Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Be Happy [for Michael Argyle fans]
The Wall Street Journal ^ | September 23, 2002 | Digby Anderson

Posted on 9/23/2002, 6:52:53 PM by Zuben Elgenubi

How to Be Happy

By DIGBY ANDERSON

Liberalism-leftism is a collection of complaints, denunciations, promises and exhortations. It complains that the poor, the Southern hemisphere, and all sorts of minorities are made miserable, excluded and discriminated against. It denounces their rich, powerful, white Western capitalist-racist-patriarchal-homophobic oppressors. It promises a better, just and diverse society and exhorts everyone to join in the march of progress to that society.

Among the promises, there is one which is half-concealed. It is only half-concealed because it is the most attractive promise of all. But it is half-concealed for too close a scrutiny might reveal it to be the emptiest. Liberal-leftists promise, by implication, happiness for all. They do it most obviously in their promise to rid the world of the misery they complain about. Less obviously, the wealth and the power they promise to redistribute is not an end in itself but a means to happiness. They claim, albeit rather circumspectly, to know how to make people happy.

They do not, however, do any actual empirical work to back their promise and find out what makes people happy. One of the few to do such work died earlier this month. As far as I know, Michael Argyle, the Oxford-based psychologist, was not a leftist. He promised nothing. But for the last 20 years of his life he systematically questioned people as to what made them happy.

It is a pity he did not apply his findings to the liberal-left project because they are most applicable. He found that women are happier than men, which makes the whole radical feminist enterprise rather a waste of time. What's the point of ladies struggling, fighting and suffering in sisterly solidarity to have all the things which chaps have, if those things will make them miserable?

He found that the single institution which produced the most happiness is a good marriage. The promotion of marriage has not exactly been top item on the progressive agenda. Indeed they have done their best to destroy it. How much unhappiness has their destructive effort resulted in?

But it gets worse -- for the progressives: Going to church comes shortly after a good marriage. Not a bad start as a trio: be born a woman, have a good marriage and go to church.

There's a crumb of comfort for lefties on money. A little more money does make you a little happier but the very rich are not necessarily supremely happy. Happiness may relate more to the comparisons people make between their own and other people's earnings, and some rather poor people are quite happy with their lot.

But worst of all for lefties is Argyle's own recommendation. He favored the source of happiness which is within our power to do something about. This is a leisure or charitable pursuit which we devote ourselves to fairly thoroughly, such as golf or the Rotary Club. The best source of happiness among these, he finds consistently, is country dancing: "Workers of the world, oppressed and damned of the earth, join your partners, here we go."

I am not totally persuaded by the methods of psychology, but the overall message that simplistic happiness recipes -- redistribute wealth to make the lower-income groups healthier and happier -- are not reliable is worth attention. Even more, Argyle should be thanked for bringing the happiness issue into the open. All those politicos, and not just liberals, that trade on it by implication can only be embarrassed by that.

He did not, however, go far enough. There is a traditional wisdom on happiness. It teaches several lessons which we can all recognize in our own life, and these are even more embarrassing for leftists. There are times when we feel neither especially happy nor unhappy, which, later, we see as times of great happiness. That is, our own impressions of our own happiness are not reliable even as judged by ourselves. Looking back on these times, we say, as it were, "I was wrong then not to be happy, I can now see it as a time of great happiness."

Indeed, we recollect as happy some times when we were compelled by someone else to do something we did not want to do: "I am so glad my parents forced me to persist with my music lessons, knowing and playing music has given me more happiness than anything else in the world."

Even worse, for the progressive agenda, suffering can bring happiness. Suddenly becoming poor, for instance, can teach one who one's friends are and nurture those friendships. It can show one the things which really matter. It can bring forth strengths of character previously smothered by wealth, strengths which make one a better and happier person.

Traditional wisdom's most profound insight into happiness is that it is a by-product. Seek happiness and it is elusive. And this goes -- for the leftists' benefit -- whether it be sought for oneself or on someone else's behalf: the poor, the oppressed, the discriminated against. The founding documents of the U.S. are wise to promise a right, not to happiness, but to pursue happiness. But it's a right best not much used. Pursuing happiness often does not bring it. Pursuing other goals -- truth, wisdom and the virtuous life -- or just getting on with the duties and chores of daily life at work and home, often does bring happiness as a by-product.

If we can't manipulate our own happiness, it is certain that the schemes of the liberal-left can't do it on our behalf. Either they are offering to make people happy, in which case they are frauds. Or they are not, in which case they should point out that the sort of justice they promise may well not make people happier at all.

Mr. Anderson is director of the Social Affairs Unit, a think tank in London.

Updated September 23, 2002


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: argyle; leftism; liberalism
According to Argyle, happiness can be measured. Look at what was found: woman are happier than men, marriage is the single institution which produces the most happiness, participating in worship breeds happiness, and service to the community is important. To insure happiness? Dance. Dance your heart out.
1 posted on 9/23/2002, 6:52:53 PM by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
I don't care diddly squat about dancing, but I like to play music for my own amazement as the joke goes. If you promised me one million dollars to forgo my own admittedly mediocre music-playing abilities, I wouldn't take it. Life without music is not worth living...not for a billion dollars.
2 posted on 9/23/2002, 10:01:13 PM by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless
Although music is not specifically mentioned in the article, your happiness is a function of the human need to express oneself joyfully. For most, according to Argyles metrics, dance is the preferred delivery system. Since music is necessary for dance, I suppose you ARE the delivery system.
3 posted on 9/24/2002, 1:06:10 AM by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi
Try dancing without music. Most men dance to please women all of whom have a dancing gene. Men are just going along for the ride so to speak.
4 posted on 9/24/2002, 6:57:22 AM by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson