It is commonly asserted that people aren’t as happy as they
used to be years ago due to the consumerist culture we live in. Usually very little
evidence is produced to support this assertion. In this posting I will attempt
to remedy this situation by providing an argument to support the above
assertion. I will argue that our culture limits our ideas about what makes us
happy and that this limitation limits the amount of happiness we experience. Previously
I have argued that the way in which we are happy changes as we age and mature
and I will use this argument as a starting point to support the current
argument. My argument rests on two important premises both of which I will
support by argument. Firstly, I will argue that our actual level of happiness
depends on, at least to some degree, our ideas about what will make us happy.
Secondly, I will argue that our culture helps define those ideas. I will
conclude that we should try to broaden the focus of our culture particularly
with regard to the way we work and the way we are educated.
Before proceeding with my argument I want to introduce two differing
ideas, concepts, of happiness. Firstly, there are hedonistic concepts of
happiness such as that outlined by Fred Feldman. Feldman believes someone is
happy now “if when we consider all the propositions with which she is currently
intrinsically attitudinally (dis)pleased with and we then consider the degree
to which she is (dis)pleased with these propositions and find the sum to be
positive” (1). This is a definition of momentary happiness but in this posting
my concern will be with happy persons rather than momentary happiness. Feldman
believes a happy person is simply one who over time is pleased to a greater
degree than she is displeased. A different concept is that of Daniel Haybron. According
to Haybron,
“To be happy then, is for one’s emotional condition to be
broadly positive – involving stances of attunement, engagement and endorsement
– with negative central affective states and mood propensities only to a minor
extent.” (2)
There is some
overlap between these concepts but Haybron argues that happiness,
“has two components: a person’s central affective states
and second, her mood propensity …. What brings these states together, I would
suggest is their dispositionality.” (3)
I have previously argued that a disposition to be happy is
an essential element of being a happy person and will briefly repeat my
argument here, see Feldman,
Haybron and happy-dispositions . There is a difference between a happy
person and a person who is happy. It seems to me that Feldman and hedonists are
interested in people who are happy rather than happy persons. A person who is
happy is simply a person who is currently happy. The fact that a person is currently
happy by itself gives me little reason to assume she will be happy tomorrow. I
may of course believe she will be happy tomorrow because I know that tomorrow
will be her birthday, but the fact she is happy currently, by itself, gives me
little reason to predict her future happiness. However, if I believe someone to
possess a happy disposition then I normally expect her to be happy tomorrow.
For this reason, I believe Haybron better defines what it is to be a happy
person and will use his definition unless stated otherwise.
If we accept Haybron’s definition, then it seems to me that
the relative importance of the various elements within his definition change as
we age, see does
our concept of happiness change as we age . I will briefly outline my
argument. Let us recall that that someone is happy if her emotional condition
is broadly positive and that this involves her in general being attuned to,
engaged with and endorsing her emotional condition. Haybron ranks the
importance of attunement, engagement and endorsement in that order in relation
to happiness. Haybron connects endorsement to feelings of joy or sadness (4). I
suggested endorsement involves being satisfied with rather than any large scale
feelings of joy or sadness. I did however suggest being satisfied with does
involve some minimal positive emotion, slight joy? If the above is accepted,
then being satisfied is an essential element of being happy. A further argument
can be advanced as to why being satisfied is an essential element of happiness.
Martin Seligman believes achievement is an essential element of happiness (5).
It seems to me that achievement usually linked to being satisfied. If we accept
that Seligman is correct and achievement is an important element of being happy
then it follows so is being satisfied. Lastly I argued if we accept that
satisfaction is an essential element of being happy then the way we are happy
changes as we age because younger people give greater weight to hedonistic
pleasures whilst older people give greater because to being satisfied. It would
appear the way in which we are happy changes as we age.
Let us accept that the way in which we are happy changes as
we age. I now want to argue that our ideas about what will make us happy affects
the level of happiness we actually experience. Some might question if an idea
about what will make us happy is needed if we are to be happy. They might
suggest people are just happy or unhappy and don’t need any ideas about what
will make them happy. To support this suggestion, they might point out animals
and infants can be happy without any idea of what will make them happy. They
might proceed to argue that apart from philosophers most people are simply
happy or unhappy. However unlike animals or infants we aren’t simply happy, we
actively pursue happiness. A pursuit is impossible without some goal. The
pursuit of happiness implies that we must have some ideas about what will make
us happy. Let us accept that people must have some ideas about the things which
will make them happy however vague. However even if we accept the above it doesn’t
automatically mean our ideas about the things will make us happy are related to
the level of happiness we experience. We might be mistaken about what will make
us happy. It might be suggested that such mistakes are of little importance
because we naturally pursue the things that make us happy. I would reject such
a suggestion. Let us accept that there can be a mismatch between the things we
think will make us happy and the things that actually make us happy. Having
mistaken ideas of what will make us happy can damage our actual happiness. We can
pursue things that don’t really make us happy at the expense of not pursuing
thigs that actually make us happy. Examples are easy to find. For instance,
someone who desires meaning in his life but pursues hedonistic lifestyle
because he believes living such a life will make him happy. Or perhaps someone
who pursues a stoic way of life and rejects the demands of love. It follows
that our ideas of what will make us happy can affect the actual level of
happiness we experience.
I now want to argue that the culture someone lives in affects
her idea of what will make her happy. Clearly someone’s culture affects the
things that make her happy. For instance, some cultures value wealth whilst
others value honour more than wealth. It might be argued that this difference
is only a difference in what makes us happy but not in the way we are actually happy.
For instance, someone might be a gourmet and value good food whilst someone
else might be a libertine who values having sexual intercourse as often as
possible. Two different sort of things make these people happy but both of
these people have the same underlying idea about the way they will be happy. It
might be concluded that our basic idea about the way we will be happy doesn’t change
even if its focus does. I now want to argue such a conclusion would be mistaken
because in certain cases the things we value helps determine the way we enjoy
them. Let us consider someone who values honour. Haybron hints that if someone is
happy there is a link between her happiness and the self. (7) I believe Haybron
is correct and that there is indeed a connection between some forms of
happiness and the self. Clearly this is not the case with hedonistic happiness.
To enjoy a good meal or sexual intercourse no one needs a sense of self. This
is not true of someone who values honour ‘cares about’ or loves her honour. Valuing
honour is connected to her identity, her sense of self, see some of my previous
postings. I would suggest such a person will be happy when she acts honourably
and that her happiness depends on her satisfaction with acting as she believed she
should. I would further suggest her satisfaction is linked to her sense of self
by her cognition. The way she is happy is very different to the way someone is
happy when enjoying a good meal or having sexual intercourse. Let us accept
that people can be happy in different ways and that the pursuit of different
ways of being happy requires different ideas about happiness. Let us also
accept what we value determines the way we enjoy it, the way in which we are
happy. Different cultures value different things. Some of the things we value
are determined by the culture we live in. It follows culture helps to determine
the way in which we are happy.
No culture is completely homogenous and our culture
certainly isn’t. However, I now want to argue that a certain dominant idea
within our current culture fosters ideas about what will make us happy which damage
our actual happiness. In the western world our culture is dominated by the idea
of the consumer. Advertising suggests we will be happier if we have the latest
car, have a large modern house, have shinier hair, have brighter teeth, etc.
Advertising suggests we will we happier if we have certain things, if we are
consumers. Western culture sees us as consumers just as much as it sees us as
citizens. The idea of a consumerism is widespread even extending into education.
In school pupils are encouraged to learn in order to get good jobs rather than enjoy
learning. In education more generally courses are becoming increasingly
designed with employment in mind rather broadening students’ horizons. Education is in Yeats words becoming a matter of filling pails rather than lighting fires. I argued
above culture helps determine the way we are happy. A culture with a dominant
consumerist ethos supports a hedonistic ideas of happiness such as that of
Feldman. I further argued that an account such as that of Feldman offers an incomplete
concept of happiness because it offers an inadequate account of what it means
to be a happy person. Lastly I argued that our ideas about what will make us
happy affect the actual happiness we experience. It follows that someone
holding an incomplete idea of what will make her happy might experience less
actual happiness than if she had a more complete idea.
I now want to discuss four ways in which our overly
consumerist culture damages our happiness by fostering an incomplete idea of
happiness. First, I have argued above our consumerist culture fosters a hedonistic
ideas of happiness. I argued above that such an account of happiness is an
incomplete account. Let us recall that that according to Haybron someone is
happy if his emotional state is positive and he is attuned, engaged and
endorses that state to some degree. I have suggested endorsement is linked to
satisfaction. Someone might be satisfied if she is eating a chocolate cake,
with some state of affairs or past achievements. Being satisfied with eating a
chocolate cake does not involve any cognitive abilities. However, if someone is
satisfied with some state of affairs or past achievements she engages some of
her cognitive abilities. A hedonistic account of happiness does not directly involve
our cognitive abilities. It follows if culture fosters a hedonistic idea of happiness
that this fostering might limit some peoples’ ideas about happiness by diminishing
their desire to pursue some of the things which might add to their happiness,
by limiting their desire to pursue things that satisfy them. Secondly I have
argued that as people age the weights attached to the various elements which
contribute to their happiness change. A culture which fosters a mostly
hedonistic idea of happiness damages that change and as a result damages the
happiness they experience. I have outlined this argument above and will not
repeat it here. Again it follows that an overly consumerist society might limit
our overall happiness especially for older people. Thirdly would argue that our
consumerist culture encourages an attitude to work which limits the happiness
we experience. Let us accept that some work can give our life meaning and that
this meaning increases our happiness. There are two different definitions of
work. Firstly, we might define work simply as labour undertaken for some
economic reward or hope of such a reward, let us define this as working for
something. Such work is instrumental and has no intrinsic value. Secondly
someone might work at something. For instance, she might work at playing some
musical instrument simply because she enjoys it. Someone playing a musical
instrument might become fully immersed with her music losing any feeling of
reflective self-consciousness. According
to Mihaly
Czikszentmihalyi when someone is in such a flow state she experiences
positive emotions. These emotions contribute to his happiness. Our consumerist
culture encourages working for something at the expense of working at something
and by so doing limits our ability to experience our ability to experience the
positive emotions generated by flow. It again follows that an overly
consumerist society damages our overall happiness. Lastly our consumerist
culture emphasizes consuming things makes us happy. I don’t deny consumption
might make us happy for a while. A consumerist culture places emphasis on
momentary happiness. It seeks to make people happy, which in itself is
laudable, but it is much less concerned with happy people and this lack of
concern also limits our happiness. At this point I must it clear that when I
speak about happy people I am concerned with people who have a disposition to
be happy rather than people who are simply experiencing positive emotions. Our
consumerist culture limits happiness because momentary happiness is fragile
happiness whilst the happiness experienced by happy people is more robust than
momentary happiness. It again follows that an overly consumerist society
damages our overall happiness.
What conclusions can be drawn from the above? First our
consumerist society damages our happiness and we should seek to broaden the
focus of society. Our attempts to broaden the focus of society should
concentrate on work and education. This expanded focus might be particularly
important if automation leads to people working less. If work provides some
meaning in life then it is important to change society’s focus from ‘working
for’ to ‘working at’, see work,
automation and happiness . An overly consumerist society might find such a
change difficult. Secondly if it is hard to broaden society’s focus it becomes
especially important to have an accurate idea of what makes us happy, our
concept of happiness matters.
- Fred Feldman, 2010, What is this thing called Happiness? Oxford, page 29.
- Daniel Haybron, 2008, The Pursuit of Unhappiness, Oxford, page 147.
- Haybron, page 138.
- Haybron, page 113
- Martin Seligman, 2011, Flourish, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Chapter 1.
- Haybron, page 130.
No comments:
Post a Comment