Irvin Yalom proved what many have felt: Groups built on belonging heal in ways nothing else can.

Business was handed the village blueprint. It kept the skeleton but forgot the soul.

Rebuilding groups is the path toward reclaiming the conditions of human flourishing.

We've always known we need each other—not just as partners, not just as parents and children, not just as friends who meet for coffee on a Tuesday, but as a community. We long to belong to a community of people where our names are known, our struggles are witnessed, and our absence is felt. Something in us has always understood this, even if we've lost the words for it; even if the culture around us has spent the last century insisting we're better off managing on our own.

Psychology understands this, too. Irvin Yalom sat with wounded, frightened people, people who had spent years telling themselves they were uniquely damaged. And he watched something arrive that didn't arrive any other way. It was universality: that breathtaking relief when someone in the group says the thing you thought only you felt, and the walls of your private pain begin to crack. It was cohesion: the felt sense, warm and almost physical, of belonging to something that will hold you even on the days you can't hold yourself. It was interpersonal learning: the way we come to know ourselves most honestly in the friction and tenderness of a genuine group, where others reflect back to us who we actually are. (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005; Burlingame et al., 2018)

Irvin Yalom understood that the group itself was the instrument: It wasn’t a backdrop for healing, but the thing that does the healing.

What humans have always known

Yalom wasn't discovering something new. He was remembering something ancient. He was giving clinical language to what human beings had simply lived, without theory, without research design, without peer-reviewed journals, for nearly two million years.

Picture it for a moment, not as a romanticized fantasy but as a simple human reality: the village, that circle of people around the fire at the end of a long day. Everyone's story was known, not just the highlight reel, but the full story: the grief you carried; the fear you tried to hide; the ways you failed; and the ways you came through. People knew. And knowing, they stayed.

No one suffered in isolation. When a child was sick, hands arrived. When a harvest failed, everyone ate less. When someone died, the whole village sat with the loss, not for an afternoon, not in a private ceremony with a handful of relatives, but together, for as long as it took, because grief was understood to be communal work. (Hill et al., 2011)

What modern culture kept—and what it didn’t

And then, slowly at first and suddenly all at once, it ended. The villages gave way. Empires rose. Industrialization arrived with its promises and its hunger. And eventually, we found ourselves here, inside consumer culture.

And consumer culture didn't ignore the old wisdom entirely. It borrowed half of it.

It looked at two million years of human history and said to the world of business: People are stronger together. And so companies were born and grew: from a lone founder with a dream, to a small band of early believers, to something large enough that if one person falls, others can catch them.

But the marketplace kept only the skeleton. It left out the soul.

Because what made the village work, what made Yalom's groups work, was never just proximity; never just the number of bodies in a room. It was something tender that arrived alongside the size: a mutuality; a quiet, unspoken covenant. I will show up for you, and you will show up for me. Not because it's efficient. Not because it advances a shared objective. But because you are mine and I am yours, and that means something. That was the heartbeat of the village. That was the healing force in Yalom's groups. And that is precisely what the marketplace did not keep.

So companies built their teams, but there was no circle to gather around, no fire to sit beside and speak your truth. And without that, it wasn't a village. Without that, it was a pathway to people keeping their heads down, their hearts closed, their eyes on the clock—just making it through each day. (Maslach et al, 2001)

But even that hollow version of the group was more than what consumer culture allowed at home.

Because at home, it handed us something different. It handed us appliances. It handed us the dream of the self-sufficient household: your own dishwasher, your own lawnmower, your own blender, your own everything. And it called this freedom. It called this progress. You don't need to share. You don't need to coordinate. You don't need to depend on anyone. Here is your individual unit of modern life.

And we took it. Because it looked like abundance. Because the appliances were real and the convenience was real, and no one fully named what was being taken in exchange.

What was being taken was the village.

And with it went the load-sharing; the hands that arrived when someone was sick; the circle that held a grieving family; the certainty that if you wobbled, something larger than your household would catch you. (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015)

Each family was handed the full weight of what entire communities, entire villages, once carried together. They were told to manage it with two adults, sometimes one.

Is it any wonder we’re so tired?

That tiredness isn't weakness. It is the entirely predictable consequence of dismantling the one structure that made human life sustainable, and handing each small family the bill.

And so the work, the most urgent, human work, is to come back together: not back to something primitive, but back to something true. It's time to rebuild the groups, and to reconstruct, carefully and intentionally, the conditions under which human beings truly flourish.

The village lives in Yalom's research. It lives in our ancestral memory. And it comes to life every time we gather in a circle, say a true thing, and feel, for the first time in a long time, that we are not alone. That's where we begin.

Burlingame, G. M., McClendon, D. T., & Yang, C. (2018). Cohesion in group therapy: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000173

Hill, K. R., Walker, R. S., Božičević, M., Eder, J., Headland, T., Hewlett, B., Hurtado, A. M., Marlowe, F., Wiessner, P., & Wood, B. (2011). Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure. Science, 331(6022), 1286–1289. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199071

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. (5th ed.). Basic Books.

© Psychology Today