Happiness

Ways of happiness for degrowth: some thoughts

Filka Sekulova, Research & Degrowth

There are thousands of ways in which one can think about happiness and even more ways in which the universe of happiness interpretations can be relevant for degrowth. Starting with the former, for the sake of rooting ourselves in the literature, much of the academic writing on subjective well-being differentiates between positive affect, often regarded as 'happiness' and the cognitive evaluation of life, referred as life-satisfaction. Both concepts are normally inserted in the hedonic tradition, or going back further in the past, as originating from the Epicurean school. Another way of reading happiness brings forward the Aristotelian concept of eudemonia. Here happiness is seen as a process of fulfilling one's virtual potentials, which do not have to do (only) with the feeling of psychologically wellness. Certainly, there is considerable overlap between the hedonic and eudemonic traditions. Waterman and colleagues would argue that eudemonic living would necessarily involve a hedonic enjoyment, while not all hedonic enjoyment would be associated with eudemonic living (Deci and Ryan 2008).

            Why is it relevant to make this distinction? For many the path to true happiness eventually involves degrowth, and vise verse. Others would argue that (individuals) happiness could be socially unjust, might not be equitable, social, nor meaningful. The variety of definitions above can help explain what types of happiness we mean as being a part and parcel in the pursuit of degrowth. As ample in significations as degrowth is, the ways of happiness associated with it are also multidimensional.

            Objective here is thus not to downplay hedonism and elevate eudemonia, but to embrace the two as equally relevant building blocks of happiness. Epicurus, for example, talks about the false beliefs in the limitless pursuit of material goods as a means of reaching happiness, thus offering a cognitive solution where individual (alone) have the power to change the concepts, often illusive, on the constitutes of good life. In a think piece on well-being and sustainability, John O'Neil (2008) argues that Aristotelians and Epicureans would agree on the disconnection between improvements in quality of life (or call it happiness in either hedonic or eudemonic terms) and increases in consumption, certainly respecting the upper and lower thresholds to the material requirements for the good life. Yet, while the Epicurean approach would focus on consumers themselves, so that they recognize their “errors” and change believes and values, the Artistotlean way to happiness would be more institutional. The Aristotelian approach to eudemonia would rather consider policies addressing the structural determinants of increasing consumption.

            Degrowth as a strong critique to utilitarianism would not align with a Bentham approach where happiness is the sum of pleasures that accrue in time which should be maximized. Similarly, under certain conditions, the voluntary simplicity streams of degrowth could link well with the Seligman et al. (2006) ideas of meaningful life as “a third” route to happiness. Third because it is perceived as firstly passing through “hedonic pleasure” and secondly through “eudamonic engagement” (Prinz and Bünger 2012). Meaningfulness for Seligman is here related to a dedication to ethical and universal objectives which all human beings jointly need to pursue, such as community, social movements, politics, family or religion. Thus explained the path to meaningfulness can easily slip into socially worrisome and dangerous directions, which are reactionary, racist, and overall conservative. Yet the pursuit of meaningfulness in the spirit of open localism and Buen Vivir could be an ally of degrowth. Finally, what is better, living a 'sad' life full of meaningfulness, or a 'happy' life, full of emptiness?

Bibliography

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. 2008. Hedonica, eudamonia, and well-being: an introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies. Vol. 11, pp. 9:11.

O'Neil, J. 2008. Living Well Within Limits: Well-Being, Time and Sustainability. The fourth opinion piece for the Redefining Prosperity, fourth seminar "Wellbeing Policy."

Prinz, A. and Bünger, B. 2012. Balancing ‘full life’: An economic approach to the route to happiness, Journal of Economic Psychology 33m pp. 58–70

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist (November), pp. 774–788.

Waterman, A.S: 1993, Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaemonia) and hedonic enjoyment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64, pp. 678–691.