It didn't take much for Derek Bok's new book The Politics of Happiness to have me spluttering with annoyance. It's not that I'm against happiness. Indeed, generally I'm a cheerful person. What really irritates me about the chattering classes' discovery of the 'happiness' or well-being literature is how patronising it is, and how one-sided the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Take this comment by Bok (p76):
“It turns out the government will have a hard time making people happier so long as Americans lack a clearer understanding of the kinds of activities that will bring them lasting satisfaction. Just as with the pursuit of money and possessions, a legislature cannot require televisions in favor of socializing, exercising and civic activities unless they choose to do so of their own accord. The successful use of leisure is much more likely to come about through education than by official decree.”
Savour that phrase: “The successful use of leisure”. Isn't it clear that the esteemed Prof would actually love to insist that higher quality leisure must be 'enjoyed' by his fellow-citizens? Just as Professor Barry Schwartz in his very successful book The Paradox of Choice was keen to stop Americans having so many different styles of jeans to choose from – what's wrong with the style he prefers?
At least Derek Bok acknowledges recent work (such as that by Stevenson and Wolfers) which has pointed to serious statistical flaws in the often-repeated claim that happiness as reported in surveys does not rise as the economy grows. Several studies have now found that in fact growth does continue to boost national happiness over time. Bok acknowledges this and then ignores it. Like so many other happiness fans he then points to the extremely poor and authoritarian Kingdom of Bhutan as a model. It drives me bananas.
Luckily, Professor Bok isn't an authoritarian (unlike many of the 'happiness' authors, who are delighted by findings which they – wrongly – think justify their wish to make other people conform to a particular set of choices). The book gives a decent summary of the results on well-being from positive psychology, although my advice would be to go for Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis for this. Bok then gives a series of recommendations for policy in areas such as marriage and education, but of the woolly liberal rather than the authoritarian paternalist variety. Other woolly liberals will agree with much of his advice – including me. But it doesn't really have much to do with happiness surveys.
I have a vague memory of reading something somewhere that a good measure of happiness is choice. If all you can do is watch TV, not so happy. But if you can choose to watch TV or go to the gym, happy. This doesn't entirely link happiness to wealth (I know a very wealthy, but very unhappy, lawyer and I think much of his misery derives from his lack of choice over his daily life) but it does mean that there is a correlation. This is why the authoritarian (ie, Gordon Brown) approach doesn't work, because even if you are made to go to the gym instead of watching TV and the endorphins should cut in, because you had no choice they won't improve your happiness.
Sounds plausible to me – and there's certainly econometric evidence (eg Bruno Frey, Andrew Oswald) linking happiness to classic political freedoms, which are linked to choice. In fact, one could interpret economic growth as a process of ever-increasing choice.
In Plato's republic happiness is an essential aspect of human life. All citizens are in his vision responsible for keeping and offering a harmonious state of unity. Mike Roth Background Checks
“Happiness research, is most interesting when its results challenge conventional wisdom about what people want,” this is my favorite quote from The Politics of Happiness who was recommended to me by Aaron DelSignore. Bok is always straightforward, honest and well intentioned and he follows his arguments to their conclusions even if those conclusions expose the flaws in his arguments. I think he is right to search for a more positive view of the American purpose.