Should we learn to be happy with the crumbs that fall to us?

Ashley Frawley By Ashley Frawley Battle of Ideas Friday, 21 October 2011 at 6:00 am Independent Blogs Something is very wrong when those who ought to disagree, actually agree so profoundly. In 2006, David Cameron claimed its time we admitted that theres more to life than money and its time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB general well-being. Nina Power, Marxist philosopher, appears to agree, arguing earlier this year that, we have been coerced into thinking about quality of life in terms of possessions its time to rediscover those things we value. Have Marxists and Conservatives found a common ground? The above quotations reflect the rise of what might be termed the paradox of prosperity, a claim widely propounded by happiness crusaders and enthusiastically embraced by figures across the left right divide. While variably phrased, its core claim is a supposed disconnect between some aspect of modern lifebe it money, prosperity, progressand happiness. In spite of the widespread agreement that such claims inspire, they are often framed as radical challenges to the establishment. Yet if there is any paradox to be had, it is that this apparently anti-capitalist rhetoric actually masks a deeply regressive ethos whose sinister sleight of hand becomes all the more stinging in a downturn. Back in 2003, when the economist and labour peer Lord Richard Layard began campaigning to put happiness at the forefront of public debate, it seemed radical for an economist to say that money didnt make people happy. It seemed to chime with the common knowledge that the evil face of capitalism is covered in Coca-Cola ads urging you to consume and Enjoy. Yet at a time when we are fighting to hold onto our existing standards of living, the left seems dumbfounded. If its radical to accept less, how do we come up with a coherent response to an elite who is more than happy to dispossess us? The answer, of course, is that it is in no way radical to accept less and we should not be fooled into jumping aboard the happiness bandwagon. The fact that two ostensibly opposed ends of the political spectrum are finishing each others sentences should be enough to give anyone pause to reflect. Yet, far from being some form of grassroots co-option, the idea of decoupling wealth from wellbeing has been circulating in the ranks of what we used to call the ruling class for at least 50 years. Moreover, in spite of the ostensibly dispassionate science that is meant to underpin the slogan that happiness has not risen since the 1950s despite increases in wealth, what proponents fail to realise is that, while rhetorically satisfying, it could not have been otherwise. Firstly, happiness isnt a cumulative phenomenon. All of human history was not progressing incrementally on the 10-point happiness-scale until they reached the crowning achievement that was the 1950s. The world into which I was born was as new and natural to me as it is to each generation and I find happiness and enjoyment on the basis of the things to which Ive become accustomed. What is necessary for me today was not in the past, and I have no idea what will become a basic necessity of life in the future. Its not as if youd have handed out happiness surveys

in 1800 only to get back the response, Well, to be honest, now Im a 6 But you just wait til we have electricity!! Second, while money can increase forever, happiness has a finite upper limit. You can only get so happy. Even after wonderful events and extraordinary achievements, it would be some strange affliction to wander through the rest of life in a state of perpetual ecstasy. Happiness is not a reliable yardstick because you will inevitably arrive at the conclusion you set out to find. And often this amounts to a reaffirmation of the present state of affairs and a cynical dismissal of progress and change. This becomes the best of all possible worlds and aspiration for progress is dismissed as a hedonic treadmill. The underlying consensus is that the future is bleak, so our only option is to attempt to sustain the present moment. Yet, in spite of its foregone conclusions, it remains an appealing metaphor for its ability to transfer a myriad of conversations to a new terrain where the field of disagreement becomes impossibly narrow. The locus of problems and thus of change becomes the individual and his or her lifestyle choices. Capitalism may be bad, but the problem is you. You want too much, and you would feel just fine if you would lower your expectations and be content with less. It is easy to forget that human beings are not simply consumers but also, and more fundamentally, producers too. And what have we been fighting for 200 years if not for moremore in return for our work, more of the social product that we create? The degree of disorientation is perhaps best illustrated by a frequently misquoted anecdote of Marx that: A house may be large or small; as long as the neighbouring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirements for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. It is amazing that today we can imagine Karl Marx warning us not to envy the social position of the ruling class. In fact, he was cautioning that we should never be content with the crumbs that fall to us. That palace represents what human beings are capable of at the present moment. It is yours and was built with your labour. Go and take it! What is truly progressive is not to be happy with the way things are and to live in the moment but to be discontent with what is and with the possibilities that are being kept from us. There is plenty to have and there will be plenty more, it is up to us to take it, turn it around, and make it our own. What happiness will mean then is beyond our imaginations today. Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Institute of Ideas Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time. Ashley Frawley is a researcher in the problematisation of happiness and wellbeing at the University of Kent, Canterbury. She is speaking at the Battle of Ideas Satellite session Is Greece ready for a dose of happiness?, organised in partnership with the Hellenic American Union, which takes place in Athens on Tuesday 25 October.