A sociological analysis of the state of social connections in Kazakhstan reveals that, while a significant portion of the population still maintains close social ties, there are concerning signs of these relationships narrowing and weakening.
Aigul Zabirova.
According to a sociological survey commissioned by the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS), the structure of close family ties among Kazakh citizens breaks down as follows: around one-third of respondents maintain close relationships with up to 10 relatives; one in five has a network of five to nine relatives; another third is actively connected with three to four relatives; and finally, 10% of respondents reported having only one or no close relatives with whom they maintain strong personal relationships.
Family ties play a special role. They are strong ‘anchors’ formed within the family unit that continue to influence individuals throughout their lives. It is within the circle of close relatives that a person first learns empathy, trust, and an ability to regulate emotions—key factors in preventing mental health disorders. According to the World Health Organization, mental health disorders now account for roughly one-sixth of all years lost to disability. People with severe forms of mental illness live 10 to 20 years less than the average population.
Recent studies also point to a sharp rise in depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies among those aged 10 to 24, with this group accounting for around 45% of the total disease burden for their age group. These numbers highlight how digitalization and social isolation have worsened these trends, especially in the context of the post-COVID world.
Dunbar’s circle
In a sociological survey commissioned by KazISS in April of this year, respondents were asked – How many relatives do you have with whom you maintain close relationships and feel comfortable discussing important personal matters?
The analysis of social connections in this study draws on the increasingly popular psychological theory of Dunbar’s circles (Robin Dunbar) in Kazakhstan. According to Dunbar, each person maintains several layers of social closeness, but is capable of sustaining only a limited number of emotionally meaningful relationships. Why? Primarily because our cognitive capacity has its limits. Based on a comparative analysis of neocortex size in primates and the size of their social groups, Dunbar formulated what is now widely known as Dunbar’s number – around 150 stable relationships in which we can maintain regular contact and remain attuned to the emotional state of others. Within this overall limit, social ties are structured into several concentric “circles,” with each successive layer doubling in size but offering roughly half the emotional closeness of the one before it.
So, the first group includes one-third of Kazakh citizens who report having 10 or more close relatives with whom they maintain strong relationships. This is, of course, a positive indicator of mental well-being and a lower risk of behavioral issues, especially among young people, since close family members often serve as the “first line” of support and can notice signs of distress sooner than outsiders.
Another key takeaway is that the stability and longevity of family ties remain a distinctive feature of Kazakh culture, where individuals are deeply “woven” into a web of mutual responsibilities and obligations. This isn’t a one-way street. There’s not only an expectation of support but also a duty to provide it. This interconnectedness, reflected in a third of respondents, points to a collectivist way of life.
Overall, it is a powerful form of social capital, operating on the principle of “us for us,” where members can rely on each other for help, quick access to information, and direct support. This group is most prevalent in the Kyzylorda, Mangystau, Turkistan, and Zhambyl regions.
The second group includes one-fifth of Kazakhs, 21.3% of respondents, who have between five and nine close relatives with whom they maintain strong relationships and feel comfortable discussing personal matters. Having five to nine emotionally close and regularly contacted family members can be interpreted as having a stable, mid-sized “support network,” trusting ties that provide emotional comfort and practical assistance.
This group tends to carry fewer obligations and expectations than the larger (10+) family networks, which reduces the risk of social overload. Notably, a moderately sized family circle allows individuals to maintain strong familial bonds while also building other forms of social capital through friendships and professional relationships outside the family.
All of this reflects Kazakhstan as a transitional society, where younger and more educated people combine traditional family interaction with openness to new social connections. This size of family network is optimal for maintaining mental health and social well-being. This group is more prevalent in major urban areas—Astana, Shymkent, Almaty, and the Abai Region.
When a person’s “inner circle” consists of only two close relatives (10.3% of respondents), it points to a distinct type of social structure that comes with both strengths and serious vulnerabilities. With only two close relatives, there’s little to no backup. If one of them is going through a personal crisis or loses their capacity to provide support, only one person remains in the support system. At the same time, such a small circle can also reflect a highly individualized social structure, where a person deliberately prioritizes depth over breadth, choosing to maintain ties only with the most reliable individuals. This is especially common among urban residents whose extended family lives far away or with whom contact has been lost over time.
When a person’s “inner circle” includes only one close relative (5.3% of respondents), it reflects an extremely concentrated and highly vulnerable type of social support. Sociologically, this means that all emotional and practical support is vested in a single individual—usually a spouse, parent, or very close friend. While this relationship is likely to be exceptionally close and deeply trusting, the absence of alternative “nodes” in the support network makes the person entirely dependent on the well-being and availability of that one individual.
Reducing the number of emotional “anchors” to a single person significantly increases the risk of social isolation. If that person becomes unavailable, due to illness, travel, or a personal crisis, the individual is left without immediate support, which can intensify stress and worsen emotional challenges. In such cases, the vulnerability cannot be compensated merely by building friendships or joining hobby groups and volunteer circles, but via contacts with local authorities, professional associations, and psychological or social support services. According to the survey, this group is most common in the Karagandy, East Kazakhstan, and Abai regions.
Finally, when a person has no one in their inner circle of close relationships (5% of respondents) or 398 people from a nationally representative sample of 8,001, it represents a very serious situation that sociology defines as social isolation. The absence of even a single reliable person in one’s support clique, as per Dunbar’s model, signals a complete lack of immediate emotional support.
This state is considered one of the most significant risk factors for mental health. Loneliness is strongly associated with increased anxiety, depression, and cardiovascular diseases. It’s not simply an emotional ‘I’m alone.’ It reflects a structural void in a person’s social network: there’s no one who would come to their aid without hesitation.
A person in this situation may appear socially active – interacting with colleagues or acquaintances – but when a crisis strikes, they are left without genuine support. The reasons for this can vary: loss of loved ones, relocation, family conflicts, emotional burnout, or self-isolation following traumatic experiences. Sociology emphasizes that this is not the person’s fault, but rather the result of a long and complex interplay of individual and societal factors.
What can and should be done?
The first step is to acknowledge your situation without self-blame. This is not a life sentence, but a starting point. Begin with the smallest steps: join hobby groups, clubs, courses, or volunteer initiatives. And don’t hesitate to reach out to a psychotherapist or counselor.
For people in this position, life can be incredibly difficult. Their basic human need for belonging, safety, and acceptance lacks a natural foundation. It’s a deep pain, one that many feel ashamed to speak about. That’s exactly why it’s so important to approach it with respect, care, and warmth. This group is most represented in the regions of Zhetysu, Ulytau, East Kazakhstan, and Kostanai.
Another striking feature emerges within this group. Typically, the shrinking of family ties is attributed to urbanization, changing family models, and the rise of individualistic values. However, in our sample, 40% of respondents who reported having no close relatives with whom they maintain strong relationships or can discuss important matters are rural residents.
Demographic outmigration, poor rural infrastructure, especially in remote and mountainous areas, along with weak healthcare and education systems, all contribute to reduced opportunities for social interaction and intensify the feeling of social disconnection.
In other words, rural social isolation should not be viewed as a personal or psychological issue. It is a consequence of broader economic and demographic transformations taking place amid national urbanization and global trends.
In conclusion, strong social connections remain one of the most important resources for maintaining mental health in Kazakhstan. A broad and high-quality network of family ties significantly reduces the risks of depression, anxiety disorders, and social isolation.
While the overall state of social capital in Kazakhstan remains relatively stable, there are clear signs of growing fragmentation, driven by urbanization, migration, and the rise of individualistic values. The observed narrowing and weakening of close personal ties indicate heightened vulnerability among certain groups, underscoring the need for both governmental and societal attention.
Aigul Zabirova is a chief research fellow at KazISS. She is a doctor of sociology and a professor.
