐ of downward mobility and impoverishment from the work members (alter). Data was gathered according to 2008 crisis onwards. In most cases, material support, the type of support received and the characteristics when provided, came from charities, siblings (broth‐ of the alter (age, sex, role, socioeconomic status, etc.). ers and sisters), and cognates (parents and parents‐in‐ Respondents were presented with free‐list “name gen‐ law), with emotional support usually being provided erators,” which are questions to elicit a list of people by husbands, older children, and close female friends, with whom respondents felt close, who gave them emo‐ where available. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 353 Compared with men, the manifestation of loneliness erences to Weiss’ (1974) social provisions for the sake of was much more frequent among women. In the two coherence with the theoretical background. After using cases of extended families (with the presence of elderly these four examples to disclose the relational and ethno‐ family members who economically contributed to the graphic context in which loneliness is experienced, we domestic unit) and couples without children, loneliness will summarise general traits in network structure, con‐ was not explicitly reported, probably because they were text, factors, and individual characteristics. embedded in wider social networks. Besides, despite liv‐ ing in a delicate economic situation, women who did 4.2.1. Encarna not express loneliness usually felt “supported” by their husbands, children, friends, and other family members. Encarna is a 62‐year‐old married mother of six. Her fam‐ The presence of work, their networks’ heterogeneity ily managed a small business that did not resist the 2008 (in terms of components), emotional stability with hus‐ crisis’ impact, so she and her husband stopped paying band and children, and the presence of friends seemed the mortgage and were evicted. As she puts it, “as we to counteract loneliness. are gipsies, when the owners see the last name, they do Loneliness was widespread among divorced moth‐ not want to rent us.” After a few months of being unem‐ ers with children and unemployed wives/mothers inte‐ ployed, her husband had a heart attack, and she, with grated into nuclear families. Nineteen out of twenty‐four a 30% disability, was unable to manage the business, so women reported feeling lonely and expressing the need their finances completely fell apart and she started suf‐ “to talk with other people.” For them, emotional sup‐ fering depression: port seemed more relevant than material aid and advice. These women had some trends in common: They were I want to be alone. There are days when one wouldn’t unemployed or underemployed (although many had pre‐ get out of bed, but you do it for your children and viously had more stable jobs); showed a high preva‐ grandchildren….My husband stays at home the whole lence of physical health problems (chronic pain, anaemia, day watching TV, and even his grandchildren bother osteoarthritis, anorexia, obesity, along with other severe him. And he argues all the time. diseases such as cancer), depression and stress; suffered the extra burden of caring, housework, and responsibil‐ The whole family (parents, children, in‐laws, grand‐ ities; lacked spare or personal time, and had little inter‐ children) had previously met every weekend and ate action outside the domestic unit (they used to interact together, but circumstances (i.e., health problems, lack sporadically with neighbours and school parents through of resources, listless mood) now prevented them from WhatsApp, and new charity acquaintances rarely ended participating in social events. However, Encarna still is up in friendship). In most cases, women searched for sup‐ the family’s central emotional pillar. “All problems come port and assumed the primary responsibility for domes‐ to me,” she says, since she cares for her ailing husband, tic and family care, prioritising their children’s well‐being. often travels to visit her 86‐year‐old mother, and their Being the depository of emotional load and problems divorced son and his two children moved in with them a also contributed to feelings of loneliness. few months ago. The complex interplay of all these fac‐ All these facts not only compromised the autonomy, tors explains her deep sense of loneliness: mobility, and sociability of these women but also had a negative emotional impact on them which was exacer‐ About these things [her depression, her problems bated by feelings of guilt (for not keeping up with the with her husband, her loneliness] I can’t talk to any‐ house or not being able to take care of their children one except the social worker… my children already when working), tensions with the husband and children, know the situation, and I’m not going to burden them and their pessimistic and hopeless vision of the future. yet more. With my husband, I avoid talking because we argue. I’m alone; I can’t turn to anyone, neither 4.2. Emotional Loneliness and Spanish Mothers friends nor family. Embedded in Family Households Encarna’s network (see Figure 1) is relatively large This section will present the findings, taking four cases (17 members) and dense (i.e., many know each other); as a proxy of the subsample of mothers embedded in apart from a friend and the social worker, it is mostly impoverished family households. The four cases assem‐ made up of close family members: her children and hus‐ ble a great deal of the subsample’s diversity and back‐ band. The husband occupies maximum centrality, close‐ grounds: families that bring together three genera‐ ness, and betweenness but, as she says, “I cannot count tions; extended families lead by single/divorced mothers; on him” (i.e., he does not support her emotionally). nuclear families linked to extended relative networks; Manuel, the eldest son, is also a source of moral sup‐ ordinary nuclear families that suffered downward social port, but “he has his problems.” Her network is markedly mobility; and the figure of a wife/mother in the social homophilic (that is, all members share a similar socioeco‐ networks as the primary breadwinner and emotional nomic status), and she does not report relevant relation‐ support provider. In the results, we will also include ref‐ ships nor leisure activities outside the household. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 354 Figure 1. Encarna’s personal network. Notes: Node size indicates relational role—size 1 (biggest; closest family: parents, brothers/sisters, and sons/daughters), size 2 (in‐laws), size 3 (friends, neighbours), size 4 (distant relatives), size 5 (small‐ est; social worker, “others”); node shape indicates gender—circle (female), rounded‐square (male); node colour indicates proximity: black (“very close”), dark grey (“close”), light grey (“not very close”), white (“not close at all”). 4.2.2. Amparo 4.2.3. Laura Amparo, a 54‐year‐old divorced mother of five with Laura (see Figure 3) is a 26‐year‐old married mother of absent fathers, was raised in a humble context. She suf‐ two daughters. Her husband is unemployed, and she fered meningitis, left school early, and began to work was engaged in a labour reconversion program. She has in temporary agricultural jobs. Her appearance revealed twelve siblings from different mothers, although “our deprivation (e.g., tangled hair, worn clothes, teeth miss‐ relationship is very good,” she says. She has a central ing), she was diagnosed with a severe chronic illness a caregiver role—taking care of her younger siblings and few months ago, and takes antidepressants because “my stepbrothers, her mother‐in‐law (suffering from some day‐to‐day life is difficult.” Her youngest son suffers a psychological ailment), and her twenty‐four nephews: mental disability, and she visits him once a week at the “They bring them home to me, I’m like the mum of all. hospital. She also takes care of her elder mother. And this has made me mature a lot because from the Amparo shares her tiny house with her long‐term age of seven I already had responsibilities.” Laura also unemployed adult children and in‐laws. She is the pri‐ decided to seek help because her husband (“who’s some‐ mary breadwinner but: what depressed at home”) was ashamed to do so. When asking if she practised any hobby, she replied: Despite being surrounded, I feel very lonely….Some‐ times I’d like to take a never‐ending trip and forget Before I practised sport. I went to the gym and had many things. friends. Now I have no time or money but other con‐ cerns and worries…[Laughing] Furthermore my hus‐ Amparo lives in a tiny rural town, so she has many band doesn’t like much that I go out with new friends acquaintances “but few friends,” besides a couple of [co‐workers], especially if they are boys: He is a lit‐ female childhood friends with whom she communicates tle jealous! on WhatsApp, but rarely meets. Although her household environment is tense, she does not leave home much Laura’s network is comparatively extensive (25 mem‐ because “I have neither the money nor the habit.” bers) and dense: However, 70% are family members Her dense network is made up of strong ties, yet she (with whom she feels “close” and “very close”), and the “does not feel very close” to some of them, a fact that sug‐ rest are friends and neighbours notably embedded in gests personal conflicts. She only talks about her prob‐ her network (i.e., “many know each other”) and “new lems with her aged mother, her older daughter (who friends” (recently met co‐workers). Although her hus‐ lives away), the social worker (on the right‐bottom cor‐ band (lower side) is relevant in her network, maximum ner), and with one “not very close” distant female rela‐ centrality, betweenness and closeness are occupied by tive (upper‐left corner; see Figure 2). her sister (Cristina) and her in‐law (María). Homophily is also high: 72% of her contacts show a low socioeconomic status and educational background. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 355 Figure 2. Amparo’s personal network. Notes: Node size indicates relational role—size 1 (biggest; closest family: parents, brothers/sisters, and sons/daughters), size 2 (in‐laws), size 3 (friends, neighbours), size 4 (distant relatives), size 5 (small‐ est; social worker, “others”); node shape indicates gender—circle (female), rounded‐square (male); node colour indicates proximity: black (“very close”), dark grey (“close”), light grey (“not very close”), white (“not close at all”). 4.2.4. Isabel suffering. Although the couple maintains a good relation‐ ship with their respective families, they did not dare ask Isabel (see Figure 4), a 55‐year‐old married mother of them for help: “I don’t like to explain my sorrows… every‐ four sons (30, 26, 22, and 20 years old), managed a one has problems.” And she adds: “And in the case of greengrocery that collapsed after the 2008 crisis. As in friends….I am not confident enough to explain my life.” Encarna’s case, Isabel recurred to social services and Isabel’s network is also quite extensive (18 members). found a professional who “listens to you, supports you, Her husband occupies maximum centrality, but other and makes you see your problem is not that big” (i.e., contacts (her older son, female friends, relatives, and emotional support). Her husband lost his job too and, the social worker) show high degrees of betweenness depressed, began to drink more than usual until he found and centrality. She feels “very close” to 55% of her con‐ a job as a night taxi driver, which did not help improve tacts and “close” to 38%. In comparison to the other the couple’s communication. Isabel suffers from chronic networks, Isabel’s is less dense and homogeneous (27% pain in her arms and legs, which she attributes to all her are friends) and shows a lower degree of homophily Figure 3. Laura’s personal network. Notes: Node size indicates relational role—size 1 (biggest; closest family: parents, broth‐ ers/sisters, and sons/daughters), size 2 (in‐laws), size 3 (friends, neighbours), size 4 (distant relatives), size 5 (smallest; social worker, “others”); node shape indicates gender—circle (female), rounded‐square (male); node colour indicates proximity: black (“very close”), dark grey (“close”), light grey (“not very close”), white (“not close at all”). Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 356 Figure 4. Isabel’s personal network. Notes: Node size indicates relational role—size 1 (biggest; closest family: parents, brothers/sisters, and sons/daughters), size 2 (in‐laws), size 3 (friends, neighbours), size 4 (distant relatives), size 5 (small‐ est; social worker, “others”); node shape indicates gender—circle (female), rounded‐square (male); node colour indicates proximity: black (“very close”), dark grey (“close”), light grey (“not very close”), white (“not close at all”). (50% have a high educational background and she per‐ members) and homophily (i.e., ego and alter share simi‐ ceives that 77% are in a better socioeconomic situa‐ lar attributes; see McPherson et al., 2001). tion than herself), showing a typical case of downward social mobility that still provides some class resources 4.4. Homophily and social capital (i.e., embedded resources in social networks; see Molina et al., 2019). Although she feels Homophily cannot be considered a trigger of loneliness lonely, she gets emotional support from her sister, her by itself. Nevertheless, when all relationships involve oldest son, and a friend. Despite all these difficulties, her individuals with low economic (i.e., material resources priority was to ensure their children’s education attain‐ and income) and cultural capital (i.e., education), access ment or, in other words, to secure their cultural capital— to new opportunities, resources, and chances are rad‐ understood as being non‐economic social assets (edu‐ ically restricted. Here cumulative disadvantage plays cation, skills, knowledge) that provide a higher status against these women: Their low economic and cultural within society and allow social mobility in broader terms capital makes it difficult for them to expand their disposi‐ (Bourdieu, 1984). tions and interests, preventing engagement with other social groups beyond the family domain, i.e., Weiss’ 4.3. Networks (1974) “social integration.” In most cases, personal networks are very dense 4.5. Weak Ties (“almost everyone knows each other”) and relatively large (mean: 18.25) compared with other poor popu‐ All networks show just a few weak ties, which are very rel‐ lations (Bichir & Marques, 2012) and considering that evant in linking different groups and provide, therefore, average individuals’ closest “intimate psycho‐social nets” information, mobility, and opportunities (Granovetter, include from 20 to 30 people (Pattison et al., 1975). 1973). The low frequency of socialisation beyond the Most networks show just one component (or relational household, which signals social isolation, is the result sphere), meaning that the individual lacks other relevant of their lack of resources and time, as well as the fact social spheres (e.g., labour). These women are, there‐ that they prioritise caregiving over socializing. Although fore, encapsulated within a single homogeneous social we found a few confidants outside the domestic milieu, world made of relatives with a high degree of proximity they are often embedded within the same kinship net‐ (e.g., Encarna feels “very close” with 94% of her network work (e.g., female family members). Alternative means Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 357 Encarna’s network Amparo’s network Laura’s network Isabel’s network Figure 5. Comparison of the four personal networks. Notes: Node size indicates relational role—size 1 (biggest; closest family: parents, brothers/sisters, and sons/daughters), size 2 (in‐laws), size 3 (friends, neighbours), size 4 (distant rela‐ tives), size 5 (smallest; social worker, “others”); node shape indicates gender—circle (female), rounded‐square (male); node colour indicates proximity: black (“very close”), dark grey (“close”), light grey (“not very close”), white (“not close at all”); edge shape: line (“know each other”), square with rounded angles (“maybe know each other”), no edge (“don’t know each other”). of communication (WhatsApp, Facebook, email, tele‐ rely upon one for their well‐being), but on the contrary, phone) is not as effective as face‐to‐face as it does an excess that ultimately undermined their self‐esteem, not allow an adequate level of intimacy or confession. limited their autonomy, and prevented other social provi‐ While sometimes people confide highly personal mat‐ sions such as “social integration,” “reassurance of worth,” ters to people they are not close to, and at times “reliable alliance” and “attachment.” barely even know (Small, 2017), there is no one to talk to. In other words, in Weiss’ (1974) terms, “attach‐ 4.8. Gender ment,” “social integration,” and “reliable alliance” seem to be compromised. In connection with the previous point, a remarkable gen‐ dered dimension of loneliness operates in our cases (see 4.6. Toxic Ties and Weak Emotional Support Hochschild, 1997; Jiménez Ruiz & Moya, 2018). In gen‐ eral, women are exposed to pressuring gendered roles It is generally assumed that someone surrounded by rela‐ in terms of mothering obligations and duties (e.g., to tives enjoys high emotional support. But in our cases, the be a “good mother,” marriage vows that encompass a situation may be oppressive, as relatives become toxic promise to support each other “in sickness and in health,” links (Del Real, 2019) that subtract resources and gener‐ etc.), which may be even more critical in marginal con‐ ate conflict and stress. The partner frequently was a bar‐ texts (Gillies, 2007). As we have observed, by prioritising rier to socialisation due to jealousy, apathy, their need the well‐being of others or inverting traditional gender for attention, etc., and women felt emotional support roles (e.g., adopting the breadwinners’ role to make ends “was not there” when most needed. Furthermore, ask‐ meet), more stress and pressure is added to the subjec‐ ing close relatives for help was usually avoided because tive experience of loneliness. they did not want to burden them (e.g., “everyone has their problems”), and social workers provided primary 4.9. Inwardness emotional support, but necessarily professional, tempo‐ ral, and limited. Thus, the availability of “reliable alliance” Loneliness is often related to dissatisfaction with existing or “guidance,” in the sense of Weiss (1974), was deficient social interaction, expressed through the sense of mis‐ in most cases. understanding (e.g., “they don’t really understand”; see Vasileiou et al., 2017) that leads to feelings of void, hope‐ 4.7. Dependency lessness, isolation, and despair (in this case, we observe a lack of what Weiss would call “reassurance of worth” In all cases, autonomy, self‐care, and leisure were which may be intensified with the suffering of stigma; see severely neglected due to domestic duties and caring Weiss, 1974). tasks, which notably increased the pressure and degree of emotional fatigue and drastically reduced social net‐ 4.10. Multiple Stigmas works (Juratovac & Zauszniewski, 2014). This fact is very relevant because it implies a paradoxical finding concern‐ These women carry on their shoulders the stigma of ing Weiss’ social provisions: In these cases, there is no being poor and lonely and the weight of so‐called cour‐ lack of “opportunity for nurture” (the sense that others tesy stigma (i.e., stigma by association, which burdens Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 358 closely affiliated people; Goffman, 1963). This has also Nevertheless, the way and extent to which such social been reported in the case of caregivers of mentally ill dispositions interact, causing the feeling of loneliness, family members (Ali et al., 2012; Vasileiou et al., 2017), for the case of impoverished Spanish women, is hardly mothers of children with ADHD (Norvilitis et al., 2002), or understood without minimal references to the context, families supporting adult members with substance mis‐ as we have tried to show. use (McCann & Lubman, 2017). Stigma may lead to a dual isolation in which the stigmatised avoid contact with oth‐ 5. Conclusions ers, who in turn, avoid contact with them too. Loneliness is a complex, multifactorial, and multicausal 4.11. Lack of Resources feeling. Perhaps, for this reason, there is no consensus on the concept (Stein & Tuval‐Mashiach, 2015a), and In our case, poverty is a significant predictor of loneli‐ while some researchers distinguish between loneliness, ness (Refaeli & Achdut, 2020). For these women, in our solitude, social withdrawal, and social isolation, others increasingly commodified world (Marquand, 2004), the entirely disregard the distinction and use these terms lack of economic resources not only precludes the pos‐ interchangeably (Karnick, 2005, p. 11). Quantitative sibility to outsource housework and caring, but it also research has shown a vast amount of risk factors and out‐ limits their access to mainstream leisure, often involving comes related to its experience. However, most research costs in the form of fees, purchases, and tickets, e.g., cin‐ fails to unveil the complexities of the subjective experi‐ emas, theatres, bars, restaurants, gyms, or various asso‐ ence of loneliness despite the causal associations. ciations. As most of the household members are unem‐ Our main argument is that loneliness is, by def‐ ployed, isolation and consciousness of social exclusion inition, a relational category that needs a specific tend to be more significant. mixed‐methods (relational and interpretative) approach to be understood in all its full complexity. This arti‐ 4.12. Health cle analyses the experience of loneliness by Spanish mothers of impoverished families through a relational‐ Most of these women suffered depression and other contextual perspective that reveals interconnections types of psychological distress along with a wide array that are not always straightforwardly evident through of physical ailments that preclude social interaction and conventional research. Thus, to the usual individual vari‐ mobility, adding to the feeling of social and emotional ables (e.g., woman, mother, adult, poor, ill, etc.), we loneliness. added less tangible (but maybe more complex) vari‐ ables (ethnicity, appearance, stigma, experience of class 4.13. Personal Variables mobility, etc.) within the framework of their social net‐ works and interactions (e.g., homophily, lack of weak Of course, individual characteristics also play a role in ties, toxic ties, relationships of dependency, etc.), along‐ the experience of loneliness. Being women, aged, sick, side interiorised socio‐cultural principles (stigma, unem‐ uneducated, etc., influence the experience of loneliness. ployment, gender constructions, mothering duties, etc.) However, these personal variables are often attenuated in a specific socioeconomic context (i.e., poverty). This by other interplaying socio‐cultural and relational factors provides a more accurate and complex comprehension rarely considered in the experience of loneliness, e.g., of the lived experience of loneliness for this specific col‐ physical appearance (e.g., Amparo), ethnic origin (e.g., lective. Thus, in order to fully disclose the lived experi‐ Encarna’s gipsy origin), or stigma due to downward social ence of loneliness, both relational factors and context mobility (Isabel). matter, requiring specific non‐quantitative and holistic methods and techniques (participant observation, field‐ 4.14. Emotional Loneliness work, introspective interviews, elicitation, etc.) to sup‐ port quantitative data. Most of these women acknowledge emotional loneliness While in traditional societies, social exclusion and (Weiss, 1973), meaning that a high density of relation‐ ostracism are rare and usually regarded as a severe pun‐ ships does not necessarily reduce the feeling of loneli‐ ishment for socially deviant behaviours and attitudes ness (Cacioppo, et al., 2009). Despite being surrounded (Söderberg & Fry, 2017), in our (post)modern indus‐ by cognates and close relatives, although they affirm trial societies, loneliness has become a significant prob‐ that they feel lonely, it does not mean loneliness is an lem “worthy of attention in its own right” (Heinrich & individual‐centred feeling, for the phenomenon cannot Gullone, 2006, p. 712). Understanding this expanding be fully understood without referring to their social inter‐ phenomenon in our modern societies poses an urgent actions and context. In all these cases, we could argue, and fundamental challenge due to the large number emotional loneliness is probably caused by a lack of of harmful effects associated with it. It is striking the “attachment” along with a lack of “social integration,” mounting frequency of lonely deaths in advanced coun‐ “reassurance of worth,” “reliable alliance,” “guidance,” tries such as Norway (Hauge & Kirkevold, 2012), the US and, in particular, excessive “opportunity for nurturing.” (Twenge et al., 2019), or Japan (Allison, 2013). What Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 359 is more, loneliness is here to stay, as many contempo‐ and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977–991. rary processes suggest: the COVID‐19 pandemic’s con‐ Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human finement and social distancing (Matias et al., 2020); the nature and the need for social connection. Norton spread of remote working (Valenzuela‐Garcia, 2020); the & Co. collective addiction to personal technologies (Savolainen Coyle, C. E., & Dugan, E. (2012). Social isolation, loneli‐ et al., 2020); population ageing (Golden et al., 2009); ness and health among older adults. Journal of Aging increasing rates of divorce and the transformation of tra‐ and Health, 24(8), 1346–1363. ditional family models (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010); Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions the dissolution of community bonds (Putman, 2001); of social relationships and adaptation to stress. and the ever‐expanding anomy and individualisation of Advances in Personal Relationships, 1, 37–67. our modern societies (Zhao & Cao, 2010). Furthermore, De Jong Gierveld, J. (1998). A review of loneliness: poverty, in particular, is a strong predictor of loneliness Concept and definitions, determinants and conse‐ (Refaeli & Achdut, 2020), for social networks of poor indi‐ quences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8(1), 73–80. viduals tend to be smaller than those of the non‐poor https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259898008090 (Bichir & Marques, 2012). Del Real, D. (2019). Toxic ties: The reproduction of legal In summary, we have provided an alternative, mixed‐ violence within mixed‐status intimate partners, rel‐ methods approach, to loneliness with may in itself atives, and friends. International Migration Review, present obvious limitations but could complement other 53(2), 548–570. quantitative approaches, attending to both relational Dykstra, P. A. (1990). Next of non‐kin. The importance and contextual data. A more profound comprehension of primary relationships for older adults’ well‐being. of these factors in the feeling of loneliness could bet‐ Swets & Zeitlinger. ter inform policies and actions aimed at combating it, Falzon, M. A. (Ed.). (2009). Multi‐sited ethnography. The‐ envisaging a future society where there is no place for ory, praxis and locality in contemporary research. (unwanted) loneliness. Routledge. Gillies, V. (2007). Marginalised mothers: Exploring work‐ Acknowledgments ing class experiences of parenting. Routledge. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management The authors are grateful for the generosity of the partic‐ of spoiled identity. Touchstone. ipants in this study, as well as the support of FOESSA, Golden, J., Conroy, R. M., Bruce, I., Denihan, A., Greene, the Red Cross, and Caritas. This work was supported E., Kirby, M., & Lawlor, B. A. (2009). Loneliness, social by the Spanish Government, Programa Estatal de I+D+i support networks, mood and well‐being in commu‐ Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad, del Plan Estatal nity‐dwelling elderly. International Journal of Geri‐ de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación atric Psychiatry, 27(7), 694–700. 2017–2020 (PID2019‐111251RB‐I00 (2019‐2023)) and by Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Recercaixa (2015ACUP 00145 (2016‐2020)). American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Hauge, S., & Kirkevold, M. (2012). Variations in older per‐ Conflict of Interests sons’ descriptions of the burden of loneliness. Scan‐ dinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26, 553–560. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of con‐ References sequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. Ali, A., Hassiotis, A., Strydom, A., & King, M. (2012). Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical signifi‐ Self‐stigma in people with intellectual disabilities cance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psy‐ and courtesy stigma in family carers: A systematic chology Review, 26(6), 695–718 review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, Hersberger, J. A. (2003). A qualitative approach to exam‐ 2122–2140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06. ining information transfer via social networks among 013 homeless populations. The New Review of Informa‐ Allison, A. (2013). Precarious Japan. Duke University tion Behaviour Research: Studies of Information Seek‐ Press. ing in Context, 4, 95–108. Bichir, R. M., & Marques, E. (2012). Poverty and socia‐ Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The second shift. Aron Books. bility in Brazilian metropolises: Comparing poor peo‐ Holt‐Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & ple’s personal networks in São Paulo and Salvador. Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isola‐ Connections, 32(1), 20–32. tion as risk factors for mortality: A meta‐analytic Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Routledge. review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). 227–237. Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of lone‐ Jiménez Ruiz, I., & Moya, M. (2018). The family caregiver. liness in a large social network. Journal of Personality A naturalised sense of obligation in women to be Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 360 caregivers. Enfermería Global, 49, 434–447. Personal relationships: 3. Relationships in disorder Juratovac, E., & Zauszniewski, J. A. (2014). Full‐time (pp. 31–56). Academic Press. employed and a family caregiver: A profile of Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Influences on lone‐ women’s workload, effort, and health. Women’s liness in older adults: A meta‐analysis enhanced Health Issues, 24(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/ reader. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 10.1016/j.whi.2014.01.004 245–266. Karnick, P. M. (2005). Feeling lonely: Theoretical perspec‐ Putman, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and tives. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(1), 7–12. revival of American community. Touchstone Books. Kovacs, B., Caplan, N., Grob, S., & King, M. (2021). Refaeli, T., & Achdut, N. (2020). Perceived poverty, Social networks and loneliness during the covid‐19 perceived income adequacy and loneliness in Israeli pandemic. Socius: Sociological Research for a young adults: Are social capital and neighbour‐ Dynamic World, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2378 hood capital resilience factors? Health and Social 023120985254 Care in Community. Advance online publication. Lindgren, B. M., Sundbaum, J., Eriksson, M., & Grane‐ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ heim, U. H. (2014). Looking at the world through hsc.13177 a frosted window: Experiences of loneliness among Russell, D. W., Cutrona, C. E., McRae, C., & Gomez, M. persons with mental ill‐health. Journal of Psychiatric (2012). Is loneliness the same as being alone? The and Mental Health Nursing, 21, 114–120. Journal of Psychology, 146 (1/2), 7–22. Lubbers, M. J., Valenzuela‐García, H., Escribano, P., Savolainen, I., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Sirola, A., & Molina, J. L., Casellas, A., & Grau Rebollo, J. (2020). Paek, H. (2020). The role of perceived loneliness Relationships stretched thin: Social support mobiliza‐ in youth addictive behaviors: Cross‐national survey tion in poverty. Annals of the American Academy for study. JMIR Mental Health, 7(1). https://doi.org/ Political and Social Science, 689(1), 65–88. 10.2196/14035 Marquand, D. (2004). Decline of the public: The hollow‐ Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The ing out of citizenship. Polity Press. health‐related functions of social support. Journal of Matias, T., Dominski, F. H., & Marks, D. F. (2020). Human Behavioral Medicine, 4, 381–406. needs in covid‐19 isolation. Health Psychology, 25(7), Silverstein, M., & Giarrusso, R. (2010). Ageing and family 871–882. life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, McCann, T. V., & Lubman, D. I. (2017). Stigma experi‐ 72(5), 1039–1058. ence of families supporting an adult member with Small, M. L. (2017). Someone to talk to. Oxford University substance misuse. International Journal of Mental Press. Health Nursing, 27(2), 693–701. Söderberg, P., & Fry, D. P. (2017). Anthropological McCarty, C., Lubbers, M. J., Vacca, R., & Molina, J. L. aspects of ostracism. In D. W. Kipling & S. A. (2019). Conducting personal network research: A Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. practical guide. Guilford Press. 258–272). Routledge. McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Stanley, M., Moyle, W., Ballantyne, A., Jaworski, K., Corlis, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. M., Oxlade, D., Stoll, A., & Young, B. (2010). Nowa‐ Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. days you don’t even see your neighbours: loneliness Molina, J. L., García‐Macías, A., Lubbers, M. J., & in the everyday lives of older Australians. Health & Valenzuela‐García, H. (2019). The embeddedness of Social Care in the Community, 18, 407–414. social capital in personal networks. Network Science, Stein, J. Y., & Tuval‐Mashiach, R. (2015a). The social 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2019.30 construction of loneliness: An integrative concep‐ Norvilitis, J. M., Scime, M., & Lee, J. S. (2002). Cour‐ tualisation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, tesy stigma in mothers of children with attention‐ 28(3), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537. deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A preliminary investi‐ 2014.911129 gation. Journal of Attention Disorders, 6(2), 61–68. Stein, J. Y., & Tuval‐Mashiach, R. (2015b). Loneliness Ortiz‐Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2020). Loneliness and and isolation in life‐stories of Israeli veterans of social connections. Our World in Data. https://our combat and captivity. Psychological Trauma: Theory, worldindata.org/social‐connections‐and‐loneliness Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(2), 122–130. Ozawa‐de Silva, C., & Parsons, M. (2020). Toward an Stek, M. L., Vinkers, D. J., Gussekloo, J., Beekman, A. T. F., anthropology of loneliness. Transcultural Psychiatry, van der Mast, R. C., & Westendorp, R. G. J. (2005). 57(5), 613–622. Is depression in old age fatal only when people Pattison, E. N., Defrancisco, D., Wood, P., Frazier, H., & feel lonely? American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(1), Crowder, J. (1975). A psycho‐social kinship model for 178–180. family therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, Thoits, P. A. (2010). Stress and health: Major findings 1246–1251. and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psy‐ Behavior, 51, S41–S53. chology of loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), Twenge, J. M., Spitzberg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 361 Less in‐person social interaction with peers among Waldinger, R. J., Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., & Crowell, J. A. U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to lone‐ (2015). Security of attachment to spouses in late life: liness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Concurrent and prospective links with cognitive and 36(6), 1892–1913. emotional well‐being. Clinical Psychological Science, Valenzuela‐Garcia, H. (2020). Fuzzy Frontiers: Telework 3(4), 516–529. and work–life balance in COVID‐19 Spain. Exertions. Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emo‐ https://doi.org/10.21428/1d6be30e.962a9633 tional and social isolation. MIT Press. Valenzuela‐Garcia, H., Lubbers, M. J., & Molina, J. L. Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. (2020). Vivo entre cuatro paredes. La vulnerabilidad In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others: Joining, mold‐ relacional en contextos de exclusión social [I live ing, conforming, helping, loving (pp. 17–26). Prentice‐ within four walls. Relational vulnerability in contexts Hall. of social exclusión]. FOESSA. Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Barreto, M., Vines, J., Atkinson, of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 671–683. M., Lawson, S., & Wilson, M. (2017). Experiences of Yang, K., & Victor, C. (2011). Age and loneliness in 25 loneliness associated with being an informal care‐ European nations. Ageing and Society, 31, 1–21. giver: A qualitative investigation. Frontiers in Psychol‐ Yu, Q., Mazzoni, S., Lauzon, M., Borgatti, A., Caceres, N., ogy, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00585 Miller, S., Dutton, G., & Salvy, S. J. (2020). Associ‐ Victor, C. R., & Yang, K. (2012). The prevalence of lone‐ ations between social network characteristics and liness among adults: A case study of the United loneliness during pregnancy in a sample of predom‐ Kingdom. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and inantly African American, largely publicly‐insured Applied, 146(1/2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/ women. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(12), 00223980.2011.613875 1429–1437. Vidal, F., & Halty, A. (2020). Parte segunda: La soledad del Zhao, R., & Cao, L. (2010). Social change and anomie: siglo XXI [Part two: Loneliness in the 21st century]. In A cross‐national study. Social Forces, 88(3), A. J. Menéndez (Ed.), Informe España 2020 [Report 1209–1229. Spain 2020]. Universidad Pontificia Comillas. About the Authors Hugo Valenzuela‐Garcia is an associate professor at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropol‐ ogy and a member of the Research Center in Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation (CREIS) of the UAB, Spain. As an anthropologist, he has conducted fieldwork on fishermen in Malaysia, peasants in Mexico, and Asian entrepreneurship in Barcelona. His main fields of interest are poverty, precarious‐ ness and work, consumption, and other classical issues in cultural ecology and economic anthropology. Miranda J. Lubbers is an associate professor in social and cultural anthropology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, and the director of the Research Group of Fundamentally Oriented Anthropology (GRAFO). In 2021, she was granted a European Research Council Advanced Grant and the ICREA Acadèmia Award. Her research addresses social cohesion and social inclusion. In particular, she analyzes the role that formal and informal social relationships and settings have in the production, mitigation, or exacerbation of exclusion and segregation. José Luis Molina is a full professor at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology (UAB). He is an economic anthropologist interested in livelihood practices in a globalised, digitalised, and unequal world. His approach is through mixed methods with an emphasis on ethnography and personal net‐ work analysis. Southeast Europe and Romania, in particular, are his main areas of interest. Social Inclusion, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 350–362 362