
You've been digitally dumped — the great ghosting epidemic
This habit of people silently retreating from each other's lives — known as ghosting — is a familiar part of the modern age and a morbid symptom of the loneliness epidemic, digital devices having made it simpler to connect with people but simultaneously simpler to get rid of them without notice or reason. In his curious book Ghosting: On Disappearance the Australian author Dominic Pettman delves into the rules of disengagement.
The definition of ghosting, added to the dictionary in 2012, is 'the action of ignoring or pretending not to know a person, especially that of suddenly ceasing to respond'. But Pettman, whose full job title is (take a deep breath here) university professor of media and new humanities and chair of liberal studies at the New School for Social Research in New York, has a more evocative take. Ghosting is the creation of empty space, he says, 'not unlike the chalk outline found at a murder scene'. Cutting off all contact allows the disappearing person to end their existence without any of 'the inconvenience of actually dying'.
To help us to understand the origins of this universally depressing yet increasingly widespread digital habit, Pettman cobbles together a short history, emphasising that the 'ancient experience' is 'inscribed in Greek myths, Chinese sagas and African folk tales'. For many centuries, ghosting used to be a synonym for death, he reveals, a clever verb for ceasing to be alive. Shakespeare in Antony and Cleopatra writes: 'Julius Caesar/ Who at Philippi the good Brutus ghosted.' The first use of the term in its contemporary sense appeared in the 1983 novel Gardens of Stone by Nicholas Proffitt: 'Where's Wildman? If that sad sack is ghosting again, I'll have his butt on a biscuit for breakfast.' Our modern version, Pettman argues, of ignoring WhatsApps or secretly muting Instagram followers simply updates the phenomenon for 'fluorescent-lit modernity'.
The most widely despised form of ghosting is romantic. In the analogue days it used to be relatively simple to fade into the background if a potential suitor did something to put you off. But since communication is now so rapid and so easy, 'a modern ghost must be diligent about ignoring calls, texts, emails, messages, pokes, prods'. Even with the most concerted efforts at disappearing, today's ghosters often fail to make themselves disappear completely. A plethora of other metaphoric verbs — orbiting, benching, submarining — describe how former flames with whom it is impossible to make contact still loom in our TikTok feeds and LinkedIn notifications. 'We have normalised the ubiquitous, ongoing half-lives of voices long gone, faces long vanished and thoughts long ceased.'
Other kinds of ghosting — familial, platonic, professional, social — find a place in Pettman's guide too, each becoming increasingly common in 'our age of ever-loosening social ties'. From the 'deadbeat dad who abandons his family' — historical examples include Charles Dickens, Albert Einstein and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 'who convinced his wife to abandon all five of their children at a foundling facility in Paris' — to companies failing to send follow-up emails after job interviews and friends who, while never actively breaking away, reduce their effort to the bare minimum, replying to messages 'belatedly, dutifully and perhaps even a little resentfully'.
• Read more book reviews and interviews — and see what's top of the Sunday Times Bestsellers List
Pettman tries hard to be literary. Sometimes it lands, sometimes it doesn't. He describes the pain of getting ghosted, for example, as being 'washed ashore on the melancholy sands of our own solitude', which I could have done without. But he does seem to have a sense of humour, which ties the book together. His list of just about acceptable reasons for ghosting someone includes 'listening to Joe Rogan, admiring Elon Musk, or discussing the finer details of bitcoin' and among his conclusions about what is to be done about it is a 'global seance'. An eclectic series of case studies manages to incorporate both the Sex and the City TV series, specifically when Carrie gets dumped via Post-it Note, and the much misquoted Margaret Thatcher speech that 'there is no such thing as society', which he boldly claims 'inaugurated' our brutal culture of withdrawing without explanation.
The most worthwhile parts of this study of ghosting are where Pettman gets specific about why ghosting is, and has always been, such a cruel act — the ghoster escapes 'with the entire relationship rolled up under their arm', leaving no tangible marker that the pair of you ever knew each other, no permanent proof 'locked on the railings of picturesque European bridges'. Ghosting, he argues, is 'a form of auto-gaslighting, as you begin to entertain the dreadful possibility that you simply invented an imaginary companion, even as a fully fledged adult'. I know I'm not the only one who will be glad someone finally put that strange feeling into words.
Ghosting: On Disappearance by Dominic Pettman (Polity £12.99 pp110). To order a copy go to timesbookshop.co.uk. Free UK standard P&P on orders over £25. Special discount available for Times+ members
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
13 hours ago
- Times
Trump base wants attorney-general fired over Epstein ‘conspiracy'
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.


Times
14 hours ago
- Times
How women could be spared jail when waiting for criminal trials
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.


Daily Mail
15 hours ago
- Daily Mail
FLOURISHING AFTER 50: My daughter's expensive wedding is ruining our retirement plans - can we cut back without losing face?
Dear Vanessa, I'm feeling sick with worry and don't know who else to turn to. My husband and I are both in our late 50s. We've worked hard all our lives and were hoping to retire by 70 - not extravagantly, just comfortably. Our eldest daughter is getting married next year. We adore her and want her to have a lovely day, but a few months ago my husband told her fiancé's family that we would pay for the entire wedding. He did it to look generous - especially because the groom's parents are very well-off and traditional. Now he says he can't back down without losing face. The problem is the wedding has ballooned to nearly $60,000 thanks to a huge venue, band, flowers, the lot. My husband insists we'll 'make it work' but I know we can't afford it without dipping into our mortgage offset or even our retirement savings. We still have some debt and we're not rich by any stretch. I've tried talking to my husband but he just gets defensive and says he won't 'look cheap' or let the other side think we can't provide. Our daughter is so excited and I feel terrible bringing it up with her - but I'm so angry that we're risking our future to keep up appearances. Should I push him harder? Should we tell our daughter she needs to scale back? Or should I just bite my tongue and find a way to pay - even if it means we work longer? I feel so stuck. Worried Mum, NSW. First of all, I really feel for you. This is exactly the kind of family conflict about money that can quietly undermine the retirement you've spent decades building. A wedding is meant to be a joyful celebration - not a $60,000 drain that chips away at your future security. But this is about more than one big day - it's pride, old-fashioned expectations and the fear of embarrassment when money truths come out. My first piece of advice is to move this out of emotion and into facts. Sit down with your husband and map out exactly what paying for this wedding means for your plan to retire by 70. For example, if you have $500,000 in retirement savings at around 58 and plan to retire by 70, spending $60,000 now could mean losing more than $110,000 by the time you reach retirement just from the lost growth alone. Most people forget the real cost isn't just what you spend today - it's what that money could have grown into for your future. To see this clearly, run a quick scenario using the free Moneysmart Retirement Planner - you'll find it here. Plug in your real numbers - your current balance, contributions and target retirement age - then run it again with $60,000 less. That difference is your real cost of 'keeping up appearances'. Once you both see the impact in black and white, you can plan a gentle but honest chat with your daughter. Tell her you love her and want her day to be beautiful, but you can't risk your own security to impress anyone. It's one of the best lessons you can pass on: big milestones should never come at the cost of your long-term wellbeing. If your husband still can't face it, I strongly recommend bringing in a neutral third party - a financial adviser or coach - to show him the numbers without blame or conflict. Sometimes that's all it takes to break through pride. If you'd like help finding the right adviser to guide you through this, you can start here. You've both worked too hard to spend your later years worried about money. Be brave enough to have this tough conversation now - your future self will thank you for it.