It is difficult to give a definition to happiness. It is possible to provide the attributes that define happiness. Some will say it is fame, reputation, financial stability, while the others claim happiness is to love and be loved, have a lot of friends, gain new knowledge, or to be inspired. The main issue is that definition of happiness is individual for every human being. People may believe that extrinsic goals and material things will make them happy and the others insist that intrinsic objectives are far more superior. There is a body of research suggesting that the happiness may depend on a correlation of a person’s extrinsic goals with the inner drivers (Abdel-Khalek 140). A research conducted by DiPietro that measured happiness revealed that the ability to experience the emotions of happiness depends on the amount of stressors existing in a person’s life (DiPietro 82). Overall, there is no consensus in the researchers regarding this subject. It will be incorrect to imply that happiness remains a mystery, but its conceptualization is too fluid and vague for making any clear definitions. At the same time, philosophers and intellectuals tend to reflect on the notion of happiness trying to find a path to the true happiness.
In his article “Love People, Not Pleasure” Arthur C. Brooks tries to define happiness by questioning the ideology of the modern industrialized world. He appeals to audience by asking if the readers are happy when they crave for material things. It is possible to notice that the author addresses the audience of all social classes, yet mostly it will appeal to the middle class, as Brooks uses the knowledge and information relevant to this social segment. Moreover, he appeals to the younger readers, who follow the celebrities in the Instagram and invest disproportionate amount of time in social media. Particularly, the author claims that people tend to spend a lot of time in the Facebook pretending to live a happier life than it is in reality (Brooks). The attributes of happiness he distinguishes are fame, money, and sex that, while being desirable for all people, appeal more to the younger audience. Overall, the author implies that extrinsic goals and material things are artificial attributes of happiness, and their craving will eventually lead to unhappiness.
In order to persuade his audience, Brooks uses the evidence from different fields, including psychology and biology. Specifically, he insists that “it makes sense that we are wired to seek fame, wealth and sexual varietythese things make us more likely to pass on our DNA” (Brooks). Simultaneously, the author provides evidence from the research that claims people with the intrinsic goals were happier than the individuals who target extrinsic objectives. Brooks uses the method of comparison of material and spiritual domains, which is not a new approach in this subject matter. A lot of thinkers before Brooks, pointed in the same direction by claiming that the material things will not provide happiness. Instead, they all suggest giving up the cravings for fame, sex, and money and to embrace the intrinsic goals which will increase the level of happiness.
Brooks’ main message and appeals are quite strong. First of all, it was revealed that in the industrialized world the percentage of people experiencing depression is increasing. Simultaneously, it is the same world that fosters consumerism, fame, and career growth as the main goals of every individual by supporting this agenda in the media. In the result, a random reader of Brooks’ article will connect the promotion of material values to depression and unhappiness. This seems to be a logical conclusion, as the author uses the works of scientists to support his claim. However, from another hand, it is quite evident that the concepts in the article are not quite right. In science, the approach chosen by the author is referred to as personal bias. When the researcher creates a hypothesis and specifically looks for data to support it, it eventually leads to wrongful conclusions and jeopardizes the findings (Gackowski 731). In the article, Brooks provides the results of research that support his claims, he does not introduce any counterargument.
Yet the author makes an important remark along the way by reviewing human’s craving for material things from the evolutionary point of view. Particularly, he claims that seeking for sexual release is the atavism humans inherited from “cave-man ancestors, who might not have found enough mating partners to create your lineage” (Brooks). Later on, the author proposes to give up extrinsic goals and embrace spiritual values through charity and love to other people. As it was mentioned earlier, the author does address middle and also maybe upper class that, according to Brooks’ thinking, are overwhelmed with financial gains and fame. While the author is partially right, his entire conceptualization of happiness is a cliché. Of course, new car or innovational cell phone will not boost happiness in a person who lacks love and attention. At the same time, a person who lives on the edge of absolute poverty will not be feeling happy if he/she concentrates only on the intrinsic goals.
There is a theoretical framework known as the Culture of Poverty formulated by Oscar Lewis that claims that poor people tend to create a subculture with its own values and principles making them to remain poor (Burke Lecock 25). The main point here is that the vast majority of disadvantaged people claimed they feel powerlessness, unhappiness, and inability to express themselves (Burke Lecock 28). If the main root of evil was the material or extrinsic values, than poor people within Western culture will be the happiest people in the world. However, the reality is different, as the use of substances and the rate of depression is higher in the more disadvantaged people (Marcus 20). It is possible to blame the modern culture of consumerism supported by the multinational conglomerates and governments for fostering the material values as the true attributes of happiness. Although such approach leads to the dead end as well.
One of the important points was raised by the documentary called “Happiness” that focuses on the conceptualization of happiness too. In the beginning of the film, the director shows a poor Indian family that lives in a shabby house and claims they feel happy. In another scene, an Illinois’ professor claims that a lot of U.S. citizens feel unhappy (Belic). There are two ways to analyze this message. It is possible to conclude that the concept of happiness is relative and individual, as some people are not happy with the house in Bell Air, while the others will be pleased to live in a shabby den. However, it is important to take into account that the Indian culture, differs significantly from the Western perspective regarding values in general and happiness in particular. It is important to take into account that people are social beings and, therefore, tend to react to the principles and values of the culture within they live. Also, as humans are biological beings, they tend to need certain material things, like food, water, shelter, education, and the ability to express themselves. Unfortunately or maybe not, these things are not provided for free, thus people have to gain material things in order to survive.
At the same time, the documentary insists that the main factor that increases happiness is the ability to decide what to do. In other words, the film relies on the theory intentional activity, which according to scholars, define 40 percent of happiness in a person (Belic). In addition, this theory simply suggests that the recipe of happiness requires from people to do what they love. By reviewing the life of several people who seems to be happy by doing what they love, even if this occupation is not considered prestigious in the Western culture, the documentary proves that happiness does not relate to material or spiritual, it refers to the inner desires a person obtains. This approach is different from Brooks’ point of view, as it does not claim that material world is the root of evil, it states that a person has to listen to himself/herself in order to be happy.
It is true that in the modern industrialized world, fame, prestige, money, and sex with multiple partners are advertized as the way to obtain ultimate happiness. Brooks is right in this discourse, happiness cannot be provided solely by financial resources. However, in the current situation, money is the resource that can provide the ability to do what a person wants to do. It may sound paradoxical, but if a person wants to be a lawyer, not because of the prestige of the profession or money it generates, but because he or she enjoys it, it is necessary to earn money for education and practice. If individual wants to become a surfer, because of the joy this activity provides, than the need of finances is not important. The examples can be multiple, but the main concept will remain the same. Happiness is a category that depends on both intrinsic as well as extrinsic goals and their perception by a person. Not all people will be happy in a shabby house and not all of them will feel constant joy by living in a palace as well.
Brooks addresses a very narrow audience with his claims, audience who is concentrated on the extrinsic goals by confusing them with their inner desires. Brooks’ readers that will agree with his point are both unhappy and financially successful. Thus, they see the main reason of their unhappiness in the rush for material things. They probably will be right, but the methods Brooks proposes to use will not resolve their problems. He advocates for loving all people and use charity as the main instrument for obtaining the ability to love. A concluding message Brooks makes is “to use things and love people” (Brooks), which is plausible for the current obsession with fame and money. However, not all people, even within the Western culture, crave for only material success and the praise of the society.
Overall, Brooks makes a correct conclusion, but he shifts the main focus to the opposition of material and spiritual or, at some point, moral and immoral, which is not productive due to the relativity of such concepts. The author emphasizes inability to replace the intrinsic goals with the extrinsic ones by using the results of biological and psychological studies. He also provides his personal observation regarding the American culture on the topics of happiness by showing that to crave fame and money is shallow and it will not bring happiness. However, ultimate poverty will not generate happiness as well, especially in the Western community. It is impossible to replace a culture and the way of living, but it will be more effective for people to realize what they want.
Documentary implied that people will not feel happy if they never feel pain at least one time in their lives (Belic). It is theorized that human’s nervous system does not function like that, thus, it is normal to feel unhappy at some point. One of the problems with Brooks’ point of view is that he measures happiness as the material substance, like for example, water. One person has less happiness than the other. However, happiness is fluid and a person might feel happy at one point and will be upset in another moment. It is impossible to be constantly happy or to be always unhappy, as the emotional state of a human is changing depending on the external and internal stimuli. Brooks compared fame to a drug that cannot be given up due to addiction. At the same time, rush for happiness can become the same thing if people fail to see their inner desires. In conclusion, it is important to note that the rejection of extrinsic goals in favor of intrinsic may be a wrong way to find happiness. Craving for spiritual and rejection of material will not bring ultimate happiness as well. At the same time, in order to understand what makes a person happy, it is necessary to try different things, to research, to familiarize with another set of values, and to dig deeper into the inner desires as well as their correspondence with the external environment. Overall, there is no single recipe of happiness, as all people must have their own way to happiness.
Works Cited
Abdel-Khalek, Ahmed M. "Measuring Happiness with a Single-Item Scale." Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 34.2 (2006): 139-147. Print.
Belic, Roko, dir. Happiness. Emotional Content, 2011. Film.
Brooks, Arthur C. Love People, not Pleasure. New York Times. 18 Jul. 2014. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
Burke Leacock, Ellen. The Culture of Poverty: A Critique. New York: Touchstone, 1971. Print.
DiPietro, William R. "Happiness and Economic Progress: A Perspective." Business Renaissance Quarterly 4.4 (2009): 81-99. Print.
Gackowski, Zbigniew J. "Quality of Informing: Bias and Disinformation Philosophical Background and Roots (Research in Progress)." Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology 3 (2006): 731-744. Print.
Marcus, Allan. “The Culture of Poverty Revisited: Bringing Back the Working Class”. Anthropologica 47.1 (2005): 14-26. Print.
