Happiness is…?, Part Two
July 24th, 2008(This post is part two of a two-part series on the book “Gross National Happiness” by Arthur Brooks and, therefore, an analysis of what kind of people are happy and why. Part one mostly presented the data and objections to that data. Part two will suggest what to do, given the data and possible responses to the material. Reading part one is essential to understanding this post, so if you haven’t, I strongly recommend doing so first.)
The most important thing to remember while reading this post is the last paragraph from the end of the introduction to “Gross National Happiness”, which I repeat here in its entirety:
“Writing this book meant opening myself up to the possibility - and indeed, the reality - that much of what I always thought about how to be happier or how to make America a happier place was wrong. I found some of the truths about happiness to be extremely surprising, and even uncomfortable. But I am convinced that what I found is right, whether I like all of it or not. This is not a book of philosophy or conjecture. I leave theories about happiness largely to others. Instead, I go where the data take me when I write about happiness in America and how we can get more of it. On that basis, you will hear a story - sometimes a controversial one - about who is happy, who isn’t, why it matters, and how we as a nation can do better. This story has changed my mind about many things. It just might change yours, too.”
After reading Brooks’ book, I felt much the same way. I also felt my mind had changed. (I am definitely a data-driven creature when I can be.) Allow me then, for the purposes of this post, to assume that the data and conclusions in his book are mostly true. Even if this is not the case, it’s the only way to analyze what he wrote (and hence to write the rest of this post).
The point of his book, more or less, was that conservatives of all stripes (social, economic, religious and otherwise) are happier than their counterparts. The gulf between the two groups in happiness is wide - anywhere from 10 to 40 percent - depending on exactly which dimension(s) they’re more conservative on.
First, let’s see what Brooks’ response to this information is. Here is what he said at the end of his last chapter, again quoted here in its entirety:
“If you asked me how you could be happier and I told you to vote Republican or go to church, you might justifiably tell me to go jump in a lake. But if I told you to give to charity, I would be giving you excellent advice. Everybody can give, and give more, today. Each and every one of us can afford to dig a little deeper - whether into our wallets or into our free time. So give - write a check, volunteer, donate the things you no longer need (or even better, things you still do need). And remember: I’m not trying to lecture you on how to be a better person - just a happier one.”
Sounds like good advice to me. Anyone can give to charity, right? Yet we know from the relevant research that conservatives out-give liberals by an astonishing margin. Is the problem simply that liberals don’t know how happy charity can make them? I doubt it. Probably a bigger problem is that liberals (being more collectivist) expect the government to step in for them and handle these charitable situations through the machinery of the state. This is part of what it means to be liberal. Socialism - perhaps the most extreme version of liberal political doctrine - takes state management and intervention to be an article of faith, not an optional sideline.
So we are faced, then, with a semi-absurd choice: liberalism vs. happiness. Or are we? Perhaps we could suggest, as a commenter did in part one, that happiness is a product of your political affiliation, not a cause. Indeed, this is a compelling criticism, and one not easily dismissed. Do the less happy among us, then, have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed before they can be happier, and therefore more conservative?
It’s easy to see that previous (and in some ways, current) American “outgroups” like women, blacks, and the poor all tilt Democratic and more liberal. Many of them have legitimate grievances too. White men, perhaps the most privileged group in American society, are (for the most part) staunchly conservative. That is, they have the most to gain from the status quo and keeping things that way. Black people, in contrast, are some of the people most likely to be unhappy in America.
But for some reason, the same numbers of blacks are as likely to be “very happy” as whites. Poorer conservatives are a lot happier than you might guess, often much happier than poorer liberals and almost on a par with their richer conservative counterparts. (As they often say, they’re “rich in spirit”.) Strikingly, women are more likely to be happy than men as well. Where are their grievances? If these happy people have them, it sure doesn’t seem to bother them much.
The truth is, some of them are Democratic and liberal for other reasons, at least in part. Women are more likely to be compassionate towards others (and thus liberal), blacks may vote Democratic for historical reasons, and poor people may feel like Democratic reforms will benefit them the most.
We’re back then to the absurd choice. There appears to be not just an association, but a full-on direct correlation between how happy you are and how conservative you are. Furthermore, your level of conservatism appears to be the cause, at least in part, of how happy you are. What to do? Being a socially liberal, single, agnostic myself, these statistics still haunt me.
But should they? Perhaps Aristotle was wrong (along with countless others, including Brooks). Perhaps happiness is not the only goal in life. Looking at the data, this is the only reasonable conclusion I can come up with. Everyone says they want to be happy, but can this be true? Or are they misguided as to what actually makes them happy? Given how accurate self-reports of happiness are, I doubt it.
Perhaps we think liberalism, in all its forms, can serve a greater goal. It’s obviously a force for change and for improving our lives, if not our moods. Obama is perfectly right to emphasize change in times like these. A record number of Americans think our country is on the wrong track, which neatly corresponds with a huge Democratic shift in the electorate. (The same was true in the ’60s, another huge period of social change.) Democrats are pissed off and want to do something about it. It’s great that Obama is pushing a more positive message, but really Democrats are pushing upheaval. The positivity is window dressing.
Thus, there is the choice. But not between liberalism and happiness; it’s between change and happiness. And it’s a fragile balancing act. Too much change and we’re unhappier than we need to be. Too little change will eventually make us unhappy, because we’re not making any progress, and perhaps scourges like recession, inflation, disease, and a lack of flexibility can cause us problems.
The same goes for extremism. Extreme liberalism is socialism or communism. Extreme conservatism is perhaps fundamentalist totalitarianism. In practice, either extreme means an extreme lack of political freedom, and citizens of nations with any of those forms of government are much less happy than the U.S., especially as they tilt further to one extreme or the other (which is shown in “Gross National Happiness”).
Better, then, to have the Democratic/Republican ebb and flow that happens every few years. This gradual back-and-forth shifting helps to provide the best of both worlds, without going too far either way. It also reduces the inevitable government waste, apathy, and inefficiency that goes along with long stints in power. (Epitomized these days by people like Alaskan senator Ted Stevens and his “bridges to nowhere”). This political competition keeps everyone on their toes. New ideas get a chance to be heard.
Therefore the obvious question is, “Where do you fit on the happiness/change spectrum?” This will probably largely determine your political affiliation. And it’s not a static thing, of course. You may very well change your political affiliation as you grow older and your needs and priorities change. (And it will probably be in a more conservative direction, if you look at demographic statistics and the fact that people generally get happier as they age.) Regardless, the happiness research should give you a better window into why you prefer one or the other.
Me, I’m starting to value happiness more and more, so I’m starting to give up some of my preference for change in the process. Being a white male, perhaps it was inevitable. And maybe, if you’re more liberal, you should tell me to “go jump in a lake”. Sheryl Crow once sang “a change will do you good”. I never did like that song…
| | | del.icio.us |
July 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“Where do you fit on the happiness/change spectrum?”
Independent of political party affiliation, and conservative or liberal on any given issue as the situation and the facts provide. I’d guess I’m in the vast minority in this country, though.
I’d say most indepedents like you are ideological moderates. So, if anything, it sounds like you’re in the middle, at least on average. Indepedents are a large and fast growing proportion of young people (like you), so actually there may be more of you around than you realize.
- Dave
July 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
So, I’m curious…after all your reading on happiness, what are your thoughts on the Joy v. Happiness debate? That is, that we can be happy at any given time but it is based on something material or earthly, or temporary (a party, sudden influx of money, etc.), but joy comes “from within” when you can maintain happiness even through tough times (being happy but homeless, for instance). Could joy be appropriately expressed as a prolonged state of happiness? or is joy just another form of happiness?
Just some thoughts…But great work on both 1 & 2! I wasn’t terribly surprised with the conclusions, I guess since observation would’ve indicated to me that all this was true, but I haven’t ever read any data on the matter, so that was very enlightening. Thanks!
I’m really glad you got something out of this, Lindsey. As for joy vs. happiness, ironically enough I’d say joy is more of a temporary state than happiness. I don’t know if you can aim to be joyous your whole life (seems like such a high and ephemeral state to aim for I guess), but it’s definitely something I think you can feel every now and then. And if you can be happy and joyous, more power to you!
- Dave