Social isolation is considered a risk factor in the development of the social situation. The root cause of social isolation lies in absence of proper social relations. Advancement in living conditions, increased number of high definition automobiles, increasing bureaucratization and a complex matrix of other social forces are serving to fragment, disobedient and diminish contemporary man and thereby isolating him from the very society that he himself is a part of. The socially isolated individual can be characterized as one he feels he has little or no influence or control over socio-political events and who senses he cannot assert himself as subject to modify his situation. Theories and studies on observed social isolation of disadvantaged have been comparatively diversified and frequently been hindered by ethnocentric perspectives, and more often than not, due to some inarticulate and untested indicators. Nonetheless, multidisciplinary efforts among sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and historians have shed light on the phenomenon and contributed significantly of construct a theoretical framework as well as guided considerably in empirical studies.

Social isolation can be seen as an indication that the individual's interpersonal problems have reached to be great to the point that he has lost his competent of functioning in interpersonal relationships. It is a set of problems that arise with the feeling of disengagement, consequently encountering interpersonal difficulties and eventually results in interpersonal incompetent. It is considered as symptoms of a dysfunctional society in which ethical structures collapsed or were rendered meaningless^[2]. The advancement of science and technology often resulted in creating “anomie” characterized by ethical and social isolation particularly in disconnected, disengaged, peripatetic and rootless societies^[3]. In industrialized societies, alienation will lead to a state of total isolation ^[4]. Societies (Gesellschaft) in which only self-interests prevail, make individuals remain in isolation and veiled hostility toward each other, however, neighborly relations exists only because of “fear of clever retaliation restrains them from attacking one another” ^[5]. Urban lives centered more on day-to-day interactions rather than longtime relationships that resulted in “impersonal, superficial, transitory, and segmental” contacts and engendered “reserve, indifference and a blasé outlook” that people tend to use to “immunize” themselves against the expectations of others, for which only selfish utilization of interpersonal contacts become the only factor of communication ^[6].

Social isolation exacerbates the effects of being concentrated in very poor areas because such isolation limits inner-city residents' opportunities only to those found in their socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. Cut off from mainstream society, underclass individuals lack exposure to conventional role models such as stably employed adults and to marriageable partners, as well as access to job networks ^[7]. Although, there emerged tremendous amount of social media, but which people can establish ties, the level of confidence on social relations decreased. This is particularly because of the changes in core network structure ^[8]. A group of persons, who are segregated from the larger society, are more exposed to the feeling of anomie. Further, the financial situations of the neighbor contributed to level of anomie any individual face ^[9].

Pitirim Sorokin indicates that social Isolation is more evident among the people who have been migrated from different social conditions and find themselves unable to form satisfactory personal relationships in new environment particularly because they experience rootlessness ^[10]. Almost over a century ago, he discussed the effect of such isolation, both in negative and positive term. He mentions that this mobility increases creativity and adaptability of the isolates, nonetheless, in Sorokin’s terms, "diminishes intimacy and increases psychosocial isolation and loneliness." (1927: 525). Due to differences in ascent or even language, Sorokin adds, individuals may unable to form intimacy with people around them. Evelyn Ellis (1952) proposes an alternative view and indicates that social isolation can be considered as a cause of upward mobility ^[11]. The experiences of social deprivation in childhood and early adolescent may evoke the isolates to rise in the social structure in their adulthood. However, those who climb up in the social structure in their later life may stumble upon the same complicatedness of forming close ties with others. Thus, an unchanged superficial and temporary relationship with primary group continues and individual remains socially isolates. However, Robert Merton (1957) considers that although a potentially disruptive effect may occur when an individual shift his or her class position, the feeling of isolation nonetheless, can be substantially ameliorated ^[2]. He indicates that if the socially isolates have got the opportunity to absorb the norms, values and sanctions of the dominant segment of the society, especially those of the middle class, should easily gain the acceptance among the general people.

Robert Ellis and Clayton Lane (1967) outlined three different hypotheses that reflect the idea of Pitirim Sorokin ^[12]. Based on the analysis of Sorokin, they proposes, the dissociative hypothesis that upward mobility is itself a disruptive social experience which leaves the individual for an appreciable period without roots or effective social support. The compensatory hypothesis, founded on the discussion of Evelyn Ellis, that this situation stems from early childhood deprivation and the attendant inability to form effective primary group relations. Robert Merton’s discussion is the origin of the ameliorative hypothesis, that the value assimilation necessary for upward movement brings acceptance by the new group. Their research on lower-class adolescents who were entering a high-status university supports neither the compensatory hypothesis, not the ameliorative hypothesis. However, they shows that the lower-class adolescents encounter a disproportionate share of isolating experiences and personal strain, both as viewed through the eyes of institutional observers and as realized in personal experience.

Peggy Thoits (1983) offers another hypothesis drawing upon symbolic interactionist theory, and coined it as "identity accumulation hypothesis" ^[13]. It defines social isolation as the possession of few social identities, and consider, “the more identities possessed by an actor, the less psychological distress he/she should exhibit.” Importantly, social identities that guide behaviors and make any social acts meaningful are, in point of fact, enacted in role relationships. He finds socially isolated individuals suffer less from identity loss and also benefit less from identity gain than integrated individuals.

Social isolation is prevalent if any person lacks the essential social support that incorporates both tangible assistance and emotional comfort along with the aid of the deeds of others ^[14]. Sometimes, people start to regard themselves as socially isolated solely due to the experience that they are declined to acquire a good education to obtain a decent and respectable employment. This results in the feeling that they may encounter an appropriation of being corrupt very unreasonably by the virtuous part of the civil society. Henceforth, they begin to count themselves being repudiated by members of the respectable community and choose to disentangle from the larger society. Ironically, they begin to get limited opportunity to become a member of an integrated society as equitably with those who are rightfully cited for being corrupt ^[15].

Living in a rather poor community of a society raises social isolation and diminishes access to social support. Jane Elliott (2005) examines the influence of neighborhood poverty and social networks on labor market experiences of less-educated urban job seekers ^[16]. Despite relatively similar job seeking strategies employed by the slum and camp dwellers, and the residents outside of that, the hiring process magnifies the residential contexts. Elliott concludes that any effort to get secured in formal employment in any labor market is frequently characterized by expanding dependencies upon non-poor neighbors and personal contacts with them.

Debra Vandervoort (2000) investigated the relationship between gender and social support, and found that despite the equal level of satisfaction with the available social support network, men were more isolated than women ^[17]. She indicates the contention that men, in general, satisfy their emotional needs by discussing with their spouses, while women satisfy their need by taking with their female friends.

The people, who are socially excluded, are often exposed to labor market marginality, and faces poverty and social isolation. This works as a reinforcement of long-term non-involvement in formal economy of the country. The risk of social isolation depends upon broader cultural patterns, structure of the household and general sociability that is strongly related to the social context. Duncan Gallie, Serge Paugam and Sheila Jacobs (2003) shows that unemployment will increase the vulnerability of becoming poor and in the end, poverty makes it more complicated to go back to a decent employment ^[18]. Thus, a cruel cycle of exclusion is being created. Even though social isolation and unemployment may not be directly associated, the problem of poverty is a not unusual trait among the socially isolates. However, on the basis of cross-cultural and biographical sources, Peter Suedfeld (1974) indicates that while isolation may be primarily stressful, adaptation to the situation occurs in time and shapes the cultural norms, roles and expectancies among the isolates and eventually develops a sense of solitude among them ^[19].

Thus, studies suggest that the people who are not economically well off and are being isolated due to socio-political situation have the common ground of not having enough confidence to bring positive changes for them by participation in social aspects and developing social relations. Whether the issue is poverty, or political mistreatment, these people are coming to consider it as neither have they had control over that nor they can bring changes to that. Although they are very concerned that this very situation is shaping their both personal and social lives, many efforts went in vain to covert the views into social action and are leaving many of them frustrated. This is anticipated in part, to a sentiment among at least some of them, who are socially secluded in the plane of an unresponsive and uncaring community. This very sense of isolation can drive to a failure to be connected with society and social development and therefore can bring severe adverse consequences. This may have an adverse impact on self-esteem and consequently, decreases the social and financial opportunities. However, while there can be an agreement of how to define ‘Social Isolation’, how to measure the concept as a variable is rather depends on the researcher’s point of view.

Gartly Jaco (1954) proposes following array of factors can be regarded as provisional criteria of social isolation, (a) Anonymity, (b) High Spatial Mobility, (c) Remote Location of Friends, (d) Low Frequency of Participation in Groups and Institutions, (e) Low Occupational Participation, (f) Low Frequency of Participation with Other Communities ^[20]. The General Social Survey (GSS) in United States in America used issues like “there is no one with whom they discuss important matters” to detect the socially Isolated in 1985 and in 2004. Melvin Seeman (1959) has presented five distinct meanings of alienation: (I) Powerlessness defined as the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforcements, he seeks; (II) Meaninglessness, a situation in which the individual is unclear as to what he ought to believe—when the individual's minimal standards for clarity in decision-making are not met; (III) Normlessness, which occurs when high expectancy that socially unapproved behaviors are required to achieve given goals; (IV) Social isolation indicates the assigned low reward value to goals or beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given society, and (V) self-estrangement refers to the degree of dependence of the given behavior upon anticipated future rewards ^[21].

Dwight Dean (1961) recommended a subscale to measure social isolation, with others like measuring powerlessness and meaninglessness ^[22]. The conceptual explanations of these are radically inconsistent from that of Seeman. Social Isolation, according to Dean, indicates the feeling of detachment or disconnection from the group or of isolation from the societal standards. Powerlessness, he designates as helplessness and normlessness as purposelessness and struggles with norms. Like, Seeman and Dean, Fred Waisanen (1963) thinks “Social Isolation” as a sub-dimension of alienation and designates it as losing effective and meaningful ties with the people ^[23]. The other sub-dimensions are normlessness that occurs if the individual lacks comprehension with the system's edicts and norms, and powerlessness that stems if any person lacks control for exchange. Claude Fischer (1973) tested the hypothesis obtained from Louis Wirth (1938) that urban people are predominantly exhibited to alienation ^[24]. He counts two dimensions, (1) ‘powerlessness’, that is operationalized with a discernment of personal subsistence scale; (2) social isolation that is operationalized by scales and items indicating a mistrust of others (and interpretable as a sense of anomie. Exploring these dimensions, he observes no correlation of the size of Standard Cosmopolitan Demographic Area with powerlessness, whereas, assumed social isolation was weakly but consistently connected. Apparently, measuring powerlessness can be disregarded. Robert Weiss (1983) shows that ‘social isolation’ stems from loneliness, which is a typical response to a critical situation ^[25]. He thinks feelings like exhaustion, anxiety, unrest and marginality are the upshot of social isolation (Weiss, 1983: 236).

CONCLUSION:

There are certain similarities in the operationalization of the overall notion of social isolation in the theoretical framework, nonetheless, empirical inquiries suggested by several researchers, exhibits inconsistency in affirming relevant indicators. A principal concern is whether to apply objective indicators to measure the socio-political condition and economic status of the target community or the center should be on the nature of the social relationships that they possess. Another way to express, there is a predicament to examine social isolation, either in the macro-level, by linking to the traditional context and social circumstances or adopting proposed scales, a micro-level interpretation, to measure the attitude to reach the determination of the level of social isolation. The dilemmas of the measurement result from the problems of decent indicators. Indicators are either impersonal - a distinct set of observable events that can be classified and replicated or personal - non-observable and different from researcher to researcher. The key issue is to comprehend what are the observed elements to be separated that can be applied as conducive indicators to social isolation. While numerous investigators have successfully illustrated the probability of some sorts of contextual measurement procedures, there is a deficiency of methodological erudition on multiple-item of multi-dimensional and context-bound measures of social isolation. One primary source of the difficulty to assess social isolation is to associate this with socio-political and socio-economic concerns of the respondents who are undergoing social isolation. The idiosyncratic scales, developed and utilized by countless notable researchers to assess the level of social isolation are more useful and less obscure than that of theoretically addressed variables suggested by classical scholars.

REFERENCES:

1. Nisbet, Robert (1953) The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom. New York: Oxford

2. Merton, Robert K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure (Rev. Ed.), Glencoe,Ill.: The FreePress,

3. Durkheim, Emile (1997, original 1897). Suicide. New York: The Free Press.

4. Marx, Karl (Published in 1959 write notes on Estranged Labour) Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844;

5. Tonnies, Ferdinand (1957) Community and Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (translated and edited by Charles P. Loomis) The Michigan State University Press

6. Wirth, Louis (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1, (Jul., 1938), pp. 1-24 The University of Chicago Press.

7. William Julius Wilson (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy

8. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353-375.

9. Bell, W (1957) “Anomie, Social Isolation and the Class Structure”, in Sociometry, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1957, p. 112. 166.

10. Sorokin, Pitirim A. (1927) Social Mobility, New York: Harper and Bros.

11. Ellis, E. (1952). Social psychological correlates of upward social mobility among unmarried career women. American Sociological Review, 558-563.

12. Ellis, R. A., and Lane, W. C. (1967). Social mobility and social isolation: a test of Sorokin's dissociative hypothesis. American sociological review, 237-253.

13. Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 174-187.

14. Kahn, R. L., and Antonucci, T. C. (1981) Convoys of social support: A life-course approach. In: S. B. Kiesler, J. N. Morgan, and V. K. Oppenheimer (eds.), Aging: Social Change. New York: Academic Press, pp. 383-405.

15. Davis, D. S. (1984). “Good People Doing Dirty Work: A Study Of Social Isolation”. Symbolic Interaction, 7(2), 233-247.

16. Elliott, J. R. (1999). Social isolation and labor market insulation. The Sociological Quarterly, 40(2), 199-216.

17. Vandervoort, D. (2000). Social isolation and gender. Current Psychology, 19(3), 229-236.

18. Gallie, D., Paugam, S., and Jacobs, S. (2003). Unemployment, poverty and social isolation: Is there a vicious circle of social exclusion?. European Societies, 5(1), 1-32. Taylor and Francis.

19. Suedfeld, P. (1974). Social isolation: A case for interdisciplinary research. Canadian Psychologist/ Psychologie canadienne, 15(1), 1.

20. Jaco , E. Gartly (1954) “The Social Isolation Hypothesis and Schizophrenia” American Sociological Review Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 567-577

21. Seeman, M. (1959). “On the meaning of alienation”. American sociological review, 783-791.

22. Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review, 753-758.

23. Waisanen, F. B. (1963). Stability, Alienation, and Change*. The Sociological Quarterly, 4(1), 18-30.

24. Fischer, C. S. (1973). On urban alienations and anomie: powerlessness and social isolation. American Sociological Review, 311-326.

25. Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.

Received on 27.09.2016

Modified on 05.10.2016

Accepted on 22.10.2016

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 7(4): October- December, 2016, 277-281.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2016.00044.9