You’re Doing ‘Happiness’ Wrong

Jul 7, 2016 //
0

Everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is so critically important that the pursuit of it is literally a right guaranteed by the American Declaration of Independence. Thousands of books have been written about that pursuit, and given their continued publication one can only assume that the pursuit has yet to be concluded. Happiness is always just one more life-affirming meme away, ever out of our grasp. Perhaps this is due to the elusive definition of happiness, for what does it mean to be happy? Wikipedia defines it as “a mental or emotional state of well-being defined by positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.” So, accordingly, happiness is varying degrees of synonyms for happiness. That is super helpful.

Since I’ve already ragged on memes once, let’s see if they can redeem themselves, and we’ll try to learn what they can teach us about defining happiness since the ever-infallible Wikipedia ended up being a disaster. This website has a collection of “Happiness Is” memes that describe various instances when the word ‘happy’ seems appropriate, such as not having to set your alarm clock for the next morning, or finding an old family album. These examples give quite an accurate depiction of how many people view happiness: ephemeral events that elicit an upswell of positive emotion. Happiness can’t be defined linguistically because it exists beyond descriptive vocabulary as an almost spiritual experience, and it arrives in a way that we only recognize when we feel it.

Now when we live by the maxim that “if it’s in a meme then it is factually improbable,” as we all should, we’re forced to analyze this version of happiness more discerningly. If happiness is as laudable as the profit-driven self-help industry claims it to be, then we’re dedicating all of our life goals to a fix. We hop from island of bliss to island of bliss, desperately searching for that next dopamine rush, dreading the moments in between. That sounds a lot less like a fulfilling existence and more like Jennifer Connelly’s character at the end of Requiem for a Dream. Is most of life utterly without value? Discounting the feelings outside of happiness is the pinnacle of delusion. Creativity requires a good deal of personal suffering and frustration. Inside Out taught us that even sadness has its own virtue, and anger is often the healthiest response to unjust events. Happiness has never once moved the world forward, and if we only celebrate positive emotion then we are putting pacification above progress.If our sole focus is maintaining a happy persona, we may even disregard warning signals of an impending crisis simply because to acknowledge it would get in the way of our placid, happy thoughts.

Regardless of my argument, people will still pursue happiness. Not because they’re meme-loving sycophants abstaining from reasonable thought to endorse the epidemic cult of positivity, but because as human beings we intrinsically strive for it. Even a curmudgeon like myself still seeks to find the light in this world of darkness. The Founding Fathers were not dumb, and their inclusion of happiness was not a mistake. Even Aristotle suggested that a life of happiness ought to be a person’s ultimate goal. Aristotle, however, had a different definition of happiness from today’s life coaches peddling their snake oil. He believed that a happy life was one of virtue, and happiness was derived from adhering to the golden mean rather than embodying the hedonistic platitudes of fucking internet memes.

Of course there are plenty of faults in Aristotle’s Virtue ethics, but he began a philosophy of happiness where it wasn’t understood as an emotion, but as a way of life. Nietzsche expanded on this philosophy by saying that the happiest people were those who thrived in suffering, and could create meaning through it. Have some irony:

Wisdom without context. The highest plateau a meme can achieve.

Wisdom without context: the highest peak a meme can achieve.

Here is a happiness that could weather any negativity, for it is a way of life that thrives in any emotional state. It is a happiness that demands value and purpose to enhance our life, rather than a narcotic high to dull it. Nietzsche’s philosophical meaning is somewhat controversial, but the brilliant Viktor Frankl survived the culmination of Nietzschean values, and in doing so, created his much more widely accepted interpretation. According to Frankl, a meaningful life is found through our works, our connection to others, and/or our attitudinal outlook.

This last point may seemingly endorse a meme-spirited happiness delusion, so let’s address that nonsense before it gets out of hand. Have another meme:

This post is now officially my least favourite blog.

This post is now officially my least favourite blog.

I sincerely doubt that this meme is referring to a meaning-based form of happiness, given the message of its sister-meme here:

It's because I hate memes. That's why it's my least favourite blog. I really shouldn't have to spell this out.

It’s because I hate memes. That’s why it’s my least favourite blog. I really shouldn’t have to spell this out.

but we’ll give them an intellectual boost and just assume that some degree of intelligence went into their production, and that they are in fact referring to Frankl’s attitudinal outlook dictating happiness as the representation of purpose.

Frankl viewed the attitudinal approach to meaning as the absolute last resort. He saw it as the only option in approaching the Nazi gas chambers with either dignity or shame. This isn’t a Godwin argument; look him up. He says that if there is even a chance at overcoming a negative situation, to adopt a positive outlook in spite of it is to embrace irrational masochism. The solution is always to change the circumstances, not the attitude.

There is also an underlying tone of condescending individualism in these insipid and ridiculous memes. To say that the person who is wealthy and employed has the same choice to be happy as the broke bum who just lost their job is statistically wrong. Saying happiness is a choice is being oblivious to the countless circumstances that have a direct impact on our well-being. Oh, you lost your baby in a miscarriage after five years of trying for a child? All you need is a change of perspective, and you’ll feel better! That’s an asshole thing to say. Like the worst thing. Never say that. To reiterate: other emotions are necessary parts of our lives, to demand happiness at all times is unnatural and cruel, and to call emotions a choice is completely ignorant of our instinctual reactions. It’s wrong no matter how you define happiness.

At what level are we responsible, if at all, for the happiness of others? Meaning is entirely unique and subjective, so we can’t exactly create it for other people. However, Frankl’s second aspect of meaning is a connection to others, which does suggest that if we are open and caring then we create meaning both for ourselves and for those with whom we come into contact. That sounds like a good start.

What about collective responsibility? If we recognize happiness as meaning, and Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs puts “self-actualization” at the top of the pyramid, wouldn’t that mean that a country that promises its citizens the right to pursue happiness must accommodate all the underlying needs in order for that promise to be fulfilled? Happiness can’t even begin to be pursued until the third level of “love and belonging,” and even then there would need to be a societal agreement and plan to abolish discrimination of all kinds. The progress on that 240 year old promise is a little slow. Way to make liars out of the Founding Fathers, America.

Happiness as an emotional state is nice, I guess, but when planning out one’s life that version should only play the most minor of roles. Pursue meaning. Pursue purpose and value. Treat the happiness that we strive for as a way of being that incorporates the full spectrum of emotion. Live a fulfilling life, and allow that life to connect with others. Define happiness properly, and stop learning how to live from fucking memes!

Have some links:

Say No to Happiness – Ideas with Paul Kennedy: A CBC radio show investigating the philosophical implications of happiness and meaning, and which is more important.

Smile Or Die – Barbara Ehrenreich: The social implications of the cult of positivity.

Why Be Happy When You Can Be Interesting? – Slavoj Žižek: Žižek is a combination of popular neo-communist philosophy and that one scene from Dazed and Confused. These are his thoughts on happiness.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy

Reverse-Discrimination

Jun 30, 2016 //
2

Reverse-discrimination, like reverse-racism or reverse-sexism, is complicated because there are two very good arguments that claim it’s an entirely false concept. The first is that all discrimination is a form of prejudice, so “reverse” discrimination makes no sense because it doesn’t matter who the bigotry is directed toward, it’s all the same mental process. This ends up being a poor rebuttal because discrimination actually does discriminate: calling a black person a nigger and calling a white person a cracker, even if the intent behind each word is exactly the same, will impact the black person far worse than the white person. The cultural context surrounding each word relates to the historical oppression between both groups, and the current balance of power that puts white people above black people makes one slur significantly worse than the other. To illustrate how power affects the impact of language, I humbly offer this terrible example that I will use only because I can’t think of a better one: think of a child that calls you a piece of shit compared to your boss calling you a piece of shit. It’s unlikely the child will offend you because children are socially powerless, whereas your boss has direct control over a portion of your life which makes the boss’s words that much more impactful.

This leads into the second argument against reverse-discrimination. It is literally impossible to discriminate against the dominant group. The structures that are in place that benefit the dominant group gives them the privilege of power that prevents proper oppression. This means that describing the dominant group in a progressive criticism allows whatever language to be used because no one is getting oppressed. Let’s look at this theory a bit further.

Saying something like, “Men are violent” or using similar generalized phrases is semantically identical to saying, “Aboriginals are alcoholics” and, “Black people steal.” Saying “Men are violent” is lumping all men into one category. It is saying men like Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Martin Luther King, even me; we are all Brock Turners and Elliot Rodgers. We are the worst scum imaginable based on something we were born with. Sound familiar? It is impossible to deny the oppressive nature of the language, but we’ve established that as the dominant group, men cannot be oppressed, so this language will not affect them the way it would an Aboriginal or black person being attacked with similar language. There are country-wide structures in place that perpetuate the mindset behind that language against minority groups, whereas the same cannot be said for men.

However, even though this type of language cannot oppress the dominant group to the extent that it can oppress minority groups, it is still alienating language. It leads to knee-jerk reactions like the all-to-common male response to feminist campaigns. Men are clearly receiving the message, otherwise there would be no response at all, but the terminology the message is couched in puts men on the defensive. Is this because men are inherently bullheaded and resistant to change, or because the oppressive language being used prevents meaningful dialogue? I’m not so stupid to fully discount the former, but all people abhor their values being challenged, and the latter most certainly plays a significant role on top of it. Why fight a progressive campaign with a handicap? Oppressive language can only serve to push the dominant group further into their own ideology because if there is a choice between an ideology that personally attacks them the way that oppressive language intrinsically does, or one that emphasizes their superiority, it’s easy to see why they would choose to remain within the cozy confines of the dominant culture.

The surprisingly nuanced film, Dear White People, highlights this problem remarkably well. For those who don’t know, the movie is about a university radio show hosted by a black woman with sardonic messages for ‘white people’. As you might expect, her advice makes blanket statements about white people that address real racial issues facing contemporary black culture. However, her boyfriend is a white ally, and when he comes to visit her at the all-black residential hall, he is heckled and has food thrown at him until he leaves. No distinction is made between him and the film’s white antagonist who organizes a racist fraternity party. The boyfriend and the protagonist eventually make up because love conquers all, but she does raise some eyebrows among her black peers who recognize the hypocrisy of generalized statements mixed with individual exceptions.

Generalized language is also just bad activism. Approximately 90% of all violence is committed by men, but about 90% of people suffering from bulimia are women. Do we address women in sweeping language for their behaviour, or attack the cultural forces that pressure women to conform to an image of femininity that people with brains identify as toxic? The instant that the cultural forces behind bad behaviour are forgotten to focus on the people committing them is the moment that movement has failed.

On top of this, one can sometimes forget that within progressive movements, the dominant group is no longer dominant. What gender holds the power within feminism? Well, how many men are in the average gender studies class? The answer is not a lot. If the accepted definition of discrimination necessarily highlights the power disparity between groups, how are the progressive institutions not just microcosms of the larger culture when this type of behaviour is acceptable? The outcomes are similar too, and the no-longer-dominant group often internalizes this mentality. I’ve heard multiple progressive men identify themselves as “one of the good ones” as a joking reference to the historically racist language that identifies someone as the risen cream of an otherwise inferior class of people, oblivious to the accuracy of the comparison.

If discrimination is the negative relationship between the dominant group and minority groups, then reverse-discrimination may as well be the negative relationship between the revolutionary groups and the minority groups within them. Certainly discrimination is worse because of how much widespread oppression remains, but what are the odds of fixing anything when the exact same methodology is used to counteract it? Reverse-discrimination needs to be acknowledged within progressive circles as a reality, lest we give in to the vitriol that more and more I wonder is human nature.

Tags , , , ,
Categories Social Criticism

The Fatal Flaw of the Westphalian System

Jun 25, 2016 //
0

The giant news of today is the Brexit exit of Britain from the European Union, so named because the news media saw what the tabloids were doing with portmanteaus and celebrity couples and thought that it would be cute to introduce the concept into monumental, world changing events. If it worked for Brangelina, then it can work for international politics. Now, before we get into it, I’m going to give a little history lesson.

The Treaty of Westphalia is a big deal that happened a long time ago and yadda yadda yadda, history lesson over. Look it up, you scrub. The outcome was that rather than rely on a religion as the primary marker for self-identity, the Westphalian system created a paradigm shift where sovereign nationhood became the fundamental borders between people. It solidified countries into nations with legitimate borders that were now universally acknowledged across Europe. It didn’t stop countries from invading one another, but now they were invading France, rather than invading land that was owned by the French king. The idea was that individual nations could run their own affairs independently, and if one nation seemed to be getting too ambitious, then the surrounding nations would form an alliance to humble it. This didn’t stop people from trying to overturn this balance of power, however, and Napoleon and Hitler both came close to overcoming that institutional barrier. Religion still played a huge role, obviously, but ever so slowly nationalism added itself to humanity’s lexicon of dogmatism.

Henry Kissinger, known for his political acumen in maintaining worldwide stability through warfare (with all the paradox that that implies), in his book World Order advocates for some version of the Westphalian system as necessary for maintaining political cohesion across the globe. He then goes on to say that the world needs the United States to implement its way of living on the rest of the planet for that modified system to be a success because he’s a jingoistic jackass, but we’ll ignore that part of the book for now. However, his point that the world needs identifiable and respected boundaries has some value. The ideal of multiculturalism is a “separate-but-equal” philosophy where each culture is respected on its own merits, despite their differences, and segregated so each unique culture can thrive according to its own direction. For this to function, a Westphalian system seems appropriate.

Increasingly we’re seeing the dangers associated with nationalism borne of Westphalian principles. Britain left the EU because it saw itself not as a part of a whole, but as a distinct nation, fearful of an infection from its surrounding neighbours. Similarly, Donald Trump wishes to make America great again by removing the foreign element from within the American midst. People claim it is a hypocrisy for a nation of immigrants to complain about more of them, but it is not so hypocritical when you realize it is based on an illusory ideal of nationalism. History is not important, the borders are.

This means that the Westphalian system is running into the same ideological problems of its religious predecessor. Though certainly an improvement, as religion claims universal truths and therefore sees no egalitarian compromise while nationalism only claims locational truths, hate is blooming out of fear akin to the expulsion of the Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. This is not a completely unpredictable outcome. The balance of power that the Treaty of Westphalia promised was based on eternal yet balanced conflict between nations. Peace was only possible through the fear of mutually assured destruction that comes from the combat of equal armies. An ideology built on inherent conflict will inevitably lead to further conflict.

Today, power comes from money rather than land, meaning that nations wage wars of GDP rather than on the battlefield, but the mentality remains: one of the arguments of the Leave campaign centred on the financial demands of the European Union on British coffers. Though its effects are still preliminary, as nationalistic fervor is limited to only a few countries and even then there are competing ideologies, I do see the evidence of a potentially fatal flaw of the Westphalian system.

Kissinger is right in that a Westphalian system would need modifications for order to be globally achieved, and he suggests a kind of unifying agent that denies complete segregation between countries and cultures. As discussed, he suggests liberal democracy as that unifying agent, which is dumb, but his idea is not unique nor completely wrong. Slavoj Žižek argues against multiculturalism by saying that a unifying agent of respect is necessary across all cultures for order to exist, and too much leftist focus on tolerance leads to the perils of relativism. In a Westphalian context, this means that distinct nations cannot function on a globally multicultural level if they behave with zealous independence because there is no unifying bond between them and their neighbours.

I believe that for a world order to exist, there does need to be some version of a global ideology with universal adherence. Obviously not a political one as Kissinger suggests, but one based on compassion and respect, closer to Žižek. This cannot be achieved through warfare, as history has proven again and again that attacking an ideology pushes it deeper into fundamentalism in order to retain its sacred beliefs. The book I’m reading now, Jews, God, and History, shows that Jewish people almost always assimilate to the best parts of the dominant culture when they are allowed to practice their religion unencumbered, but violently rebel with religious fervor each time they are coerced. To win a worldwide ideological battle, it cannot actually be a battle. It needs to be an ideological success, and people will conform to it willingly.

Tags , , , , ,
Categories Politics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »