Politics of Happiness
Just came back to residence after drinking a few pints at a local pub. We just attended an excellent debate on the politics of happiness. In one corner, Professor Lord Layard, a professor at LSE who just finished writing on a book on the subject, and in the other, Dr. Raj Persaud, a psychiatrist who specializes in mental illness at the University of London's king college.
Professor Layard presented his case that the state should be concentrating some efforts on the unhappiest members in its society in order to encourage better social cohesion, better quality of life and a better general society by intervening in 4 key areas.
1) The state should substantially increase the funding for treating and preventing mental illness which often leads to debilatating depression;
2) It should also cut back on the unemployment benefits with no strings attached. This ensures complacency in the unemployed. Being unemployed, even with good state benefits, brings unhappiness. The state should ensure the proper job training is available so unemployed workers can gain the tools to find work rapidly. It should also provide unemployment benefits with strings attached so that the unemployed make a concerted effort in finding employment;
3) The state should change the state education system based on student overachieving compared to other students. This brings a zero sum game into being. Within this context, an emotional intelligence curriculum should be taught to give students the ability to learn the values necessary to be happy which are community involvement, trusting your neighbour and helping them;
4) State should put limits on the level of consumer marketing to control the debilating effects of desire for products and services which often leading to unrealistic expectations of ourselves.
Dr. Raj Persaud was a bit more pessimistics making a point that happiness is not a solution by itself. He described that happiness exists on two levels. Level 1 happiness is very ephemeral and is obtained through short-term happy moments such as a good meal, a good glass of wine (you can think of other examples by yourself :)... This level of happiness is intense but usually lasts for less than 15 minutes. Level 2 is much deeper happiness. It is much less intense but is related to our general well-being. However, Dr. Persaud make a strong case that happiness is not necessarily a panacea for our society.
Dr. Persaud also demonstrated that external people, people who blames others and institutions for their misfortunes leading to unhappiness are often more likely to be happy. Internalized people who take on the true responsibility of their actions (even when some of their misfortunes are not directly related to their actions and some blame should be placed on external events) are often unhappy. Internalized people are very often intellectuals leading society in thought and change and innovation.
My thoughts on the subject? To be happy, I think individuals have to take control of their lives and state intervention cannot solve this dilemma by itself. I also think people need to concentrate their efforts in 3 key areas:
1) That one needs to feel their job and work is both valued and important to society
2) That one needs to contribute their time to a worthy cause to a community they feel they belong to
3) That one needs to develops strong bonds within their family, friends, lover.
Ted, my lebanese friend at the LSE, made a very good point as well. For those that live an enlightened life, it is very difficult to live a happy life as being aware of your surroundings often leads to realizing that we are not able to influence our environment which is a quality of an internalized person. This will ultimately lead to discontent. But this might be the point because internalized people often lead changes and innovation, necessary for a fully functioning society which changes. So a certain level of unhappiness in our society actually is healthy and necessary for our own evolution.
If everyone was happy, why would we need to change anything? Dr. Persaud made a very convincing case by quoting Brave New World when the Savage (John) said he wished to remain unhappy even though everyone else was happy (their emotions controlled by genetics and drugs keeping social order in perfect harmony). Unhappiness and discontent bring a call for improvements and a call for continued evolution in our civilization. This in fact brings new trends in art, science, medicine and every field.
And the debate goes on... What do you think?
Professor Layard presented his case that the state should be concentrating some efforts on the unhappiest members in its society in order to encourage better social cohesion, better quality of life and a better general society by intervening in 4 key areas.
1) The state should substantially increase the funding for treating and preventing mental illness which often leads to debilatating depression;
2) It should also cut back on the unemployment benefits with no strings attached. This ensures complacency in the unemployed. Being unemployed, even with good state benefits, brings unhappiness. The state should ensure the proper job training is available so unemployed workers can gain the tools to find work rapidly. It should also provide unemployment benefits with strings attached so that the unemployed make a concerted effort in finding employment;
3) The state should change the state education system based on student overachieving compared to other students. This brings a zero sum game into being. Within this context, an emotional intelligence curriculum should be taught to give students the ability to learn the values necessary to be happy which are community involvement, trusting your neighbour and helping them;
4) State should put limits on the level of consumer marketing to control the debilating effects of desire for products and services which often leading to unrealistic expectations of ourselves.
Dr. Raj Persaud was a bit more pessimistics making a point that happiness is not a solution by itself. He described that happiness exists on two levels. Level 1 happiness is very ephemeral and is obtained through short-term happy moments such as a good meal, a good glass of wine (you can think of other examples by yourself :)... This level of happiness is intense but usually lasts for less than 15 minutes. Level 2 is much deeper happiness. It is much less intense but is related to our general well-being. However, Dr. Persaud make a strong case that happiness is not necessarily a panacea for our society.
Dr. Persaud also demonstrated that external people, people who blames others and institutions for their misfortunes leading to unhappiness are often more likely to be happy. Internalized people who take on the true responsibility of their actions (even when some of their misfortunes are not directly related to their actions and some blame should be placed on external events) are often unhappy. Internalized people are very often intellectuals leading society in thought and change and innovation.
My thoughts on the subject? To be happy, I think individuals have to take control of their lives and state intervention cannot solve this dilemma by itself. I also think people need to concentrate their efforts in 3 key areas:
1) That one needs to feel their job and work is both valued and important to society
2) That one needs to contribute their time to a worthy cause to a community they feel they belong to
3) That one needs to develops strong bonds within their family, friends, lover.
Ted, my lebanese friend at the LSE, made a very good point as well. For those that live an enlightened life, it is very difficult to live a happy life as being aware of your surroundings often leads to realizing that we are not able to influence our environment which is a quality of an internalized person. This will ultimately lead to discontent. But this might be the point because internalized people often lead changes and innovation, necessary for a fully functioning society which changes. So a certain level of unhappiness in our society actually is healthy and necessary for our own evolution.
If everyone was happy, why would we need to change anything? Dr. Persaud made a very convincing case by quoting Brave New World when the Savage (John) said he wished to remain unhappy even though everyone else was happy (their emotions controlled by genetics and drugs keeping social order in perfect harmony). Unhappiness and discontent bring a call for improvements and a call for continued evolution in our civilization. This in fact brings new trends in art, science, medicine and every field.
And the debate goes on... What do you think?
posted by Serge LeVert-Chiasson at
4:02 PM
2 Comments:
Very interesting lecture! Good idea to add the link to let us read the abstract for ourselves...I have two questions:
1. Did the speakers discuss their definitions of unhappiness? By unhappiness, do they mean not being rich and feeling sad about it or suffering from starvation? I would be surprised if they could agree on a single definition!
2. Did the speakers talk about who in society was most unhappy?
Thanks
By
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, at 5:19 AM
1) Unhappiness was not defined but happiness was not defined as having material value. The happiest people were not starving as this study was done on the UK population. However, some interesting trends were found demonstrating that being unemployed, having mental illness and being individualistic (culture value) were directly correlated with unhappiness. The politics of happiness tend to suggest that efforts by government should be spent on the unhappiest in our society.
2) See above for the speakers answer...
P.S. I think you would love LSE Marc given its ability to present important social questions in a convial debating style.
Serge :)
By
Serge LeVert-Chiasson, at 5:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home