Show Hide image

The NS Interview: Arianna Huffington

“There’s a lot of very legitimate anger in America”.

You grew up in Greece and then went to England to study. Why?
I didn't move away from Greece so much as move to England. I felt propelled to do so because of a magazine article on Cambridge I saw as a teenager. I looked at the pictures and was overcome by a desire to study there. Everyone thought I was crazy.

What was your impression of Britain?
Going to England was an incredibly transformative experience for me. I was a classic fish out of water, but I quickly adapted.

What drew you to the US after that?
My relationship with the journalist Bernard Levin had ended and I was looking to make a fresh start. When I was 16 I had spent the summer in Pennsylvania. I went back to Athens, but a part of me remained in America. I knew it was where I some day wanted to live.

You used to campaign for the Republicans and are now a Democrat. Why the switch?
It has been exaggerated. When I was a Republican, I was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control. There aren't many Republicans who would identify themselves in those ways today.

You ran as an independent for governor in California: would you go into politics again?
No, I love my day job!

What's your take on Obama's presidency?
The administration massively underestimated the extent of the economic devastation. While people were losing jobs and homes in epidemic proportions, there was no sense of urgency coming out of the White House.

Where did he go wrong?
A lot of the problems started with the fact that he was surrounded by a very Wall Street-centric economic team, led by Larry Summers. They assumed that once Wall Street was saved, everything else would follow.

What's your prediction for the presidential elections in 2012?
Everything depends on the lessons Obama takes from the midterm elections, but he doesn't seem to have taken the right lessons. He still seems unfocused.

Does the Tea Party have longevity in US politics?
Yes, because the foundation of the Tea Party is anger, and there's a lot of very legitimate anger in America and the government has not worked in the interests of the people.

In what sense?
The government has spent taxpayer money in the interests of different elites, rather than in the interests of the people. And it's continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars perpetuating two wars that are not in America's national security interest.

Are we right to assume that Sarah Palin is going to run for president?
It looks as though she's going to run. Anything can change, but that's how it looks.

Has she got a chance?
She's going to be a force in any primary field that does not have an obvious strong runner. But at the same time, even among her supporters, many do not consider her qualified.

What is the secret of her success?
Whenever there is deep economic anxiety, it is easy to exploit people's fear - appealing to people's "knee-jerk brain", rather than their actual brain.

You set up the Huffington Post five years ago. How has its purpose changed with the times?
The purpose is the same as it's always been: to turn a spotlight on the issues we think are important, to hold our leaders' feet to the fire, and to provide real-time commentary and news that will affect the national conversation.

How do you see the media evolving over the next five to ten years?
Ten years ago, no one could have predicted the rise of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter - so anyone who gazes into their crystal ball and tells you what the media will be like ten or even five years down the road is engaging in a fool's errand. That said, I have no doubt that the media will be even more interactive and that news coverage will be increasingly social. News is no longer something we passively take in; we are all part of the evolution of a story now.

Was there a plan?
There was never a plan. But I feel there is a blueprint to our lives. The secret is figuring out how to read it.

Is there anything you'd like to forget?
I can't remember.

Do you vote?

Are we all doomed?
In the long run, we are all going to be fine. The medium run is the problematic part.

Defining Moments

1950 Born in Athens
1966 Moves to England
1971 Made president of Cambridge Union
1986 Marries Michael Huffington, a businessman and, later, congressman
1996 Prominently supports Bob Dole's Republican presidential bid
2003 Withdraws bid for governorship of California after it is reported she paid only $771 in state taxes for the previous two years
2005 Sets up Huffington Post

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 20 December 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Christmas Special

Show Hide image

The age of loneliness

Profound changes in technology, work and community are transforming our ultrasocial species into a population of loners.

Our dominant ideology is based on a lie. A series of lies, in fact, but I’ll focus on just one. This is the claim that we are, above all else, self-interested – that we seek to enhance our own wealth and power with little regard for the impact on others.

Some economists use a term to describe this presumed state of being – Homo economicus, or self-maximising man. The concept was formulated, by J S Mill and others, as a thought experiment. Soon it became a modelling tool. Then it became an ideal. Then it evolved into a description of who we really are.

It could not be further from the truth. To study human behaviour is to become aware of how weird we are. Many species will go to great lengths to help and protect their close kin. One or two will show occasional altruism towards unrelated members of their kind. But no species possesses a capacity for general altruism that is anywhere close to our own.

With the possible exception of naked mole-rats, we have the most social minds of all mammals. These minds evolved as an essential means of survival. Slow, weak, armed with rounded teeth and flimsy nails in a world of fangs and claws and horns and tusks, we survived through co-operation, reciprocity and mutual defence, all of which developed to a remarkable degree.

A review paper in the journal Frontiers in Psychology observes that Homo economicus  might be a reasonable description of chimpanzees. “Outsiders . . . would not expect to receive offers of food or solicitude; rather, they would be fiercely attacked . . . food is shared only under harassment; even mothers will not voluntarily offer novel foods to their own infants unless the infants beg for them.” But it is an unreasonable description of human beings.

How many of your friends, colleagues and neighbours behave like chimpanzees? A few, perhaps. If so, are they respected or reviled? Some people do appear to act as if they have no interests but their own – Philip Green and Mike Ashley strike me as possible examples – but their behaviour ­attracts general revulsion. The news is filled with spectacular instances of human viciousness: although psychopaths are rare, their deeds fill the papers. Daily acts of kindness are seldom reported, because they are everywhere.

Every day, I see people helping others with luggage, offering to cede their place in a queue, giving money to the homeless, setting aside time for others, volunteering for causes that offer no material reward. Alongside these quotidian instances are extreme and stunning cases. I think of my Dutch mother-in-law, whose family took in a six-year-old Jewish boy – a stranger – and hid him in their house for two years during the German occupation of the Netherlands. Had he been discovered, they would all have been sent to a concentration camp.

Studies suggest that altruistic tendencies are innate: from the age of 14 months, children try to help each other, attempting to hand over objects another child can’t reach. At the age of two, they start to share valued possessions. By the time they are three, they begin to protest against other people’s violation of moral norms.

Perhaps because we are told by the media, think tanks and politicians that competition and self-interest are the defining norms of human life, we disastrously mischaracterise the way in which other people behave. A survey commissioned by the Common Cause Foundation reported that 78 per cent of respondents believe others to be more selfish than they really are.

I do not wish to suggest that this mythology of selfishness is the sole or even principal cause of the epidemic of loneliness now sweeping the world. But it is likely to contribute to the plague by breeding suspicion and a sense of threat. It also appears to provide a doctrine of justification for those afflicted by isolation, a doctrine that sees individualism as a higher state of existence than community. Perhaps it is hardly surprising that Britain, the European nation in which neoliberalism is most advanced, is, according to government figures, the loneliness capital of Europe.

There are several possible reasons for the atomisation now suffered by the supremely social mammal. Work, which used to bring us together, now disperses us: many people have neither fixed workplaces nor regular colleagues and regular hours. Our leisure time has undergone a similar transformation: cinema replaced by television, sport by computer games, time with friends by time on Facebook.

Social media seems to cut both ways: it brings us together and sets us apart. It helps us to stay in touch, but also cultivates a tendency that surely enhances other people’s sense of isolation: a determination to persuade your followers that you’re having a great time. FOMO – fear of missing out – seems, at least in my mind, to be closely ­associated with loneliness.

Children’s lives in particular have been transformed: since the 1970s, their unaccompanied home range (in other words, the area they roam without adult supervision) has declined in Britain by almost 90 per cent. Not only does this remove them from contact with the natural world, but it limits their contact with other children. When kids played out on the street or in the woods, they quickly formed their own tribes, learning the social skills that would see them through life.

An ageing population, family and community breakdown, the decline of institutions such as churches and trade unions, the switch from public transport to private, inequality, an alienating ethic of consumerism, the loss of common purpose: all these are likely to contribute to one of the most dangerous epidemics of our time.

Yes, I do mean dangerous. The stress response triggered by loneliness raises blood pressure and impairs the immune system. Loneliness enhances the risk of depression, paranoia, addiction, cognitive decline, dem­entia, heart disease, stroke, viral infection, accidents and suicide. It is as potent a cause of early death as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and can be twice as deadly as obesity.

Perhaps because we are in thrall to the ideology that helps to cause the problem, we turn to the market to try to solve it. Over the past few weeks, the discovery of a new American profession, the people-walker (taking human beings for walks), has caused a small sensation in the media. In Japan there is a fully fledged market for friendship: you can hire friends by the hour with whom to chat and eat and watch TV; or, more disturbingly, to pose for pictures that you can post on social media. They are rented as mourners at funerals and guests at weddings. A recent article describes how a fake friend was used to replace a sister with whom the bride had fallen out. What would the bride’s mother make of it? No problem: she had been rented, too. In September we learned that similar customs have been followed in Britain for some time: an early foray into business for the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, involved offering to lease her posh friends to underpopulated weddings.



My own experience fits the current pattern: the high incidence of loneliness suffered by people between the ages of 18 and 34. I have sometimes been lonely before and after that period, but it was during those years that I was most afflicted. The worst episode struck when I returned to Britain after six years working in West Papua, Brazil and East Africa. In those parts I sometimes felt like a ghost, drifting through societies to which I did not belong. I was often socially isolated, but I seldom felt lonely, perhaps because the issues I was investigating were so absorbing and the work so frightening that I was swept along by adrenalin and a sense of purpose.

When I came home, however, I fell into a mineshaft. My university friends, with their proper jobs, expensive mortgages and settled, prematurely aged lives, had become incomprehensible to me, and the life I had been leading seemed incomprehensible to everyone. Though feeling like a ghost abroad was in some ways liberating – a psychic decluttering that permitted an intense process of discovery – feeling like a ghost at home was terrifying. I existed, people acknowledged me, greeted me cordially, but I just could not connect. Wherever I went, I heard my own voice bouncing back at me.

Eventually I made new friends. But I still feel scarred by that time, and fearful that such desolation may recur, particularly in old age. These days, my loneliest moments come immediately after I’ve given a talk, when I’m surrounded by people congratulating me or asking questions. I often experience a falling sensation: their voices seem to recede above my head. I think it arises from the nature of the contact: because I can’t speak to anyone for more than a few seconds, it feels like social media brought to life.

The word “sullen” evolved from the Old French solain, which means “lonely”. Loneliness is associated with an enhanced perception of social threat, so one of its paradoxical consequences is a tendency to shut yourself off from strangers. When I was lonely, I felt like lashing out at the society from which I perceived myself excluded, as if the problem lay with other people. To read any comment thread is, I feel, to witness this tendency: you find people who are plainly making efforts to connect, but who do so by insulting and abusing, alienating the rest of the thread with their evident misanthropy. Perhaps some people really are rugged individualists. But others – especially online – appear to use that persona as a rationale for involuntary isolation.

Whatever the reasons might be, it is as if a spell had been cast on us, transforming this ultrasocial species into a population of loners. Like a parasite enhancing the conditions for its own survival, loneliness impedes its own cure by breeding shame and shyness. The work of groups such as Age UK, Mind, Positive Ageing and the Campaign to End Loneliness is life-saving.

When I first wrote about this subject, and the article went viral, several publishers urged me to write a book on the theme. Three years sitting at my desk, studying isolation: what’s the second prize? But I found another way of working on the issue, a way that engages me with others, rather than removing me. With the brilliant musician Ewan McLennan, I have written a concept album (I wrote the first draft of the lyrics; he refined them and wrote the music). Our aim is to use it to help break the spell, with performances of both music and the spoken word designed to bring people together –which, we hope, will end with a party at the nearest pub.

By itself, our work can make only a tiny contribution to addressing the epidemic. But I hope that, both by helping people to acknowledge it and by using the power of music to create common sentiment, we can at least begin to identify the barriers that separate us from others, and to remember that we are not the selfish, ruthless beings we are told we are.

“Breaking the Spell of Loneliness” by Ewan McLennan and George Monbiot is out now. For a full list of forthcoming gigs visit:

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood