The Statesman’s Yearbook Online

ESSAY

SPREAD A LITTLE HAPPINESS

What makes people happy? For many, the question is rhetorical. Happiness is an abstract concept shaped into something tangible by individual choice. What delights one person can drive another to distraction. That said, on the biggest concerns of life there must be some common ground. Most of us accept that a comfortable income brings greater happiness than poverty. Maybe there are other, less obvious, areas of consensus. Could it be that what divides us in terms of personal choice has been allowed to obfuscate the essentials of a happy state?

There are politicians who believe so. Some time before he became Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron was arguing that simple economic indicators tell only half the story. His call for the ‘big society’, which he carried over into government, remains short on detail. But in so far as he is promoting a more active community spirit he is signalling a retraction of the rampant individualism that favours material prosperity over all other forms of human endeavour. In this Cameron is echoing the views of many other European leaders, notably President Sarkozy of France, who espouse ‘quality of life’—how people relate to each other and to their surroundings—as the only valid means of assessing human happiness.

Devotees of unbridled capitalism are not impressed. They dismiss the quality of life argument as a defensive cover for the failure of Europe to match the energy, innovation and economic growth of the United States. There is some truth in this. Envy of American achievement is a powerful engine for anti-American sentiment. Yet beyond political point-scoring, inquisitive psychologists and economists who ask questions before propounding grand theories are finding evidence to suggest that while minimum standards are a prerequisite, happiness cannot simply be counted in possessions or judged by the size of a bank balance. Surveys conducted over half a century show that while, unsurprisingly, the rich are happier than the poor, affluent societies as a whole have not added much, if anything, to their happiness quota.

Part of the explanation is that happiness is relative. Many of the luxuries of yesteryear such as electronically equipped kitchens and cars that rarely break down are now taken for granted. But it may also be true that in becoming more individualistic and in giving way to rampant consumerism we have lost touch with values that tend towards a general happiness. Family relationships have declined (the unmarried account for over half the households in the US) despite evidence to suggest that married people are happier. Broken families put children at risk, leaving them emotionally isolated at a time when they most need support.

Widespread unemployment persists with little in the way of social programmes to combat the accompanying malaise and sense of failure. Mutual trust is at a premium and while mental illnesses are increasing at an alarming rate, their treatment is judged secondary to finding cures for physical ailments. Depression is now the most common cause of long-term sickness in the UK. Then again, though we are all richer than our forerunners of fifty or a hundred years ago, the gap between the haves and the have-nots remains as great as ever while media preoccupation with the affairs of the wealthy prompts envy and resentment. And not just the media. Cheap and easy travel is a constant reminder of how other lives are apparently better or worse than our own. The poor are easily forgotten, it is the rich who leave the enduring impression. We aspire to the bigger home, car or television screen and we are unhappy when they remain out of reach. Add to all this a work pattern which makes a virtue of stress and we are left with the paradox that, for many, the pursuit of material comforts actually militates against quality of life.

As nobody in their right mind wants to do away with the fruits of prosperity, the solution must be to achieve a social balance, wealth creation without accompanying pain. In pursuit of this objective there is much to learn from the Nordic countries which are consistently among the highest scorers in the international happiness stakes. Not all the conditions that are said to favour general contentment can be easily replicated. Denmark, for example, is a small, homogenous society with a strong sense of national identity. Problems of conflicting cultures which beset other western countries are rare though the resistance of recent immigrants to doing things ‘the Danish way’ may portend a shock to the system. For now, however, the Danish social contract which puts a high value on mutual trust and consensus in politics and business has produced enormous benefits, not least an enviable living standard extending to decent housing for all, a generously funded health service and cheap, efficient public transport. Most critically, education is driven by a spirit of egalitarianism. Knowledge and qualifications are sought as much for advancing the public interest as for individual aggrandisement.

Critics hasten to point out that the Danes, as all Scandinavians, pay highly for their privileges with tax rates that are way above the international average. But the general feeling is that the money collected by the state is well spent. If other governments demand less, more goes in waste and incompetence. Even so, while the evidence points to a correlation between income equality favoured in Scandinavia and a culture of trust and respect as the basis for a healthier lifestyle, it is improbable, to put it mildly, that a political programme founded on these principles would find favour in countries that have, for generations, promoted individualism. At best, a broader view of national well-being will support more family friendly practices at work such as flexible hours and parental leave and encourage activities that promote community life.

More hopefully, the findings of positive psychology suggest that individualism might be made to serve the happiness of the greatest number with the simple realization that taking the initiative in caring for others by engaging in voluntary services brings its own reward in an enhanced sense of purpose and personal fulfilment.

‘Produce any happy person,’ writes Richard Layard, ‘and you will find a project’. He added, ‘Happiness comes from outside and within. The two are not in contradiction. The true pilgrim fights the evils of the world out there and cultivates the spirit within.’

Barry Turner

More reading:

Daniel Dorling, Injustice. Why Social Inequality Persists
The Policy Press, 2011

Pascal Bruckner, Perpetual Euphoria. On the Duty to be Happy
Princeton University Press, 2011

Michael Foley, The Age of Absurdity. Why Modern Life Makes it Hard to be Happy
Simon & Schuster, 2010

Richard Layard, Happiness: Lessons From a New Science
Penguin, 2011 (2nd revised ed)

Martin Seligman, A New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being and How to Achieve Them
Nicholas Brealey, 2011

Ivan Robertson and Cary Cooper, Well-Being, Productivity and Happiness at Work
Palgrave Macmillan, 2011

What do you think? SYB welcomes comment on this feature and on any other entry on our website. Contact us on sybcomments@palgrave.com