The Purfuit of Happineff

I just finished reading a book on happiness/unhappiness around the world, The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner. Weiner is a grump who wants to know who the happy people are and where they live, and why they are happy. What is happiness? So he studied up on Happiness Studies, and went to a bunch of different countries that are well-known to be either very happy or very unhappy. The happy countries were the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Thailand, and Bhutan. The unhappy one was Moldova, a very unhappy place. India and Qatar were mixed, but India seemed happier than Qatar. Great Britain was fairly unhappy, although they are beginning to think about trying to be happy, to the dismay of many people. America is not the unhappiest country, but not near the top of the happy spectrum. I hope I haven't forgotten any.

Weiner's conclusion is that happiness is multifaceted. A certain amount of money is involved, but it isn't much. Human connections are necessary, and trust. Envy is the enemy to happiness. That all makes sense. After that, you're on your own. That's what he found, anyway. That makes sense, too. Different people find different things that bring them happiness. Most people in the happy countries do not spend time wondering about happiness, perhaps because they are too busy being happy. If you've got it, you don't miss it or wonder where it is.

One thing that Weiner doesn't address is the temporal aspect of happiness, or the essence of happiness. He wrote about what makes people happy, but not about what it is to be happy. Is it joy? If so, is it constant joy? Or do scattered joyous moments equate to overall happiness? Is a person's happiness level their average state of being, and if so, is that necessarily where they are on the happiness meter during the majority of their life (or day, or week, or hour), or can it be the average of extreme joy and extreme misery? Is not hating your life the same as being happy? I think I am fairly happy, although there are many things I would like to change about my life. It could be better. But it is what it is, for now. (I think that was a message from one of the happy countries, actually.) But it's not constant or even frequent joy.

Another question: Why should we expect to be happy? In America, we are told that we must be happy, and that if we are not happy, then it must be our own fault. But I don't think that it is the human norm to be happy, not actively, consciously happy. I also don't think it's the human norm to be actively miserable. I think that in general, people just go along and do what they have to do to get by, and if they are happy, that's great, and if they are not, well, then, that's the way it is because they don't have any choice in the matter. Granted, I am thinking of serfs and subsistence farmers and all, but most people in the world have been at that level of society and have had little choice in their lives. (The Bhutanese, pretty happy people but they don't admit to it, have had little choice in their lives until now, when they are getting democracy by decree of the king; they don't want it, but they all voted because the king told them to. I don't think they really get this democracy thing.) It is all Thomas Jefferson's fault, this fixation on happiness that Americans have. Not that he promised us out and out happiness. He just promised the right to pursue happiness. With that right, then if we are not happy, then it must be our own damn fault. Jerk. Also, the American public is too stupid to distinguish between the right to pursue happiness and happiness itself. We feel so entitled to everything. If we are not happy, then it must be the government's fault that we are not happy. The government owes us!

So, it's either our own fault that we are unhappy, or it's the government's fault that we are unhappy. The book implies that it is both, in the sense that some countries are generally happy because of the system of government, and others are happy because of the cultural and societal attitude, which of course defines the government, as well. It could be our ancestor's fault, if it is all genetic. Or perhaps happiness is just a modern marketing ploy, and it really means nothing. I think that part of it is that, and that the choices that we make will not necessarily lead to either happiness or unhappiness. They may lead to comfort or discomfort, but not necessarily change our happiness level. (Happiness researchers agree.) On the other hand, some choices are definitely better than others. If only they were easy to identify.

This book did not address anything like depression or PTSD or the effects of war or trauma or other bad things. Weiner has spent time in Iraq and other places that have been going through horrible times, and he purposely avoided these places and issues for this book. He himself is not a happy person, which is why he was curious about it. He seems to be a little happier after writing the book (certainly after getting it done). One thing he says at the end: many people find it more important to have full and meaningful lives rather than empty and happy lives. The implication is that having full, meaningful, and happy lives may not be an option - so you may not get to pick. In which case, perhaps we should just stop worrying about it, and get on with our lives.

So there are lots of contradictions here, and in the interest of my happiness and yours, dear reader, I am not going to try to smooth them all out. I liked this book, and I recommend it.

It's About Time

As usual, it is Sunday. Always Sunday here at the FFP. It is a short Sunday, with one hour missing. This is just cruel. Sunday is a day crammed with things to do, so why must it be the day that gets shorter? What should I not do because of that missing hour? Sleep? Laundry? Clean? Cook? Surf the Web and Post on my Neglected Blog? Talk to my Neighbor? Walk? Obsess about MS/Gluten Intolerance/Celiac Disease/Body-on-own-Body Attacks That May Continue Until I can Eat Nothing AT ALL? Read? Work? I vote for cleaning, as I usually do on Sundays, even those of normal length. But this place really needs cleaning. And work really needs to be done, along with the laundry and the cooking and the neighboring and the walking. The obsessing just comes along for the ride. I plan to obsess about gluten as I eat the remaining Girl Scout cookies. After all, I have to get them out of the house, right? They haven't been here long.

I have made progress on my book problem: I have finished two books, and now have only 6 to read before I can get any more. It has taken me a long time to finish these books, partly because of work and partly because I keep trying to read too many at once. For one thing, it's hard to hold them all. Weight Watchers has an article about how to save time, and talks about learning to speed-read. My reading of their article slowed down considerably on those 3 sentences about speed-reading. I don't think I am made for that. Also, even though I would like to not be buried under a pile of unread books, and I like buying new books, I don't want to just get through the books I have as fast as possible. Why bother reading them if you don't plan to enjoy them? I like reading slowly. But it does make it hard to stay up-to-date with the current crop of books, let along catch up to the rest of the reading population. I will never catch up, and will never be up-to-date. But I don't really want to be. For one thing, it's more expensive. If you keep buying books when they first come out, then you spend extra money on hardbacks and extra money on the extra bookshelves needed to house the hardbacks. If you wait a few years or decades, then the books come out in paperback, and they are smaller and easier to store. And if they don't ever come out in paperback, then maybe they weren't worth reading in the first place. But you will be out of touch. Not necessarily a bad thing.