Happiness: What’s Your Policy?
Hope Yancey
Happiness is a popular topic of debate in recent years: what defines it, how to measure it, whether people are born with a particular set point.
So I was interested to learn about the World Happiness Report, commissioned for the April United Nations Conference on Happiness.
It was published by the Earth Institute at Columbia University, a research and education organization comprised of scientists, students and others dedicated to searching for practical solutions to world problems. According to information on the institute’s website, the organization focuses on nine interdisciplinary themes: Climate and Society; Water; Energy; Urbanization; Hazards and Risk; Global Health; Poverty; Food, Ecology and Nutrition; and Ecosystems Health and Monitoring.
The happiness report the institute released includes various external factors influencing happiness such as income, community and governance, and internal ones like mental health, physical health and age.
Interestingly, mental health was identified as the single largest factor affecting happiness in any country.
The report lends credibility to the idea that happiness is something worth examining, and that it is possible to study it scientifically.
I was most pleased to see the report’s editors make the point that results obtained from measuring happiness can be used by policy-makers to assess effectiveness of public policy.
My own view is that we are all profoundly impacted in our daily lives – and overall happiness – by the policy decisions made by our leaders, much more so than we often take time to stop and consider. Each of us can probably think of adults we know who do not even vote.
Some people have a rather shallow and narrow view of happiness, as though it is something that falls completely within one’s internal locus of control. As though simply smiling more and adopting an optimistic outlook are enough to bring about happiness. As though happiness is merely something we can choose or fail to choose for ourselves.
I believe that even “internal” factors such as mental health have external and public policy aspects that must not be overlooked, too.
I have a friend who grew up in Finland and now lives in Sweden, and in many respects I admire how those countries do things. It came as no surprise to me that countries in Northern Europe – countries with extensive social safety nets for their citizens – ranked highly in happiness measurements.
Hope Yancey is a counselor and freelance writer living in Charlotte, North Carolina
Dear Hope, I see the statement of “Happiness is a popular topic of debate in recent years” richly garnished with “World Happiness”, “United Nations”, “Earth Institute”, “University”, “research”, “scientists”, “dedicated to solutions to world problems”. It makes me wonder, why would anyone do such a thing? To gain credibility? To hide cluelessness about the topic? To see themselves published? We’ll never know because the reasons are not stated.
But happiness is a serious subject, especially to people in despair, looking for a way out. This is why, Hope, unless you first muster the guts to share YOUR personal experience-based knowledge of happiness and despair you would do better if you refrained from disseminating statements that serve no purpose other than to keep unhappy people within the confines of unhappiness.
“We are all profoundly impacted in our happiness by the policy decisions made by our leaders”, “various external factors influence happiness”. These statements represent nothing but opinion – which happens to be a most abundant commodity on Earth. Not very precious, but some don’t care, unfortunately for them.
Truth is, your statements are not recipes of happiness, but for staying unhappy to the end of your days. Where do you draw the line of external factors? At leaders? At the stars? At your horoscope? Today’s weather? TV? The internet? Your parents? Your kids? Your DNA? I’ve seen people unhappy because it rained that day. Haven’t you? Extra hint: the Serenity Prayer. ‘Nough said.
With best wishes ~Beat
I agree with the report’s editors that the happiness of a nation’s people should be a societal goal, and that happiness can be pursued both individually and through national policy. Feedback about the happiness of people (surveys, case studies) can be used to inform policy decisions. It can help determine what’s working, what isn’t and where resources should be allocated. That seems like a noble enough goal.
Happiness is always going to have elements of subjectivity, and people will probably always disagree to some extent on what happiness entails. But attempting to quantify it, study it and search for common themes just may make for a better society.
While there are many things affecting our happiness that are within our own control, there are many others that are not no matter how much we wish it were so (for example, the amount of political freedom we have, the trustworthiness of our societal institutions, etc.), and it makes sense for leaders to examine these.
Hope,
Your comments are more appropriate for an academic journal, rather than a counseling website. There is nothing written here that is personal or conveys any emotional connection to the topic. I’ve noticed this is your other columns as well. You are very removed from the subjects your discuss.
Additionally, your statements about policy makers and external factors suggest that you believe the government, in some way, is responsible for an individual’s happiness. This is akin to suggesting that people are merely victims with little control over their own happiness. Counseling is about helping people explore and improve the issues in their lives. It is not about big brother being responsible for our happiness. Looking to external factors to improve lives on the individual level is theoretical at best, scary at worst.
You offer absolutely no viable suggestions or tangible words of encouragement for those who are suffering. Hiding behind scholarly verbiage (in this area) offers nothing of substance to those who are dealing with very real struggles.
On happiness:
I agree with the report’s editors that the happiness of a nation’s people should be a societal goal, and that happiness can be pursued both individually and through national policy. Feedback about the happiness of people (surveys, case studies) can be used to inform policy decisions. It can help determine what’s working, what isn’t and where resources should be allocated. That seems like a noble enough goal.
Happiness is always going to have elements of subjectivity, and people will probably always disagree to some extent on what happiness entails. But attempting to quantify it, study it and search for common themes just may make for a better society.
While there are many things affecting our happiness that are within our own control, there are many others that are not no matter how much we wish it were so (for example, the amount of political freedom we have, the trustworthiness of our societal institutions, etc.), and it makes sense for leaders to examine these.