Would Web3 lead to Widespread Loneliness and Digital Anomie?
This is part 3 in a multi-part series on the psychology of social norms. If you haven’t already, you can start at the beginning by reading part 1, here, on Sweden’s historic traffic switch.
Imagine a world where every interaction is transactional, every relationship reduced to a series of verifiable exchanges, and every individual exists in a digital silo. It may sound like dystopian science fiction, but it’s not far removed from the trajectory of our digital evolution.
This is the world Web3 promises—a decentralized internet designed to empower users but with the potential to unravel social cohesion. To understand the stakes, we turn to the past: Émile Durkheim’s concept of anomie, born from the social upheavals of 19th-century France. Could the digital transformation of today lead us into a new era of normlessness, isolation, and societal fragmentation?
Defining Emile Durkheim’s Anomie
Anomie, a term coined by sociologist Émile Durkheim, describes a state of normlessness, malaise, and frayed social cohesion. It’s a condition where individuals, disconnected from shared values and understandings, live in an increasingly fragmented world. In Durkheim’s words, anomie is the “malady of the infinite”—an insatiable drive for more that leaves individuals isolated and societies fractured.
As we’ve seen, Durkheim’s concept emerged in response to the rapid urbanization of France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As rural farmers migrated to cities, the tightly-knit fabric of agrarian life unraveled. People became untethered from shared norms and plunged into a competitive urban landscape where economic output defined self-worth and relationships. The result? A society plagued by loneliness, rising suicide rates, and a pervasive sense of disconnection.
Today, society faces a similar upheaval, but the transformation is digital rather than geographic. The digital world, particularly the emerging concept of Web3, mirrors the upheaval Durkheim observed in urbanizing France. Web3 promises decentralization and empowerment but also carries the seeds of modern anomie. To understand this, we must examine the mechanisms of anomie and how they apply to the digital domain.
The Mechanisms of Anomie and Loneliness
Durkheim attributed anomie to two interrelated phenomena: a lack of shared values and norms, and excessive specialization in the division of labor. In the rural world, life revolved around family farms, where everyone contributed to a common goal. Urbanization disrupted this communal structure. As individuals specialized in trades—becoming blacksmiths, doctors, accountants—their roles became isolated from one another, and lead to widespread loneliness. They lost sight of the larger societal system and their mutual dependencies.
Durkheim described this fragmentation in The Paris Manuscripts: “The individual will isolate himself in his own activity. He will no longer be aware of the collaborator who works at his side on the same task; he has even no longer any idea at all what the common task consists of…the division of labor cannot, therefore, be pushed too far without being a source of disintegration” (p. 294).
Excessive specialization isolates people, exacerbates loneliness, and strips them of a sense of belonging and shared purpose. It breeds a competitive, “dog-eat-dog” mindset, further eroding social bonds. Durkheim’s observations resonate in today’s world, where heightened political polarization, fierce tribalism, and rising economic inequality exacerbate societal discord. Now, a new factor—Web3—threatens to push society further into this digital anomie.
Anomie and Web3
Web3 represents the next potential phase of the internet. If Web1 in the 1990s was a static, decentralized collection of web pages and Web2 is today’s platform-driven, user-generated ecosystem dominated by Big Tech, Web3 aims to decentralize control and ownership. Built on blockchain technology, Web3 envisions a user-owned internet, free from centralized gatekeepers like Google and Facebook.
Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood, who coined the term Web3, describes it as a return to the decentralized, community-based exchanges of “little farm villages.” However, the metaphor of moving from the farm to the modern city is just as apt. Web3’s decentralized structure mirrors the hyper-specialized, competitive environment that Durkheim warned against. Instead of connecting users through shared platforms, Web3 risks isolating individuals into digital silos.
Without central authorities or regulators, Web3’s decentralized framework could amplify the conditions for anomie. Imagine a digital world where every interaction is transactional, every relationship reduced to a series of blockchain-verified exchanges. Just as urbanization fragmented 19th-century France, Web3 could fragment the digital world, leaving individuals disconnected, lonely, and adrift.
Digital Anomie
Durkheim’s insights offer a cautionary lens for examining the societal impacts of Web3. He warned that excessive specialization and unbridled competition create fertile ground for anomie. In the context of Web3, this translates to a decentralized internet where users—no longer bound by shared platforms or norms—compete in a fragmented, hyper-specialized digital economy.
This fragmentation is already visible. Social media platforms encourage individuals to specialize as content creators, influencers, or niche experts. The relentless pursuit of likes, shares, and followers fosters a “malady of the infinite”—a never-ending quest for validation and success. Web3 could exacerbate this trend, pushing users further into lonely, isolated digital niches.
Durkheim’s solution to anomie lay in professional solidarity. Over time, he argued, individuals could find meaning and connection through their roles in society. Professional organizations and communities provide a sense of purpose and mutual dependence, serving as the glue that binds society together. “The division of labor,” Durkheim wrote, “cannot produce higher levels of solidarity unless it is accompanied by solidaristic attitudes within professional organizations and communities.”
If Web3 is to avoid plunging society into digital anomie, it must foster these solidaristic attitudes. The decentralized nature of Web3 offers opportunities for collaboration and community-building, but these efforts must be intentional. Without mechanisms to cultivate shared values and connections, Web3 risks becoming a fragmented digital city, rife with competition, loneliness, and isolation.
Final Thoughts on The Future of Digital Anomie
Despite the doom and gloom, Durkheim was optimistic about modernity and about human nature. He viewed anomie as a temporary growing pain of societal evolution. He believed that with time and effort, societies could develop new forms of solidarity to counteract the fragmentation caused by specialization. His insights remind us that the future of the internet—whether it follows the vision of Web3 or another path—depends on our ability to navigate its complexities with care.
Web3’s promise of decentralization and empowerment must be balanced with a commitment to fostering connection and cohesion. As we leave the “little farm village” of Web2 for the digital metropolis of Web3, Durkheim’s perspective offers a guiding principle: a society is much more than the sum of its individuals.
Photo by Ari He via UnSplash
About the author
Matt Johnson, PhD is a researcher, writer, and consumer neuroscientist focusing on the application of psychology to branding. He is the author of the best-selling consumer psychology book Blindsight, and Branding That Means Business (Economist Books, Fall 2022). Contact Matt for speaking engagements, opportunities to collaborate, or just to say hello
References for Web3, Loneliness, and Anomie
Besnard, P. (2017). The true nature of anomie. In Emile Durkheim (pp. 167-171). Routledge.
Gelfand, M. (2019). Rule makers, rule breakers: Tight and loose cultures and the secret signals that direct our lives. Scribner.
Marks, S. R. (1974). Durkheim's theory of anomie. American Journal of Sociology, 80(2), 329-363.
McCloskey, D. (1976). On Durkheim, anomie, and the modern crisis. American Journal of Sociology, 81(6), 1481-1488.
