should we learn to be happy with the crumbs that fall to us
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Should We Learn to Be Happy With the Crumbs That Fall to Us
1/2
Should we learn to be happy with the crumbs that fall to us?Ashley Frawley
By Ashley FrawleyBattle 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 possessionsits time to rediscover those things we value.
Have Marxists and Conservatives found a common ground? The above quotations reflect the rise ofwhat 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 ofcapitalism 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
-
7/31/2019 Should We Learn to Be Happy With the Crumbs That Fall to Us
2/2
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 reliableyardstick 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 more more 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 andwas 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.