Happiness: Enough Already

The happiness backlash has begun.  “Against Happiness” can now be found in bookstores, while “Rethinking Happiness” is winging its way to one in the next several months.

Written by men who attempted to ‘get with the program’ and get happy, their failure – they believe – is a function of the flawed nature of our existence and not, one might conjecture, their own fault.

“…it also strikes me as a perfectly rational response to a world that is, fundamentally and in every particular, indifferent to human suffering and pain.” -Sharon Begley

Eric Wilson believes that the happiness movement ”leads to half-lives, to bland existences”.  He asserts that the benefits of being unhappy are numerous indeed.   Being more than moderately happy is a disadvantage when it comes to your income, participation in politics and world events, as well as your relationships. 

Even more frighteningly, per a massive, multi-country study, it was clear that the happiest among us are in strong – dare I say – ‘happy’ relationships. 

I have to dump my blissful union of a marriage??  Happy thought indeed.

The drug companies, warns “Rethinking Happiness”, are members of the ‘happiness industry’ attempting to pharmaceutically drag everyone into happiness. 

“If you’re totally satisfied with your life and with how things are going in the world,” says “Rethinking Happiness”, “you don’t feel very motivated to work for change. Be wary when people tell you you should be happier.”

I suppose when you look at world history it is the unhappiest among us that started world wars and conquered continents, even perpetrating the Holocaust…which suddenly makes me yearn for happier leaders. 

I suppose they mean that if the Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s of the world were ‘happy’ they wouldn’t have gone on to become great.  

These arguments are the worst indulgence for people who aren’t oppressed and in fear for their lives. 

I would bet every penny I have that MLK would have infinitely preferred living his dream to ‘greatness’.  A world with no racism, ergo no heroes?  Never thought I’d see the day when that would be considered a bad thing.

What’s even worse is that ”Against Happiness” cites Flaubert’s assertion that to be happy consistently, one must be stupid.  I guess I need to revoke my Mensa certification on the grounds that I am unthinkingly happy. 

Every great work of literature, art, and statesmanship can, apparently, be traced to the patent unhapiness of their progenitors.  Picasso would never have been as inventive or insightful were he happy.  There are no compelling stories to tell of happiness and, what’s worse, is that misery is being ‘criminalized’.

Perhaps the authors would not be so melodramatic if they were happy.  The problem, I think, lies with the specific beef against ‘happiness’. 

Happiness is not, in fact, the end all and be all of existence. 

Living with passion and fervor, everyday, is.  Living passionately, fulfilling your dream, and engaging your calling puts you in touch with every emotion. 

We are not the ‘happiness Borg’ to tell you resistance is futile. 

There will be dreams unfulfilled.  You will lose loved ones along the way.  You will, at points, be encompassed by all-consuming heartache.  But these moments do not exist to further countries, or justify an misery-filled view of the world, or even create enduring works of art.

It is the enduring works of art or passion for the downtrodden of society that bring an equilibrium to our human experience.  We engage in these activities to work through and purge our feelings of anguish and loss.  It is not misery which is necessary for the good works in the world, it is the yearning to find meaning and happiness from our losses.

It is not, in fact, sadness which creates change, but the desire for happiness, justice, and meaning. 

It’s the rejection of misery and the audacity of belief of entitlement to an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.