Are we happy yet?

Who doesn’t want to be happy? The last few decades have seen a great rise in the pursuit of happiness. Not the Aristotelian pursuit of a virtuous, well rounded emotional life, nor the Jeffersonian pursuit of happiness through liberty as an ‘inalienable right’, nor even the Utilitarian pursuit of happiness as the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. Rather, there has been a surge of interest in measuring and planning for the happiness of nations. The OECD now tracks wellbeing measures across countries, Bhutan has pioneered in interest in Gross National Happiness (GNH) over GDP as a measure of societal progress, and the UK is interested in finding ‘happy places’ by measuring wellbeing and happiness by geographic location. Happiness is clearly now an important measure of social progress.

And yet happiness is still largely individualised as an emotion. Despite studies by world happiness experts like Ruut Veenhoven showing that happiness is clearly linked to social structural conditions in that it varies substantially across rich, poor and unequal nations, the treatments for happiness are still largely individualised. Medication and therapy – including mass therapy, or a societal/national foci on promoting mindfulness, positive psychology and CBT – are put forward as the means for resolving unhappiness, even when changes in economic and work conditions, family, gender, ethnic, and age structures, and urban and social connection may be the primary culprits in causing unhappiness. Can the proliferation of lists on how to be happy in 5, 7, 13, or 25 ‘science-backed’ easy (and obviously non-contradictory …) steps really compensate for broader social change?

And what about other emotions? How much of our unhappiness is about rising anxiety, depression, stress and anger? How much of our happiness depends on peace, contentment and love? And how much does our happiness – in all its related emotional forms – depend on what we are doing, rather than how we might sum up our lives on a 0 to 10 scale of satisfaction? In previous research, my colleague Kimberly Fisher and I found (unexpectedly) that Americans would enjoy their time less if they lived like Australians, because they would spend more time doing unpleasant things like housework, and less time doing fun things like having people over for dinner. We also found that the GFC seemed to have the effect of helping Americans re-evaluate the quality of their time, and enjoy the grind of work less and the pleasantness of social and family time more. Clearly, reflecting on and adjusting the social circumstances and lives that make us happy is an important element of our actual happiness. Mary Holmes calls this emotional reflexivity, or “an embodied, cognitive and relational process in which social actors have feelings about and try to understand and alter their lives in relation to their social and natural environment and to others.”

I say – as I always do with regards to all matters sociological – that structure and agency go hand in hand in the consideration of our happiness. We can change the world – and we can change ourselves – one emotion at a time, with reflection and awareness. I say that we need to be reflexive about what makes us happy (how society affects us), what makes others happy (how we affect society), if there are contradictions and inequalities in happiness, and when it is appropriate to beshow, or change our happiness, unhappiness, or other emotions – rather than assuming we should always try and be simply happy as a default for living. If we can do these things, I think we can start to really understand what it means to be happy in today’s society, and to understand and build truly happy societies.

What do you think?

#S327UOW16 #Tut12

Posted in Uncategorized.

One Comment

  1. I think to be trully happy within ourselves and the way society is today takes a lot of time and real progree through life, it is not a quick fix but takes real energy and determination. It is what everyone strives for in life and may come easier to some more than others but everyone can get there keeping in mind a number of key factors.

    Emotional reflexity by Mary Holmes is a significant concept in striving to fulfilness within a person and increasing happiness as it an alter in trying to change our emotions in order to contend to what society wants or has or tells us how we should be. This is a difficult concept to follow because who says we need to strive for what society tells us to do, why cant we just be our individual selves and let our emotions be individual and what they naturally are. It may just naturally happen for some people as they connect with people and institutions in society but for others may be a struggle as they deal with conflicts and have individual opinions and feelings on this.

    In relation to Ruut Veenhoven showing that happiness is clearly linked to social structural conditions, this is a matter of the institution and nation we reside with as particular social structural conditions alter so i do not agree with this as i think happiness lies within how a person is brought up, genetics and the people surrounding them as a person could be very poor but happy because of their family and friends surrounding them making them feel secure and loved regardless of financial security.

    Real happiness comes from within a person and medication may treat anxiety disorders and depression to an extent but this is just a drug changing how you think not your own mind so I think it takes a lot of support pyschologically and keeping yourself active, doing things you love and staying as positive as you truly can.

Comments are closed.