The Happiness Ruse
How did feeling good become a matter of relentless, competitive work; a never-to-be-attained goal which makes us miserable?
By Cody Delistraty
Introduction
In 1920, the American psychologist John B Watson published the results of one of the more ethically dubious scholarly articles of the past century. Along with Rosalie Rayner, a 21-year-old graduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where he taught, Watson aimed to instill a specific fear in an otherwise normal baby.
Until then, behavioral conditioning had been exercised solely within the animal realm, but Watson and Rayner selected a nine-month-old boy they called Albert for their study, paid his mother a dollar, and placed a variety of small, live animals in front of him, including a rat in which he initially showed a playful interest. As Albert played with the rat, the experimenters hit a nearby steel bar with a hammer, emitting a loud noise that scared the boy and made him cry. After doing this a few times, all the experimenters had to do to make Albert burst into tears was to show him the rat. Even without the noise, they successfully conditioned in him a fear of rats, which eventually carried over to a fear of numerous furry creatures, including rabbits and dogs.
One would think that such an unprincipled experiment might have led to some kind of public outcry after all, the experimenters never deconditioned Albert or even scientific objection, since there was no consistent control; nonetheless, it seemed to show that humans, not just animals, could be behaviorally conditioned in myriad ways. In fact, following the articles publication, Johns Hopkins raised Watsons salary by 50 per cent to keep him at the university. (He was already popular: a year earlier, students had voted him handsomest professor.) But then, after his wife discovered and published the love letters hed written to Rayner, with whom hed been having an affair and would go on to marry, the university fired him.
Watson quickly landed in advertising, where J Walter Thompson hired him to continue his work conditioning humans, specifically consumers. I began to learn that it can be just as thrilling to watch the growth of a sales curve of a new product as to watch the learning curve of animals and men, Watson later reflected. Bringing a scientific ethos to advertising, he was tasked with instilling brand loyalty, creating product personalities, and, as he and Rayner had done with baby Albert, instilling fears in consumers in order to get them to buy certain products. For the Scotts toilet paper account, for instance, he helped to create a print advertisement in which surgeons are looking at a patient, while the text below says and the trouble began with harsh toilet tissue as a way of scaring and selling.
The Epicurean Outlook on Happiness
Today, such behavioral manipulations are the norm, but they take subtler and more sinister forms, thanks to Big Data and a digital environment in which algorithmic surveillance is more or less omnipresent. However, rather than conditioning specific fears, its now more common to find human happiness the target of psychological manipulation. Happiness is in many ways the marketing breakthrough of the past decade, with self-care and anti-stress products now rounding out the bestseller list on Amazon, where they sit alongside chart-topping books by happiness bloggers. All of this is made possible by a specific, disturbing and very new version of happiness that holds that bad feelings must be avoided at all costs.
This imperative to avoid being even appearing unhappy has led to a culture that rewards a performative happiness, in which people curate public-facing lives, via Instagram and its kin, composed of a string of peak experiences and nothing else. Sadness and disappointment are rejected, even neutral or mundane life experiences get airbrushed out of the frame. Its as though appearing unhappy implies some kind of Protestant moral fault: as if you didnt work hard enough or believe sufficiently in yourself.
Happiness has, of course, not always been conceived of this way. The Epicurean outlook on happiness which Thomas Jefferson was thinking of when he enjoined Americans to cherish life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence is exceedingly simple and different. As Epicurus (an ancient Greek philosopher) saw it, happiness is merely the lack of aponia physical pain and ataraxia mental disturbance. It was not about the pursuit of material gain, or notching up gratifying experiences, but instead was a happiness that lent itself to a constant gratefulness. So long as we are not in mental or physical pain, we can, within this understanding of happiness, be contented.
Modern thinkers tend to view happiness less as a lack of pain than as an excess of wellbeing. The English economist Richard Layard, for example, laid out what might be considered a happiness economics now forming the basis of an annual survey called the World Happiness Report, which measures the extent to which a persons income and a societys wealth influence happiness. However, like Epicurus, Layard still regards mental health as the most important factor in happiness, as he explained in his book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (2005).
What is Happiness?
Not all happiness movements retain as close a relation to Epicurean ideas. Positive psychology, for instance, became voguish after Martin Seligman chose happiness as his core theme in 1998, after becoming president of the American Psychological Association (APA). Seligman proposed that happiness came from having and searching for positive emotions, a sense of community and existential meaning. He believed that humans tend to learn unhappiness in choosing not to escape unpleasant situations even when we can. On this view, happiness is something we must constantly teach ourselves: it is something we work towards.
From here, its only a small leap to todays widespread understanding of happiness as the pursuit and purchase of peak experience. Prescription antidepressants are consumed at record levels, self-help books crowd the shelves, and multiple therapies compete to shift us out of negative mindsets so that we might flourish. All of this is work, but of a particular variety, in which every moment is optimized in order to achieve peak happiness, no matter how fleeting, at the same time as unhappiness is actively pushed away.
Where, historically, did this idea of peak experience happiness come from? When the word happy first entered the English lexicon, around the mid-14th century, it meant something closer to lucky, since ones status, health and happiness were wrapped up in the arbitrary decisions of the Catholic God. (Its most likely that the word luck came first and, from that came words such as happy, related to happenstance.) Happy didnt mean joyful until the 16th century, and it was not until the mid-17th century when Thomas Hobbes, writing in Leviathan, cast happiness as an unending process of accumulating objects of desire, thereby redefining it as a subjective, shifting feeling, predicated on our desires.
As Hobbes saw it, happiness could be meaningfully achieved by pursuing pleasurable experiences. He believed that there was no stable satisfaction (the repose of a mind satisfied), and took indirect aim at Epicurus (in the books of the old moral philosophers); happiness, he believed, must be continually sought after, its slippery and fleeting nature interpreted as a feature rather than a bug. If one had to say where the modern conception of peak experience happiness derives, then Hobbess then-aberrant idea is probably the place to start.
But its a concept riddled with problems. What is happiness? asks the fictional advertising executive Don Draper in Mad Men, in neo-Hobbesian mode, before answering: Its the moment before you need more happiness. These days, we pursue happiness rather than letting it come to us. We try to collect moments of happiness like shells at the beach, even as the waves wash them away. The pursuit is Sisyphean; it inevitably leads down a disappointing path.
The Emotion of Sadness
There is no image of modern existential emptiness quite like the person travelling the world while constantly posting pictures of restaurants and landmarks on social media, and competitively performing happiness at the expense of making genuine connections with his peers. In trying to be happier better than others, this person risks alienating himself from them.
The emotion of sadness, for instance, has all kinds of positive uses. Recent studies by the social psychologist Joseph P Forgas at the University of New South Wales in Sydney showed that people remembered the details of a shop more accurately when the weather was bad and they were in a foul mood than when the weather was more pleasant and they were happier, leading him to speculate that sadness could be useful to memory. Forgas also showed that people tend to make more accurate judgments when sad since were more aware and less gullible, relying more on whats actually witnessed than on broad-strokes ideas and stereotypes. Sadness also makes us better communicators and persuaders, according to his 2007 study, and we are better conversationalists more adept at interpreting nuance and ambiguity when sad than happy, according to his 2013 study.
One does not have to look for sadness, but nor should sadness be something we simply plough through grinning and bearing on the path toward happiness. People in sad moods, according to Forgas, tend to be more persistent and hardworking in complex mental tasks than happier people, not only attempting more questions but getting more of the questions correct than their happier counterparts. Sadness is a sharpening emotion. It keeps us alert. It makes us investigate ourselves more profoundly and more unsparingly. To be sad is to be keenly attuned to the world.
Being willing to grapple with difficult emotions leads to greater life satisfaction. A few years ago, 365 people aged 14 to 88 who were considered emotionally stable were given smartphones on which they had to answer daily questions about their emotional health, over a period of three weeks. The study, published in Emotion, found that, when participants reported being in a negative mood, only those who thought of negative emotions as harmful or antithetical to happiness also felt a low satisfaction with their life. Those who believed negative emotions could be useful to them reported the same life satisfaction, regardless of their mood, indicating that engaging with our negative emotions might make us happier than simply pursuing happiness itself.
The reasons for this need to embrace the negative with the positive are deeply wired inside of us. In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), Charles Darwin seemed to foresee that the search for happiness might be misguided, writing that we must choose what to emote carefully because our feelings change who we are and what we do. Being fearful or angry can make us withdrawn, just as being sexually aroused can make us more outgoing. But in evolutionary terms, the emotions at either end of the spectrum intense happiness, intense sadness are only proximate outcomes. They are important to how we feel: but, in a grander evolutionary sense, theyre important only insofar as they drive us toward survival and reproduction. Alone, they are rather meaningless: it might be nice to have a delicious dessert, for instance, but the burst of happiness we get from eating it does little for our evolutionary bottom line. Thats to say, the kind of happiness we work to pursue is a holdover from our ancestors, motivating them to continue to find and eat the heartiest kinds of foods. But this kind of happiness is not an end goal; its only a route toward it.
West vs East
The obsession for pursuing happiness appears to be a peculiarly Anglo-American phenomenon, perhaps because there is such strong cultural pressure in both countries to downplay negative emotions. Compared with, say, the French, who are generally content to live outside of happiness happiness being unsophisticated, not the marker of a life well lived Brits and, most especially, Americans downplay negative emotions in favor of putting forth the happiest face possible. Americans are known for the fake smile and Im good, thanks! while Brits are renowned for avoiding conversational unpleasantness, and for maintaining a stiff upper lip in the face of pain and disappointment. Denying and masking negative feelings, because they are socially and culturally unacceptable, is the norm. In the Anglo-American scheme of thinking, negative emotions are negatively reflective of us as if weve made a fundamental mistake, lived without the gusto and positivity needed to achieve happiness.
But all of this happy pretending catches up. A person living in a Western culture is about four to 10 times more likely to develop clinical depression or anxiety than a person in an Eastern culture, according to the psychologist Brock Bastians book, The Other Side of Happiness: Embracing a More Fearless Approach to Living (2018). In China and Japan, Bastian writes, people tend to view positive and negative emotions as essential and equal; happiness, in the East, should not be actively pursued, just as sadness should not be actively avoided. Bastian sources this stance in religion, especially those Buddhist philosophies that seek to embrace the entirety of the human condition and to comprehend pain in terms of its underlying reasons.
Hack Our Happiness
The desire to twist our negative emotions into something upbeat is a way of thinking that leaves us open to the kind of ad-man manipulation in which Watson specialized. But its not a desire that entered our culture from a vacuum. Theres a significant economic incentive for businesses when people believe that happiness is something that we must work and buy toward. Happy workers tend to be about 12 per cent more productive. Google has a chief happiness officer. The treat-yourself ethic is still a major sales driver, and nearly every beauty brand now bases its advertisements on self-care. Meanwhile, the APA revised its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) so that any bereaved person grieving longer than two months might be considered to have a mental illness requiring medical treatment such as antidepressants.
Today, market research, built on Watsons work, has only continued to grow, pioneering in-store face-scanning to determine consumers emotions in front of certain products advertisements that seem to follow us across every digital platform, and, eventually, the Holy Grail of market manipulation: being able to create products that hack our happiness, that make us neurologically need to use and buy them. (Already this exists to some extent: for example, think of how Facebook manipulates the mood of users with its News Feed algorithms.)
But if we continue to allow ourselves to be manipulated into pining after peak experiences, then we leave ourselves open not only to market manipulation but also to loneliness, poor judgment and, ironically, an abiding sadness. Epicurean happiness might not always make us happy in the sense that we now use the word synonymously with being in an upbeat mood. But life would not be worth living if it floated only between peak experiences. In truth, the younger generations those who are most likely to subscribe to the idea of peak happiness arent really happy in any sense at all, with 22 per cent of millennials saying they have no friends. This, surely, is not the kind of happiness we want to pursue.
What if, instead, happiness was something that we realized ebbs and flows, that negativity is fundamental to life and, ironically, to our happiness? What if we reconditioned ourselves: not to want but to be satisfied in all feelings?
Questions: The Happiness Ruse
Answer the following questions according to section Introduction.
1. Choose ONE correct answer.
The experiment conducted by Watson was considered morally problematic because.
*Conditioned behavior was only performed on animals
*A child was conditioned for fear and was not unconditioned.
*The mother was paid only a dollar to let her baby participate
*There were numerous animals like rats, rabbits and dogs.
2. Watson went into advertising and used a)_ (one word) to encourage people to b)_
Answer the following questions according to section The Epicurean Outlook on Happiness
3a. The author would AGREE/DISAGREE with the following statement.
Today advertisers mainly use fear to manipulate people to buy a product.
3b. Support your answer with a quote from the text.
4.Explain in YOUR OWN WORDS the difference between Thomas Jeffersons and Epicurus view of happiness.
Answer the following questions according to section What is Happiness?
5. The meaning of happy has changed throughout history. List THREE different definitions of happy from the text.
i.
ii.
iii
6. Complete the following sentence.
The author compares chasing happiness to Sisyphus because _
Answer the following questions according to section The Emotion of Sadness
7. Choose ONE correct answer
The author explains existential emptiness as:
*travelling through the world and posting pictures on social media
* making real connections with other people throughout their travels
*visiting restaurants and landmarks during visits around the world
*use social media to look happier than others, but end up alone.
8. The author suggests some positive aspects to sadness. List FOUR.
1
2
3
9a. The author would AGREE/DISAGREE (choose one) with the following statement.
The basic reason that we experience happiness and sadness is to survive and reproduce.
9b. Support your answer with a quote from the text.
Answer the following questions according to section West vs East
10a. Complete the following flow chart.
A. For Brits and Americans negative feelings are socially/culturally unacceptable.
B. _____________________________________________________________
C.________________________________________________________
10b. Complete the following sentence.
In the East, people view happiness and sadness as a)_ and therefore b)_
Answer the following questions in your own words.
11. What does the author recommend to be truly happy?
12a. After reading this article, how would you define happiness?
13. Explain the manipulation the author is referring to.