Happiness has almost always been associated with money. This is particularly a general belief in more urban areas in which amenities and conveniences are almost always purchased by money. The argument of whether money could buy happiness or not is perennial. However, meanings of both money and happiness change over years not only for communities across ages but also for individuals over different life phases. For supporters of moneyed happiness, so to speak, happiness – interpreted as enjoying what modern life has to offer including all consumables and even spiritual practices – cannot only be achieved without money but is, in fact, unattainable in modern life. For opponents of moneyed happiness, happiness – interpreted as free from care of dogged pursuit of day-to-day consumables and a deeper pursuit of inner joys – is achievable only if one understands most fundamental questions in life, an understanding which conventionally comes in late life but which can, indeed, be achieved by being focused on what matters in life. There are, of course, extreme views for each side with one extreme, on side supporting moneyed happiness, excluding any real happiness without money and another, on side of opposing moneyed happiness, excluding each and every from of money as a pre-condition for happiness. In balance, happiness remains a concept in flux which responds to multiple factors influencing how communities and individuals. The concept of happiness is, accordingly, a situational one defined more by how, when and who experiences happiness. For current purposes, focus remains on non-moneyed / moneyed happiness as essay's central argument. This paper aims, hence, to argue for non-moneyed happiness conditioned by situational contexts.
As noted, money has almost always been used as a precondition for happiness by supporters of moneyed happiness for as long as humans have existed. This argument has gained further significance in recent centuries, usually referred to as "modern period" in human history, as preconditions for happiness have, according to supporters of a moneyed happiness view, continue to be defined more by money as opposed to different factors in earlier eras. For example, a happy family in an urban setting in early 21st century is likely to be so if living in conditions offering "minimum" decent life requirements. By "minimum" is meant least possible requirements a family would need for an acceptable life, now and in at least near future. Thus, in an early 21st century modern family situation setting, one would expect a given family to have an independent housing (owned or rented), a minimum household income offering basic nutrition requirements for a healthy life for all household members and, of course, connectivity (i.e. a cell phone service for at least one family member as well as an Internet connection). The latter requirement might appear a bit too of a luxury. However, since most people in many urban areas now share not only basic information using cell phones and web-enabled computers, missing on one most fundamental source of human comfort, i.e. communication, would be at best a deduction of a modern family living in an urban setting's credit of happiness. Needless to say, all said requirements of happiness for a modern family living in an urban setting in early 21st century come attached to money. That is, modern, urban family life in early 21st century can be happy only if moneyed. Thus, happiness can only be bought. There is no such thing as free happiness, according to supporters of moneyed happiness.
The flaw in moneyed happiness is, however, one about definitions. More specifically, supporters of moneyed happiness assume, erroneously, happiness can be achieved only by having specific elements namely, a home, food and cell phones. There is, of course, a grain of authenticity to moneyed happiness which, in a nutshell, is connected to how making one feels comfortable, both physically and psychologically, could lead to happiness. True, physical comfort and psychological stability are apt to lead up to happiness – but only to up a point. That is, if a family – and, for that matter, a single person – can achieve happiness by having what modern life in early 21st century requires for happiness, having something is, in fact, a very fluid concept and is apt to change over different periods. For example, if a family manages to have a "decent" home in a "nice" neighborhood" at an affordable price such as to have enough income to spend on food, connectivity and different requirements for happiness, nothing could guarantee what brings happiness now could bring happiness, not for eternity, but for at least one year ahead, particularly in an urban setting located in a big metropolitan area which is constantly fed by different sources of (un)happiness as people school, work, rest or love. Indeed, happiness, seen in a light of changing needs – not only for one modern family / individual but also for communities at large – can be nothing but a delusion satisfied by momentary gratifications endorsed or denied by surrounding social pressure. Moneyed happiness becomes, accordingly, a mere mirage only sustained by having more which, needless to say, is never enough as long as humans continue to develop different needs over different periods of community and individual life.
The story of Bernhardt Wichmann III, a mute veteran living alone in a small room in Manhattan, New York is, in fact, enlightening (Kleinfield). Born to immigrant, German parents in 1932, Ben (as his friends and neighbors call him), served in Korean War. Having no family, gay and Ben lost his speaking ability in 1983. Ever since, Ben stayed alone in his small apartment in Manhattan and communicated with neighbors, friends and strangers in writing. In a rare event, Ben was able to recover his speaking ability only to be informed shortly after oh is advanced prostate cancer case. Ben had only few people who attended his funeral and who paid for his service and cremation.
Ben's story could, of course, be said to be an exception. However, what every person encountered Ben said about him was he was always happy. Virtually moneyless, Ben lived not only few weeks, months or years in nothing but a state of poverty but also encountered a series o medical problems which, for another person, could have made him at best crippled in bed, if not dead. This does not mean, however, Ben led a completely independent life. In fact, neighbors and friends used to support him now and then by giving him used clothes, offering him gifts or just be in his company. That said, one would wonder what kept Ben holding to a life which, according to supporters of moneyed happiness, is at best extremely unhappy.
There is, of course, an ages-old explanation of "inner faith" and "exceptional straight" which helped Ben carry on for decades. Instead, Ben, from a non-moneyed happiness perspective, had different life priorities compared to others. Living in one of world's most urban areas and refusing to get a cell phone after his brief recovery of his voice, Ben exemplifies how developing an ability not to mind daily concerns helps one endure personal calamities. One would not, of course, ask a modern family to simply smile – as Ben did – when challenged by one crisis or another, a constant given in current modern life. Instead, in order for a modern family or individual, particularly in an urban setting, to be happy, re-prioritizing remains central to achieve happiness. If anything, social pressure stands as one major stumbling block for many to assume happiness. Yet, if properly conditioned, one could make happiness at least a frequent visitor.
Works Cited
Kleinfield, N. R. "Mute and Alone, He Was Never Short of Kind Words or Friends." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 July 2016. Web. 30 July 2016.
