Year 3 Essay 3: Does measuring happiness increases well-being

Note to the reader: Please remember that the essay is published work and partial reproduction (5 or more consecutive words) might be considered plagiarism. Universities have systems in place to ensure that the work of their students is original.

Grade awarded A

The positive psychology approach became influential in the 1990s, when Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Gable, S. 2007, p. 687), dedicated one issue of the American Psychologist journal to this new approach. In comparison with the previous traditions of psychology, positive psychology shifted the focus from pathology through researching concepts such as happiness, optimism, hope, love, showing how people can become more productive and improve their selves. Using a critical approach to positive psychology and to the way happiness measurements were conducted, the essay will critically discuss whether the government’s endeavour to measure and improve the happiness level has an actual positive impact on the well-being in the population. The essay will show that in trying to provide well-being, the government fails to take into consideration the social context in which people live, for example, it might be very difficult for the underprivileged to take decisions that provide an increased level of happiness. Social inequalities are not only given by belonging to different socio-economic categories, they are also internalised, and they influence individuals’ subjectivity.

Economic science had a strong influence on the development of positive psychology through neoliberal ideology (Stenner, 2017, p. 95, 96) as it emphasised the agentic power of the people, the capacity to take rational changes to improve their own life and achieve well-being. Personal responsibility in being happy was consolidated by research from other social sciences, such as the work done by the economist Richard Easterlin, who assessed that beyond a certain level of income, increased wealth does not make people happier (Stevenson & Wolfers 2008). Although the ‘easterlin paradox’ was open to debate (Stevenson & Wolfers 2008), it nevertheless had a big influence on government policy focussing on providing well-being to increase individuals’ happiness. It might not be easy for people to understand how they are feeling or thinking because their subjectivity might be shaped by what they think that it is expected of them through governance (Stenner, 2017, p. 85). People feel that they need to fit in, and they internalise expectations imposed on them by society. This becomes obvious in the way the work environment changed, as individuals are now expected to bring their personal selves into their work, to behave more like entrepreneurs, to love their jobs and to work flexible hours, while also not having permanent contracts and not knowing what their responsibilities are (Taylor, 2017, a). Neoliberal ideology associates a successful career with happiness, so people internalise and rationalise the demands of their employers. The sense of agency in the working environment is also influenced by gender roles and identities. Women are underrepresented in many professions and they are affected by income inequality (Grown, 2005). While government’s policy makes people responsible for their own happiness, it fails to consider social-economic differences between people that influence individuals’ ability to achieve well-being.

The neoliberal idea that happiness is accessible to all individuals and that improving personal well-being is everyone’s responsibility, does not take into account the social and historical context people live in. According to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri (2012, cited in Taylor, 2017, p. 35), in contemporary society, people can be situated in four different categories: ‘the indebted’- those who are either unemployed or who don’t have enough money, ‘the mediatized’- individuals who are overwhelmed by the use of digital technologies, ‘the securitized’- people who feel that their privacy is threatened by CCTV cameras and other digital recording technologies and finally - ‘the represented’ that is given by the majority of people represented by a small minority. Positive psychology has a humaneering mission, to use scientific methods to improve people’s well-being (Seligman, 1999, p. 560, cited in (Stenner, 2017, p.88, 89), but by doing so, it does not consider different categories of people. For example, the indebted are challenged by learned helplessness. Positive psychology advocates the rationality of human beings and their own personal responsibility to take the best decision, but ‘the mediatized’ individuals are overwhelmed by the diversity of messages sent on different channels of communication. Contrary to what was previously assumed, Daniel Kahneman (2011) demonstrated that individuals are not always capable of taking rational decisions. The optimal choice becomes even more challenging when people’s lives are oversaturated with information. This contradicts the assumptions that individuals are always capable of taking decisions that improve their well-being. Moreover, many people nowadays feel securitised because of the use of digital technologies and CCTV cameras. Tech giants such as Google collects information about consumers that is sold to marketers (Goodman, 2015, p. 84), and most often people don’t know how their personal information is collected and stored. There are some positive instances when the recording of personal information is good, such as the medical history (Taylor, 2017 b, p. 36). On one hand it seems that the use of social platforms has a good influence on well-being because of the access of information and easy communication, it often comes as a trade-off between benefits and costs: the need to use the digital technologies to search for or get a job, to get information and the cost of personal privacy. Finally, the last category, mentioned by Hardt and Negri, the represented sends the idea that most people are led by an elite minority that gets to take decision for the majority of the population. It resonates with policy practices that gives people the responsibility to act as experts in their own lives, for example, to be capable of choosing the best pension plans when they are not provided with any training.

The way people’s happiness is measured raises concerns due to some of the assumptions made as part of the measuring process. One of the premises of well-being measurements is the fact that happiness is an easily quantifiable concept. In fact, people are subjective, and the meaning of happiness differs from one individual to another or even between different cultures (Aik Kwang et al., 2003). The meaning of happiness can be culturally embedded, and some countries are happier than others. The fact that happiness is subjective makes it more difficult to quantify. Yet, happiness measurements use scales and questionnaires, such as choosing on a four levels scale how happy people are: ‘very happy’, ‘quite happy’, ‘not very happy’, ‘not at all happy’ (Stenner, 2017, p. 100). The use of quantitative methods in the study of happiness does not give people the chance to nuance their own lived experiences and to assess their own subjective experience of happiness. Furthermore, the temporal aspect of happiness measurement is not considered: when are people happy? Is it today, this week, this year or generally? (Stenner, 2017, p. 100) Nevertheless, there is evidence that people have the tendency to overestimate their own living conditions, for example, despite traumatic events, 85% of people tend to rate themselves happier than others (Spector, 2012, p. 52). Another challenge in the study of happiness comes from the fact that it is expected that people are capable of analysing their own feelings and thoughts about their own well-being in an objective manner. When answering how happy or satisfied they are with their lives, individuals are supposed to differentiate between how happy they actually feel and what their real living conditions are, therefore, to make a difference between affect and cognition (Stenner, 2017, p. 103).

Finally, the claim that the measurement of happiness enhances people’s wellbeing will be critically evaluated through its practical implications. Is a focus on well-being instead of welfare really beneficial for citizens? Are some categories of people neglected? How is the government implementing happiness programmes and how do they affect different people? According to the easterlin paradox, after achieving a certain level of income, people don’t feel happier with more wealth. As some research suggests, this claim is not supported when the absolute income is considered. A higher GDP per capita is actually associated with increased levels of well-being (Stevenson & Wolfers 2008). While people compare themselves with their peers, their relative income might not cause some individuals to feel that they are particularly happy even if they live comfortable lives. Although, when absolute income is taken into account, more wealth does make everyone happier, even if the citizens are not necessarily very aware of it. Therefore, the government’s responsibility should be first of all to focus on welfare and not well-being. The capacity to benefit from the well-being policies is not equal for all citizens. According to Hardt and Negri’s categories of people, most individuals are represented and there’s only a minority elite. Most often, people don’t have enough knowledge or time to take the best decisions in their lives. It also takes the pressure away from the government in providing welfare and it puts the responsibility on the individuals (University, a, 2018). Some of the government’s practices regarding providing well-being to the people can be seen as rather disturbing as Paul Stenner gives the example of some people who were left unemployed were offered happiness training instead of welfare (University, b, 2018).

The essay showed the limited role the measurement of happiness has in the well-being of the population. An elite minority with financial resources can benefit from the new findings offered by the positive psychology. The ‘represented’ or the ‘indebted’ don’t have the expert knowledge to optimise their lives. One problem with the implementation of positive psychology principles arises from the government’s failure to consider the social context people live in, the social-economic stratification, the challenges in a methodological approach to study happiness and the cultural embedding of happiness. Another concern with the government’s aim to use positive psychology to improve well-being is the fact that it fits into a neoliberal ideology that absolves the government of the responsibility to provide welfare, while individuals are wrongly assumed to be rational actors who are always capable to take optimal decisions.

(1636 words)