What We Lost When We Lost Each Other
Belonging, Meaning, and the Human Wisdom We Still Need
“Human beings need concepts and structures as much as they need bread.” — Iris Murdoch
We have never been more surrounded, and rarely felt so unaccompanied. We move through dense networks of voices, updates, and invitations, yet the quiet assurance of being held by one another has grown strangely elusive.
Modern life offers endless ways to assemble an identity and very few ways to be held by one. We curate ourselves constantly, adjusting language and posture for shifting rooms, performing coherence while rarely feeling rooted. Belonging’s become something we audition for and something that can be revoked at speed. Even our communities arrive with terms and conditions attached. Stay agreeable. Stay useful. Stay visible. Drift too far from the script and the door quietly closes.
Technology promised to bring us together, and in many ways it has. But it’s also trained us to mistake proximity for presence and volume for meaning. Ideology stepped in to offer clarity and purpose, but it often demands allegiance without mercy. Material success offers comfort and distraction, yet it rarely answers the older questions that visit us at night, the ones about suffering, limits, aging, loss, and the simple ache of being human among other humans.
Before I go any further, I should say plainly where I stand. I’m not a believer in the traditional sense. I’m not writing to persuade anyone toward faith or away from it. I write as a humanist who’s watched what happens when societies dismantle ancient forms of belonging without replacing the human needs they once held together. I’m interested less in belief than in inheritance, less in doctrine than in what endures when belief itself is absent.
Faith traditions enter this reflection not as arbiters of truth, but as long running human experiments in how to live together without tearing one another apart. They carried moral languages, shared rituals, calendars of meaning, and practices that taught restraint, reverence, and continuity. They answered questions that modern systems prefer to ignore, questions about how to suffer without becoming cruel and how to belong without being consumed.
What concerns me now isn’t the decline of faith, but the vacuum left behind. When every structure of belonging becomes optional, transactional, or performative, the human spirit doesn’t become freer. It becomes thinner. And in that thinning, we reach for substitutes that promise certainty or comfort, often without realizing what they can’t give us.
When Moral Language Frays
One of the quiet casualties of this thinning has been our shared moral language. Not morality itself, which people still care about deeply, but the common words and assumptions that once allowed us to speak across difference without immediately retreating into camps. We still argue about right and wrong, perhaps more loudly than ever, but we rarely agree on what those words even mean anymore.
Much of our moral speech has been absorbed by systems that reward certainty over humility and speed over reflection. Moral language now arrives prepackaged, sharpened for performance, optimized for outrage or affirmation. It signals identity before it invites understanding. Words like justice, freedom, dignity, responsibility, and even compassion are deployed less as bridges and more as banners. They tell us who’s inside and who’s out long before they tell us what’s being asked of us.
What’s faded isn’t conviction but vocabulary that assumes endurance. Older moral languages were slow by design. They assumed that humans are fallible, contradictory, and capable of growth over time. They made room for repentance, forgiveness, restraint, and the long work of repair. They allowed disagreement without immediate exile because they were anchored in shared narratives about what it meant to be human rather than in constant declarations of moral purity.
In the absence of that shared grounding, we’re left improvising moral speech in real time, often under pressure, often in public, often with stakes that feel existential. The result’s a brittle moral environment where every misstep feels fatal and every disagreement threatens belonging itself. People grow careful not because they lack values, but because the cost of speaking imperfectly’s become too high.
This isn’t a complaint about sensitivity or progress. It’s an observation about what happens when moral language loses its connective tissue. When words no longer carry a sense of continuity, when they’re severed from shared memory and shared practice, they struggle to do the patient work they once did. They still wound and defend with great efficiency, but they rarely heal.
What faith traditions once offered here wasn’t uniform agreement, but a moral grammar that outlasted individual moments. A way of speaking about right and wrong that assumed time, repair, and the possibility of return. When that grammar disappears, we don’t become more honest. We become more isolated in our righteousness, speaking fluently only to those who already know our dialect.
When Time Loses Its Shape
Alongside the fraying of moral language has come a quieter loss, the loss of ritualized meaning. Not ritual as spectacle or habit, but ritual as a shared way of marking time, transition, and human limits. Modern life’s relentlessly present tense. Everything’s now, urgent, disposable, and endlessly renewable. We’re rarely asked to pause together, to remember together, or to acknowledge that some moments carry more weight than others.
Ritual once slowed time on purpose. It created interruptions in ordinary life that said, this matters, pay attention. Birth, coming of age, union, loss, forgiveness, mourning, gratitude. These moments weren’t left to personal interpretation alone. They were held by communal practices that reminded individuals they weren’t navigating life’s thresholds in isolation.
Without those shared markers, time flattens. Days blur into one another. Loss becomes private. Gratitude becomes abstract. Suffering’s managed rather than witnessed. We’re expected to move on quickly, to process silently, to return to productivity with minimal disruption. Even grief’s often treated as an inconvenience to be handled efficiently rather than a human reality that requires space and patience.
This flattening doesn’t make us more resilient. It makes us more hurried and less held. When there’s no common pause, no shared acknowledgment of weight and passage, individuals are left to invent their own meanings in the margins of an already crowded life. Some manage this with grace. Many don’t. The result isn’t freedom, but exhaustion.
What faith traditions preserved here wasn’t superstition, but rhythm. A sense that time itself has texture. That some seasons invite labor and others invite rest. That some moments call for silence rather than commentary. That there are thresholds no one should cross alone. When these rhythms disappear, life becomes an uninterrupted demand to perform, decide, and adapt without relief.
We try to recreate ritual through wellness routines, productivity systems, and curated experiences. Some of these help at the margins. But most remain individual solutions to a communal absence. They can’t do the deeper work of reminding us that we’re part of something larger than our own schedules and survival strategies.
The danger isn’t that we’ve abandoned ritual, but that we no longer know what it was for. It was never about preserving the past. It was about teaching finite beings how to live inside time without being crushed by it.
When Belonging Becomes Conditional
The final loss follows naturally from the others. When moral language frays and time loses its shape, belonging itself begins to change character. It becomes conditional, provisional, and often transactional. We’re welcome so long as we contribute, conform, or confirm what the group already believes. Membership’s maintained through alignment rather than care.
Modern belonging’s frequently organized around usefulness. We’re valued for what we produce, how we perform, or how effectively we signal loyalty. Even our most intimate spaces aren’t immune. Friendships thin under pressure. Communities fracture under disagreement. The expectation, often unspoken, is that difference should be resolved quickly or quietly removed.
This isn’t because people’ve grown colder. It’s because the structures that once absorbed tension have weakened. Older forms of belonging assumed friction. They expected disagreement, failure, and return. They were built to hold imperfect people over time, not to curate ideal ones in the moment.
In their absence, we often mistake agreement for safety and uniformity for harmony. But belonging that depends on sameness is fragile. It can’t survive change, growth, or honest speech. It offers acceptance at the cost of self concealment, and over time that cost becomes unbearable.
What faith communities once practiced here wasn’t exclusion, though they often failed in this regard, but endurance. A stubborn commitment to remain in relationship even when doing so was uncomfortable. Belonging wasn’t something one earned daily. It was something one was entrusted with and expected to steward.
When that model disappears, loneliness doesn’t always announce itself loudly. It shows up as constant movement, constant reinvention, constant vigilance. We keep scanning rooms, feeds, and conversations for signs that we still belong, rarely resting long enough to feel held.
The irony is that in an age obsessed with identity, many people feel more replaceable than ever. Belonging’s become something we manage rather than something we receive. And in that management, the quiet assurance that we matter beyond our usefulness slips away.
What Still Endures
For all that’s thinned and frayed, something important hasn’t been lost. The human need for belonging hasn’t vanished. Our capacity for reverence hasn’t evaporated. Our longing for meaning hasn’t been extinguished by screens, speed, or noise. These needs persist because they’re older than any system we’ve built to manage or distract ourselves from them.
What faith traditions remind us of, even now, is that resilience was never meant to be a solo achievement. It was cultivated in shared language, shared time, and shared care. It grew slowly, through practices that assumed human weakness without condemning it and human dignity without demanding perfection. That wisdom doesn’t expire simply because belief becomes optional.
To recognize this isn’t to retreat into the past or to borrow certainty we don’t hold. It’s to acknowledge that we’re not the first generation to feel disoriented, unmoored, or overwhelmed by change. Others came before us with fewer tools and fewer illusions, and they left behind ways of living that helped finite people endure uncertainty together.
Regeneration doesn’t require us to recover faith as doctrine. It requires us to recover faith as trust in one another’s humanity. Trust that language can heal as well as wound. Trust that time can be shaped rather than endured. Trust that belonging can be offered without conditions attached to usefulness or agreement. These aren’t supernatural achievements. They’re human ones, practiced imperfectly across centuries.
In an atomized world, choosing continuity’s a quiet act of courage. Choosing patience over performance, memory over novelty, and care over certainty doesn’t make us less modern. It makes us more human. The future won’t be rebuilt by abandoning the past, nor by resurrecting it whole, but by remembering what it knew about us and carrying that knowledge forward with humility.
What endures isn’t belief itself, but the wisdom that taught people how to live together when belief faltered. That inheritance is still available to anyone willing to receive it. And in receiving it, we may find that resilience doesn’t arrive as revelation, but as recognition.
If resilience endures, it does so quietly,
in the ways we choose to remain with one another
when no one is keeping score.
Support the Work
Light Against Empire is a reader-supported publication and always free. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or donation based subscriber.
Further Reading:
