forget about happiness

You know those people who sneak up on you and say, 'Cheer up, it might never happen'? Well despite, or perhaps because of, being reviled by all right-minded people, they've ganged up to form a pressure group. It's called Action For Happiness.

Now, I am absolutely fine with people forming a group for people who want to grin at each other all day, as long as I'm not in it. But these guys have wider ambitions. They want to convert Society to their cause, in the name of Science. Here's the director of AFH, Mark Williamson:

Over the last 50 years we've made great progress in terms of living standards and material wealth, reaching a point that previous generations could only have dreamed of – and perhaps one that future generations will look back at longingly. The engine for much of this progress has been economic growth. But if we stop to think about it, most of us recognise that material and financial wealth are just a means to an end, not the end in themselves. We care about them because they are seen as an indicator of how well our lives are going.

Note the Trendy Vicar tone that permeates communications from the Happiness Movement ('Hey, just stop and think about it, guys!'). Anyway:

But the shocking fact is that, despite massive material progress, people in Britain are no happier than they were over five decades ago. Over that same period our society has become increasingly competitive and selfish, with a culture that encourages us to pursue wealth, appearance, status and possessions above all else. In the 1960s, 60% of adults in Britain said they believed "most people can be trusted".  Today the figure is around 30% ...We've seen huge increases in anxiety and depression in young people, greater inequality, more family breakdown, longer working hours, growing environmental problems and crippling levels of debt.

We've also seen great increases in equality, particularly in the areas of race, gender and sexuality. This may not have brought greater happiness to society (or even to the groups positively affected). Does that mean we'd have been better off without them? I'd have thought not. Indeed, you can see people like Paul Dacre agreeing heartily with the Happiness guys and arguing that if we could all go back to the 1950s when people knew their places, everyone would be much happier.

Here's the BBC's Mark Easton, a loved-up convert to the cause:

The movement attempts to counter contemporary cynicism with practicality, offering simple ways to give our own lives and those of our friends and neighbours greater fulfilment and meaning. There is certainly a growing body of science to back up many of the ideas, but that won't stop many people assuming some ulterior motive.

The most infuriating thing about the Happiness Movement is the assumption that if you don't agree with them, you must be a miserable Cynic. Not so - some of us just think this a misguided and counter-productive way of looking at the world (actually I find this utiltarian weighing of happiness to be an inherently unromantic, faintly cynical exercise in itself).  Easton quotes Action For Happiness's motto at the top of his piece: "I promise to try and produce more happiness in the world and less misery." OK fine. But what if the way to do that is to focus on anything but happiness?

Easton namechecks J.S Mill, but the trouble with the whole Happiness Movement is that they neglect the best thing that Mill or anyone else has ever said about happiness: "Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so." Happiness, said Mill, is like a crab: it sidles up to you, and can only be approached obliquely. The key to happiness is to focus on something that will consume you and give you purpose. Happiness will arrive as a by-product, if you're lucky. The same applies to society. Try and organise society around happiness (or indeed around any grand abstract principle) and you're more likely to create misery. AFH say they want to "inspire a mass movement for fundamental cultural change". That's funny - so did Chairman Mao.

Instead of worrying about whether you're happy enough, it's probably better to consider whether you're doing your job well or if you're as good at the guitar as you could be or if you're spending enough time with your partner. And as a society, we should concern ourselves with whether enough kids are getting a good education or whether people are being unfairly denied opportunity. If that makes us all happier, then great. But worrying about whether or not it will, won't take us anywhere but backwards.

Comments

[erin newby]

great post.

good books on this:

stumbling on happiness by daniel gilbert
hector and the search for happiness by francois lelord

[Anthony]

I find something else slightly troubling about this, namely the fact that it is being pushed as all being backed by "science". This is happening with increasing frequency, namely political activists claiming that their policy preferences are a matter of scientific fact, not political argument or resource prioritisation. This is OK in some areas - drug and science policy, for example, really are areas where science can fairly conclusively support one aspect of an argument or another (though even here things aren't always clear cut). What I find of greater concern is where the "science" in question is psychology. This isn't to say that psychology is valueless, but in many cases it's a lot "softer" than advocates are willing to acknowledge and I get very nervy when pundits come forward to announce that thanks to new research by psychologists they can prove with a set square and an abacus that capitalism or negative rights make us all want to kill each other and therefore needs to be abolished for the general good.

[Marbury]

Erin, thanks for those suggestions. I've heard the Gilbert in particular is good. Anthony - yes I agree that psychology is often leant on too heavily by advocates of various social causes. In this case the problem is that they want the research they touch on to do something it hasn't and probably can't do: prove that a widespread social programme of some sort will increase total happiness. And I suppose my problem with this stuff is more philosophical than empirical/scientific.

[Ejoch]

And the quote about financial wealth only having value as 'an indicator of how our lives are going' is just silly. Quite aside from making life more comfortable, wealth lets you do all sorts of cool and fun things. It's just finding a level for yourself... I might like to say, travel in a private jet, but I could never be bothered to put in the level of work required to get one. Richard Branson obviously could, so good for him.

A Happiness Movement. I'd lay bets those involved are all comfortably off themselves. Hard to imagine some poor soul living in a shack, agonising about whether their definition of happy was correct.

[Sophia Parker]

Nice post. Totally agree. You might also enjoy Bright-Sided by the marvellous Barbara Ehrenreich - she takes issue with the 'inescapable pseudoscientific flapdoodle' of the happiness movement. Press release: http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsidedpressrelease.htm. She also spoke at the RSA a while back - you can listen again here: http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2010/smile-or-die

[david bain]

the etymology of happiness is the Norse concept for luck. You were 'happy' when something good happened to you by chance, like the morning when you didn't get fingered by the thane. It was the fucking yanks who made happiness some kind of entitlement.