Category: Happiness

“ Can Money Buy Happiness? “ In a world where — race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us — and more importantly wealth classifies us, it is an undeniable fact that money plays a huge role in a modern society today therefore bringing happiness to those who have it.

After reading numerous articles online, the most common argument that I see in many articles debating about this topic is that instead of happiness money can only buy pleasure. For instance, if you buy a cake and you eat it by yourself then that would be a pleasure but if you share it with others then that would be happiness. In other words, happiness is only real if it is shared. Well in this case, under these circumstances, money does buy happiness as defined by them because when people give donations to the underprivileged sectors of society doesn’t that count as happiness as it is an act of sharing?

Furthermore, I would like to mention that the depression rate has skyrocketed as well as suicide rates as a result of debt. Imagine if these individuals had money, wouldn’t they be happier? Without money, they work their — blood, sweat, and tears — but at the end of the day, they still aren’t able to pay off their bills. 23% of suicides happening last year were the results of debt according to the guardians. As I have already stated suicidal rates because of financial problems are high and as I have previously mentioned if they had money they would be happy and wouldn’t be killing themselves. Unfortunately, I would like to add that with the rise of — wicked, harsh, aggressive — debt collectors these rates are not slowing down.

All this evidence leads to the fact that money does indeed buy happiness. As I have already mentioned in fact, you can buy and also share happiness with money, and also the fact that people are depressed without money which, to the English dictionary, is the opposite of happiness. All in all, money does buy happiness as mentioned by Billboard top Rap album awardee J.Cole in his hit song ATM “ Life can cause you so much pain, there are many ways to deal with ways I flip my misfortune and grow me a fortune, a million dollars I’m miserable without it, you can’t take it when you die but you can’t live without it “ I would like to end my speech by saying “ Imagine if you were to not have money. I think that your life will be — depressed, miserable, and sad.

Happiness has been described as a state of well-being that is characterized by relative permanence, by emotions ranging from mere contentment to deep and intense joy in living, and by a natural desire for it to continue. It is a state all want to achieve, but it often seems elusive. Pleasant Life events can affect our happiness levels, but their effects diminish over time. So, can material possessions make us permanently happy? Certainly not. Many people also experience a measure of happiness when they reach a certain goal or obtain a desired item. But how long does that surge of happiness last? Often, it is only temporary, which can be disappointing. Success too can never generate consistent happiness. The definition of success too is a variable from individual to Individual. However, most of the time it is measured on a materialistic parameter, It has to be understood that Success is not only about earning money, setting up a family, and Owning a house but living a life with humane values. The Western theories have most of the time propounded that Material success leads us to happiness, however going by that, the so-called ‘materially’ Successful people are the most stressed out today, they don’t seem to enjoy what they have but they enjoy what other do not have and this is certainly not a model of a success story. Materially wealthier people are more isolated, too–which has a negative effect on happiness. Wealth engenders isolation because acquiring more money predisposes people toward keeping their distance or more simply, they might not need their peers in the same way. Perhaps the adage “money can’t buy happiness” has more truth than we think. There are many studies that point to the conclusion that wealth and happiness are not positively correlated, according to one such, wealth appears to make people less generous. What was novel and exciting in the immediate past transforms into ‘the new normal,’ and all the happiness has faded away. While there is no magical way to make us happy forever, there is a science of happiness and when we understand that, we become more skillful at staying happier, longer. The Dalai Lama has famously stated “The ultimate source of happiness is within us. Not money, not power, not status. Some of my friends are billionaires, but they are very unhappy people. Power and money fail to bring inner peace. Outward attainment will not bring real inner joyfulness. We must look inside.” As an ongoing state of well-being, happiness has been described, not as a destination or goal, but as a journey.

It doesn’t require professional neuro expertise to know that doing nice things for other people feels good. But however, now researchers say they’ve discovered that even thinking about doing something generous has real mood-boosting benefits in the brain. Results from a prominent global research institute study found that generosity indicators such as Charity, Helping Society, Volunteering, Socializing, etc. were highly correlated with happiness. Medically happiness has been linked to an activation of the ventral striatum, which has been shown to play a role in the brain’s reward system, giving us that feeling of satisfaction when we perform a pleasant generous activity. Generosity is not necessarily an intuitive choice, as any selfless act comes at a personal cost. When we do something for someone else, we typically give away some of our personal resources, such as time, energy, or money. Still, people choose to act generously despite these costs, and that choice is probably explained, as the researchers suggest, by the motivation provided. Generosity is the basic innate human nature. As per a study, generosity had a positive effect on happiness in 93 percent of 136 countries studied. A nation needs to work on creating an ecosystem that can produce and maintain a happy society and for this to be realized it should go back to its roots and understand its aborigines.

In 2011, the UN unanimously adopted a General Assembly resolution, introduced by Bhutan with support from 68 member states, calling for a “holistic approach to development” aimed at promoting sustainable happiness and wellbeing. This was followed in April 2012 by a UN High-Level Meeting on “Happiness and Wellbeing: Defining a New Economic Paradigm” designed to bring world leaders, experts and civil society and spiritual leaders together to develop a new economic paradigm based on sustainability and wellbeing. However, Bhutan is the only country in the world that has a “Gross National Happiness,” Index. The GNH index supports policy-making within Bhutan. Policy selection tools are used to review the potential effects of proposed policies on GNH and the results of the GNH index will be tracked over time to evaluate interventions. This ‘GNH Policy Lens’ requires that the policy consequences on all relevant dimensions be considered prior to implementation. GNH was first coined by the 4th King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, in 1972 when he declared, “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product.” The concept implies that sustainable development should take a holistic approach towards notions of progress and give equal importance to non-economic aspects of wellbeing. The process of measuring GNH began when Bhutan opened up to globalization. It measures people’s quality of life and makes sure that material and spiritual development happen together. Thakur Singh Powdyel, Bhutan’s minister of education, who has become one of the most eloquent spokespeople for GNH says that ‘GNH is an aspiration, a set of guiding principles through which we are navigating our path towards a sustainable and equitable society. We believe the world needs to do the same before it is too late.’ The GNH model of Bhutan is inspired by its roots of Ancient Indian wisdom, spirituality have been integrated with governance and as a result they want people to be happy first before everything else, thereby setting a sustainable model for the world to follow.

Spirituality is one of the prime natural sources which has the potential of transforming a person into becoming Generous, and a society consisting of generous people in the majority will by its nature acquire integral instincts, which are bound to organically turn into an Integrated happiness society. The Western materialists who are always critical of this phenomenon have conducted various researches and have failed to prove otherwise. However, spirituality should not be confused with religion or by the Dogma of Traditions and Customs. Religion is often formalized and community-oriented, while spirituality tends to be individually based and not as formalized. The concept of Supreme power more commonly understood as God exists in every person’s brain starting from childhood. Several circuits exist that help to shape each person’s understanding of their higher power. Whether or not one pursues a relationship with a higher power is a personal choice, but the capacity does exist in all, proclaims the authors of the book, ‘How God Changes Your Brain,’ while identifying the areas of the brain that shape the human perception of Supreme power. Enhancing this thought process in the pursuit of knowing the ultimate reality is what spirituality is all about. Spirituality not like religion is to relate the self to a wider form, feel contentment in this life, and be totally present in the actions of the present. Spirituality means the process of knowing the self the inner and original self. Ancient India, despite being an undemocratic nation, always strived to promote humaneness which the forefathers had derived from the wisdom they acquired through consistent ‘Adhyatmic sadhana’ or spiritual enlightenment. Today, India which is Bharat is the world’s largest democracy. This basis is not only advantageous but a solid footing for upscaling a nation toward better prospects. Democracy unites people and Spirituality propounds integration, coalescing the both, India should strive towards transforming itself into a higher level of Spiritual democracy, and for this to materialize Integral Humanism is the adhesive and it shall further curate the festival of Happiness.

‘If you have health, you probably will be happy, and if you have health and happiness, you have all the wealth you need, even if it is not all you want.” – Elbert Hubbard. happiness and health go hand-in-hand? It is important to maintain a healthy lifestyle because you have less of a chance to get sick, when you’re healthy you feel mentally and emotionally happier, and you are more of a good and kind-hearted person. It is extremely important to live happy and healthy. On the other hand, Happiness has a positive impact on health.

People who are usually happy, enthusiastic, and content are less likely than others to be. suffer from heart illness, ulcers, bowel disorders, sudden asthmatic attacks, mental illnesses, and many other immune-related disorders. Happiness researcher Robert Holden conducted a survey and found that 65 out of 100 people would choose happiness over health, but that both were highly valued. There is also ample evidence that unhappiness—depression, anxiety, and stress, for example—are also linked to poorer health outcomes. These negative states, if chronic, can dampen immunity and increase inflammation in the body leading to a multitude of diseases and conditions.

The principles of positive psychology can combat these negative states, further increasing the likelihood of health. Set goals in life and live a disciplined life to remain healthy. Exercise, nutrition, sleep, social and family time, playing, laughing, creative activity, and, spiritual development are important areas to work on to stay healthy. Healthy habits work wonders in keeping us healthy. Health may totally not be in our hands, but we can certainly improve our chances of remaining healthy by following certain health-abiding principles. Continue your healthy diet and exercise habits, but also try to get 7 to 9 hours of sleep a night. It just might be the missing factor in not feeling up to the mark in your energy level or in the weight loss equation.

Research has shown that spending time with family and friends is linked with living a longer and healthier life. They can influence your lifestyle and make a difference in your developing healthy habits Spending some quality talk time with parents and positive attitude friends can help to lower stress. A talk with your mother is a soothing tonic for any stress. Humor and laughter strengthen your immune system, boost your energy, diminish pain, and protect you from the damaging effects of stress. Best of all, this priceless medicine is fun, free, and easy to use. No wonder laughter is called the best medicine Then yes, happiness and health go hand-in-hand, so do your best, go exercise, eat well, sleep well, be creative, spend time with loved ones, laugh a lot, and practice spirituality, love, kindness, compassion, pray and meditate to be healthy and happy.

This paper will present and respond to the arguments put forward by Frederic Lenoir in the chapter titled, “Can the Quest for Happiness Make Us Unhappy?” in his book Happiness: A Philosopher’s Guide that seeks to answer the question of authentic happiness. The author argues that in modern society, people can become unhappy while pursuing happiness because they set the goals of happiness too high and become distressed when they are unable to achieve the set goals. The argument is based on two premises; 1) that capitalist societies present an idea of happiness that is hinged on materialism, and 2) that Western sensibilities argue for the setting of unattainable goals as the path to happiness. This argument is presented in the context of Lenoir’s philosophy of authentic happiness and how to achieve it, where the philosopher argues against philosophies of the Enlightenment era which insinuated that happiness goes contrary to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.

The article demonstrates how the pursuit of happiness can become distressing and eventually lead to unhappiness in modern society. According to Lenoir, individuals in modern society suffer from low levels of happiness because they have taken the pursuit of happiness as a duty, as opposed to a right. In so doing, the individual strives to achieve societally defined happiness, and when they fail to achieve the standards of happiness, they become distressed. Lenoir presents the subject of obsession with happiness, which is a characteristic of members of modern society. Here, he defines obsession with happiness as a preoccupation with the idea of happiness, which leads the individual to fail to appreciate the simplicity of life. In this way, a person, trying to pursue a socially constructed standard of happiness will experience failure, which will manifest as unhappiness.

To support the argument, the author first demonstrates that capitalist conceptualizations of happiness are what individuals in modern society use to set goals of happiness, and this results in dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Here, the author defines capitalist societies as mercantilists in that their underlying principle in the definition of happiness is material consumption. From this perspective, given the nature of the inability to satisfy all needs, the individual is then engaged in a continuous race of acquiring material possessions in order to satisfy their needs and be happy; however, given the nature of human needs, they remain unsatisfied or partially satisfied. Having set the goal of happiness based on the satisfaction of these needs, the individual would never achieve authentic happiness and would thereby be unhappy in the pursuit of happiness.

Secondly, the author points to the theological concept of happiness, which he defines as Christian asceticism, as a source of unhappiness in the pursuit of happiness. Christian asceticism is a theological concept that argues for the denial of the flesh in pursuit of righteousness. The practice and principle claim that as a Christian, true happiness is achieved by living a righteous life, and such a life is achieved through self-discipline. This goal of absolute rejection of indulgence is, according to Lenoir, an unfeasible goal to achieve. The outcome of pursuing the goal is unhappiness, since the failure, occurring as the slightest act of indulgence results in disappointments and unhappiness. The author concludes that by relying on such interpretations and explanations of happiness, the modern Christian individual becomes so preoccupied with their efforts to avoid indulgence that they fail to live authentically and therefore experience unhappiness in pursuit of happiness.

Lastly, the author places the argument under the lens of traditional American psychology studies that contend that happiness is a result of setting goals too high for the individual to ever achieve them. These teachings, according to Lenoir, insist on unhappiness as a function of the guilt and responsibilities that an individual assumes after freeing themselves from the restrictions of traditions and religious beliefs. This is to mean that Pathopsychology assumes that individuals are happier under systems of subservience and thus modern unhappiness is a result of liberation from these systems. Aligning the efforts in the pursuit of happiness to this sentimentality, the individual who is unable to return to the system would then become unhappy; in other words, according to Lenoir, the pursuit of this form of happiness would necessarily lead to unhappiness.

The source shows significant strengths in how it explains the concepts of happiness, of unhappiness, and how they relate. Lenoir’s hypothesis development, premise building, and conclusions align to demonstrate how preoccupation with happiness results in unhappiness which is characteristic of modern society. Additionally, Lenoir relies on existing philosophical arguments including Weber’s thoughts on Christian asceticism and Ehrenburg’s thoughts on the pathology of responsibility. In so doing, Lenoir demonstrates how modern philosophies and social attitudes that conceptualize happiness and unhappiness are the causes of distress in the pursuit of happiness. The demonstration allows the author to convince the audience to change their perceptions towards and strategies for achieving happiness. The logical structure follows Toulmin’s argumentation model, where the truth of the premise insinuates the plausibility of the argument (Prakken 66). Essentially, the validity of Lenoir’s argument is based on the strength of the premises which are tested and proved to be true in the context of modern society. Therefore, it can be concluded that, by supporting the claim of unhappiness in the pursuit of happiness with the proven mercantilist nature of modern society, and the asceticism nature of Christian theology, the conclusion becomes plausible.

Despite these strengths, the last premise of weariness of the self does not fully support Lenoir’s argument on the basis of its requirement for contextualization in specific societies. Toulmin’s argumentation model suggests that the truth of the premises results in the truth of the conclusion. However, while mercantilism and asceticism are proven, Ehrenburg’s pathology of responsibility may fail with respect to the context it is applied. Lenoir’s argument is that it is possible to find happiness when one frees him or herself from the restrictions of mercantilism and asceticism. However, Ehrenberg’s supposition is that an individual becomes unhappy by being free of the restrictions (Ehrenberg 107). This is because, by indicating that rampant depression is a consequence of neo-liberalism, Ehrenburg posits that aligning to societal norms would result, basically, in less depression, which would manifest as happiness. As such, contrary to Lenoir’s viewpoint that dissociating from social interpretations of happiness would reduce frustrations over the non-achievement of happiness, Ehrenburg proposes that social norms, which include happiness conceptualizations should be followed for the individual to avoid depression. Essentially, the two positions are in conflict and therefore cannot support each other.

The source demonstrates how one can achieve happiness in a modern society in which depression and sadness are rampant. The author notes that one of the reasons for an increase in rates of depression is actually the pursuit of happiness, which, he points out, is because of mercantilist, asceticism, and patho-psychological conceptualizations that make the state of happiness an unattainable goal. Lenoir’s argument can be effectively applied in psychotherapy in defining wellness while demonstrating how achieving wellness is not necessarily a series of tasks that one has to undertake. This would reduce the impact that comes from the failure to achieve of psychotherapy goals and thus increase the effectiveness of the interventions (Seidler 413). The key takeaways from the article are that relying on socially constructed definitions of happiness and pursuing these forms of happiness are the reasons for the increased depression diagnoses in modern society. Secondly, the pursuit of happiness should start with self-awareness and the development of an understanding of what one defines as happiness.

Works Cited

1. Ehrenberg, Alain. The psychological front: Guilt without an instruction manual. Weariness of the self: Diagnosing the history of depression in the contemporary age. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, 2009, pp. 106-130.
2. Lenoir, Frederic. Can the Quest for Happiness Make Us Unhappy? Happiness: A philosopher’s guide. Translated by Andrew Brown, Melville House, 2015, pp. 61-63.
3. Prakken, Henry. ‘An overview of formal models of argumentation and their application in philosophy.’ Studies in Logic 4.1 (2011): 65-86.
4. Seidler, Zac E., et al. ‘Men in and out of treatment for depression: strategies for improved engagement.’ Australian Psychologist 53.5 (2018): 405-415.

Luhrmann’s film The Great Gatsby serves as a symbolic tribute to 1920s America. The movie emphasizes a society of materialism and corruption while also portraying a sense of the social structure and spiritual desolation associated with the 1920s. In the movie, Baz Luhrmann uses symbolism and irony to build the theme that materialism breeds unhappiness.

Using symbolism, the movie brings to life a society whose attitude was affected by the recent ending of World War 1. At the center of this morally decadent and corrupt society is Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is a reinvention of James Gatz and is a symbolic representation of a world of materialism. No longer is the “American Dream” one of hard work and honesty. Gatsby’s version of the American Dream is “rising from rags to riches, of amassing a great fortune that will assure a life of luxuriant ease, power, and beauty in an ideal world untroubled by care and devoted to the enjoyment of everlasting pleasure and nothing to intervene between wish and fulfillment” (Roberts 70).

The movie goes on to symbolize a kind of corruption through the marriage of Tom and Daisy Buchanan. Corruption unites both Tom and Daisy. From the start, Tom’s corrupt nature is obvious. Daisy refers to him as a “brute” (Luhrmann). Early in the story, we learn Tom is having an extramarital affair which he does not try to hide. Daisy’s corrupt nature is a little less obvious, giving the impression that she is unhappy with Tom. During one of Gatsby’s lavish parties, problems in the marriage of Tom and Daisy become more evident. Daisy spends a good deal of time dancing and talking with Gatsby while Tom is busy pursuing another female partygoer. Daisy and Tom remain united in their bond. Also, various comments made by Tom that show him to be a racist and Daisy’s nonchalant demeanor when she accidentally kills Myrtle Wilson are both symbolic of the underlying corrupt nature of both characters.

Symbolism is strongly tied to the relationship between Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan. Daisy represents an entirely different social class, one of money and status. Gatsby falls in love with what he thinks Daisy represents than the young girl herself. Based on lies told to Daisy by Gatsby regarding his social standing, Daisy promises to wait for Gatsby to return from the war. Sometime later, Daisy in submission to all that material wealth has to offer, marries Tom Buchanan. When Gatsby re-enters Daisy’s life, Daisy-like Gatsby also sees through the eyes of a materialistic society. Gatsby becomes a possible contender to Tom once Daisy sees his vast collection of shirts. Luhrmann uses the collection of shirts as a way of symbolizing the wealth of Gatsby. When Daisy sees the shirts, she starts to cry. The various shirts symbolize what can be seen as a representation of wealth, charm, and self –representation.

The movie goes on to symbolize the corrupt and materialistic nature of the 1920s using New York City to represent a place of immorality. Luhrmann uses Fifth Avenue, a place associated with wealth, as the place that Nick used to love, but in the end, made him “sick” (Luhrmann). Regarding the fixing of the 1919 World Series, not even the game of baseball, an American tradition, is free from corruption. It is also interesting to note how the movie uses a play on names to encompass the corruption and materialism associated with the Roaring Twenties. The name Gatsby or Gat which is slang for the word pistol or Gatlin Gun the name Buchannan whose first syllable is a homonym for a buck or dollar bill both symbolize the spirit of the 1920s.

Masterfully, Baz Luhrmann brings to light a strong awareness of materialism from the social class characterized in the 1920s. By the use of East and West Egg, by type of wealth old money versus new money, and by one’s behavior or conduct as seen by Gatsby’s partygoers. Home to the old money wealth of Tom and Daisy Buchanan is East Egg with its single green light flashing at the end of the dock. This green light helps to symbolize Gatsby’s hope and dreams for his and Daisy’s future. But in the end, it shows his inability to attain full status as a gentleman regardless of his wealth. As members of the nouveau riche, Gatsby, as well as Carraway, are sentenced to West Egg. Also, seen through Gatsby’s lavish parties is debauchery associated with the nouveau riche that Daisy finds vulgar, defining Daisy as a non-member of the world of the nouveau riche.

The movie The Great Gatsby is a symbolic representation of the moral decay of the 1920s. The characters of the movie all display a non-existent moral code and show no concern for how their actions affect others. Tom Buchanan continually has extramarital affairs while married to Daisy, which Daisy is knowledgeable about. When riding with Nick, Tom insists that Nick meets his girl, showing no shame for his infidelity. Jordan Baker cheats at golf and is careless when driving her car. It is also when Daisy leaves the scene after she hits and kills Myrtle Wilson that she shows her true nature and conscienceless existence. Tom finds justification in telling Wilson that Gatsby was the owner of the car, which leads to the events of Gatsby’s death. A lack of concern for one’s fellow man was shown through the absence of mourners at Gatsby’s funeral.

The Valley of the Ashes home of Myrtle and George Wilson, introduces us to another social class, the poor. With its gray and black colors, and dirty streets and clothing, the Valley of Ashes is used to represent the moral decline of society which comes from the constant pursuit of wealth and the wealthy having no concern for anyone’s happiness but their own. Poor persons like the Wilsons symbolize the circumstances of the poor who because they are in the ashes lose the ability to have full and happy lives.

The billboard of the eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg in the Valley of the Ashes, serves as an introduction to the absence of a traditional God in the 1920s American society. The God of Gatsby is a God incapable of having any real influence over the people and the things that he sees. However, when Mrs. Wilson was killed, God is nowhere to be found in the mind or heart of Mr. Wilson. So, again, it becomes clear that God exists but exerts no power.

Ironically, Gatsby’s wealth, the huge gaudy mansion, the lavish parties did not result in Gatsby getting the girl. Everything Gatsby did was to win Daisy and become a respected member of the upper class. Instead, Jay Gatsby dies and is known as a murderer. No one comes to his funeral, and we see that materialism does not always bring happiness.

Through the characters of Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, Nick, and Myrtle the years of 1920-1929 are brought back to life again and again. The movie The Great Gatsby utilizes the power of symbolism and irony to tell of a generation’s past and expresses concerns of a society gone astray.

Works Cited

1. Roberts, Marilyn. “Scarface, The Great Gatsby, and the American Dream.” Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1, 2006, pp. 71-78. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/scarface-great-gatsby-american-dream/docview/226996909/se-2?accountid=11245.
2. Luhrmann, Baz, director. The Great Gatsby. Warner Home Video, 2013.

Past research has shown that feelings of happiness are associated with several health benefits like improved immune system functioning and increased life expectancy (Gazzaniga, 2018). This raises the question: How can this desirable state of mind be increased? A growing body of literature suggests that one potential enhancing factor might be prosocial behavior, defined as voluntary actions performed to benefit others (Snippe et al.,2017). Following this idea, this essay aims to examine the following question: Does prosocial behavior increase happiness? This question will be approached by evaluating the evidence provided by three authors, who direct their research at different aspects of the central question: While Snippe et. al (2017) examine the effect of general prosocial behavior on happiness, the other two authors focus on prosocial spending. Despite the converging evidence provided for a correlation between prosocial behavior and well-being, the studies all have limitations. Therefore I suggest that the topic needs some further investigation and to be backed up by additional evidence.

Building on past research that has shown the weak effect of income on happiness, Dunn, Aknin and Norton (2009) ask how people can use their income to increase happiness. They hypothesize that a specific implementation of prosocial behavior, namely spending money on other people, positively influences one’s perceived level of well-being (Dunn et al., 2009). In order to support their hypothesis, they present three differently designed studies. In a correlational study, using 632 Americans as their sample, they found happiness to be positively correlated with prosocial spending but not with personal spending, the latter defined as spending money on oneself. The association was still significant when controlling for income. This effect, however, was not replicated in their longitudinal study: Prosocial spending did not significantly predict happiness later in time when assessing the happiness of 16 employees before and after receiving a bonus. Aiming to establish the causal consequences of prosocial spending, the researchers also carried out an experimental study. 46 participants rated their happiness and were then randomly assigned to a personal or prosocial spending condition and then received a certain amount of money. Higher levels of happiness were encountered in participants who were told to use the money for altruistic purposes. Following these results, Dunn et al. (2009) suggest that people should be made aware of the benefits of investing income in others.

Due to the fact that the short report does not include detailed information about the studies, the reader is not able to reasonably evaluate the validity of the claim made. However, an online link is provided that contains further information. While both the correlational and the experimental study appear to have large and representative samples, the longitudinal study used a sample of only 16 employees (Dunn et al., 2009). The small sample size might be one reason for the study yielding a nonsignificant result, suggesting that it did not have enough statistical power. Overall, Dunn et al. (2009) found mixed evidence for the hypothesis and further studies were necessary to validate the premise.

Based upon their previous research, Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn and Norton (2011) published a new article expanding on prior findings. After summarizing the results of their former article, they shift the focus towards a new, more specific aspect of the topic: They ask whether the link between prosocial spending and happiness may be moderated by the intimacy of the relationship between the person who spends and the person who receives the money (Aknin et al., 2011). The authors distinguish between intimate relationships, referred to as strong ties and less intensive relationships, defined as weak ties. Thereupon, they hypothesize that spending money on strong ties leads to a higher level of happiness compared to investing in a weak tie. Having said that, they also acknowledge the possibility of happiness not being moderated by the strength of the tie.

In order to test their hypothesis, Aknin et al. (2011) conducted an experiment. The sample of 80 individuals was recruited by approaching individuals on the campus of a university. Participants were randomly assigned to call to mind the last time they spent money on either a weak or a strong tie. Subsequently, they reported their affect levels. Participants who remembered investing in a strong tie rather than a weak tie experienced greater levels of positive affect, even when taking the recency of the spending experience into account. In contrast, different types of relationship were found to have no influence on affect levels. According to Aknin et al. (2011), the findings imply that people should spend more money on those they share an intimate relationship with. Nevertheless, future research should investigate whether spending money on a weak tie could help converting it into a strong tie.

In opposition to Dunn et al. (2009), Aknin et al. (2011) do not specifically assess happiness, but affect levels and thus a broader state of mental well-being. However, since happiness is included in their measurements, their results can be seen as supportive of the central hypothesis that prosocial behavior increases happiness. Providing evidence for this claim by running an experiment enables the researchers to draw causal conclusions. Nevertheless, the internal validity should be called into question: Since the participants were asked to recall a prior spending experience rather than to engage in a new one, it is more difficult to rule out alternative explanations for the increased level of happiness. Another shortcoming is the external validity of the study, which is decreased by an unrepresentative convenience sample: The majority of the subjects are young females, probably mostly students from the university of British Columbia. Accordingly, one cannot exclude the possibility of the effect of prosocial spending being limited to this specific group of people.

The question at hand is also discussed by Snippe et al. (2017), who approach it by presenting a longitudinal study examining the association between prosocial behavior and positive affect (PA), while additionally taking the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism as potential moderators of the relationship into account. Over a period of 30 days, the prosocial behavior and PA of 553 participants was assessed with means of an electronic diary. Positive affect and prosocial behavior were measured in all participants, whereas personality scores were recorded for only 332 participants. The observers discovered a bidirectional association between prosocial behavior and PA, which was moderated by neuroticism but not significantly by extraversion. The effect of prosocial behavior on PA was larger for people high in neuroticism. On the contrary, the effect of PA on prosocial behavior was found to be moderated by neither extraversion nor neuroticism.

Unlike the previous researchers, Snippe et al. (2017) did not aim to examine the consequences of prosocial spending in particular, but of prosocial behavior in general. This gives the independent variable a broader frame and are therefore allows the researchers to make a more general claim. Another aspect that distinguishes this study from previous ones is that Snippe et al. (2017) provide the reader with diagrams and tables containing detailed information about the results. These illustrations make it easier for the reader to follow the reasoning of the authors. Moreover, the researchers carefully handle potential risks to construct validity by conducting a pilot study to test the validity of the single item measuring positive affect. Although they control for alternative explanations, the longitudinal design precludes causal conclusions. The internal validity might additionally be weakened by the fact that only 50% of the diary assessments were completed. This raises the question whether the participants were serious with completing the task and hence how confident the researchers can be about the results. Finally, the external validity of the study is weakened by the usage of a convenience sample that mainly includes highly educated young women that are in a romantic relationship. Consequently, it is arguable to which extent the results can be generalized to a larger population.

In conclusion, it can be said that the previously discussed studies provide largely coherent evidence for the hypothesis that prosocial behavior increases happiness. However, whereas Snippe et al. assume that the two variables are mutually reinforcing, the other authors infer a only one-sided relationship. Another difference consists in the fact that Dunn et al. (2009) merely conclude that prosocial spending enhances happiness, while the other authors further examine conditions under which this relationship holds true. More specifically, Aknin et al. (2011) state that the association is moderated by the intimacy of the relationship and Snippe et al. (2017) conclude that the strength of the effect depends on the level of neuroticism. These moderators should be replicated in future studies. Furthermore, due to the previously mentioned limitations of the studies, it is of huge importance to do more research on the topic to strengthen the body of evidence. Subsequent studies could try to account for the weaknesses of the studies, for example by using representative samples. In spite of all that, the studies already provide initial evidence that investing in others does indeed present a useful way to boost one’s happiness.

Do you have some spare change or extra time on your hands? If so, deciding to spend it on someone else might make you happier than spending it on yourself. The following literature review addresses that topic: the effects of prosocial behavior on people’s happiness in light of three scientific articles. Simply put, the first article focusses on how spending money on others promotes happiness; the second shows that spending money on strong social ties increases happiness more; in the last article, the emphasis lies on the reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive affect (PA) in daily life. So, do prosocial behaviors increase happiness? This is a relevant topic worth further exploration, as it can affect and benefit people in their daily lives.

Each article has a standpoint – a line of argument. The first article by Dunn, Aknin, & Norton (2008) argues that spending money on others may have a more positive effect on happiness than spending money on oneself. The second research article claims that people would be happier spending money on strong social ties rather than on weak social ties (Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn, & Norton, 2011). Lastly, the research article by Snippe, Jeronimus, Aan Het Rot, Bos, de Jonge, & Wichers (2017) predicts that prosocial behavior and positive moods reinforce each other in daily life, and that the association between prosocial behavior and positive affect (PA) is moderated by extraversion and neuroticism.

When it comes to the general argumentation, a subtle progression is visible in the three articles. The first article (Dunn et al., 2008) places the topic in a very shallow context, saying that generally, if people spend money on others, it makes them happier. The second article (Aknin et al., 2011) differs from the first in the way that it focusses on the target the money is spent on. For example, whether the target is a friend (strong social tie) or an acquaintance (weak social tie) has an impact on happiness as well. In a new light, the third article (Snippe et al., 2017) not only focusses on prosocial spending, but on prosocial behaviors in general, and does not place much weight on the recipient of the prosocial act. Instead, its focus is on the reciprocity of prosocial behavior and PA, and if this may be moderated by extraversion (sociability and positive emotions) and neuroticism (negative emotions). The second article (Aknin et al., 2011) appears to shed more light on the first article by specifying the target of the prosocial act; but the third article (Snippe et al., 2017) opens a whole new door and looks at the daily effects of prosocial behaviors and if they may be linked to certain personality traits – extraversion and neuroticism.

As in the argumentation, the articles differ in their methodology as well. Each study sampled their participants differently, leading to question the external validity of each study. The article by Dunn, Aknin & Norton (2008) combines three different designs to discuss the effect of spending money on others. The correlational study has a nationally representative sample of 632 Americans – which as stated, is representative. The longitudinal study includes only 16 employees (the company and city are unknown), but one can assume that in most any company, employees experiencing a windfall may act similarly to those used in the study. For the experiment it is said that 46 people were sampled, but how they were sampled is unknown – this leads to some uncertainty as to how representative the sample really is. The participants in the study by Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn & Norton (2011) were approached on the university campus, and after providing written consent, they had to recall the last time they had spent money on either a strong social tie or a weak one, and then reported their affect levels on the experience. As the sample only includes students from one university, it cannot be considered generalizable to the population – it may perhaps only represent the population of students. In the study by Snippe, Jeronimus, Aan Het Rot, Bos, de Jonge & Wichers (2017), a large group from the Dutch population was sampled by means of crowdsourcing. Participants had to monitor their feelings, behaviors, thoughts and activities electronically three times a day for 30 consecutive days. Neuroticism and extraversion were assessed separately. It must be said that the mean age of the participants was 41 years and the majority was female, in a romantic relationship and highly educated. This poses a threat to external validity, as the results are not generalizable to the entire Dutch population, but rather to middle-aged, educated women.

Each study has its limitation too. A common limitation faced by the general population is that they fail to see the benefits of prosocial behaviors; thus, it may be central to strive towards translating national wealth into national happiness by promoting more prosocial behaviors (Dunn et al., 2008). This idea is insightful, but can be considered a very challenging, long-term endeavor. Nevertheless, it is something people could strive towards as it will benefit both the person exhibiting the friendly gesture, as well as the person receiving it. According to Aknin, Sandstrom, Dunn & Norton (2011), their study’s design has a simultaneous strength and limitation in that the participants did not take part in a new spending endeavor, but instead reported only on a past experience. This can be considered a strength, as it is a so-called ‘reminiscence-based methodology’, that highlights the importance of remembering (Aknin et al., 2011). The limitation is that it may lack in the immediate emotional response caused by the new spending experience. To avoid this, the researchers could assign participants to a spending task directly after having to recall an old one – that way both a remembered experience and a present experience have been collected and can be used in comparison. As previously mentioned, a flaw in the study by Snippe, Jeronimus, Aan Het Rot, Bos, de Jonge & Wichers (2017) is the concern about its external validity, as the majority of participants is female, in a romantic relationship and highly educated. This could be rectified by conducting a replication study using participants from one or several different demographics of the population. This could function as a balancing of the scales and can make the study more externally valid.

Even though the articles state some limitations, the conclusions each of them confirms that prosocial behaviors increase happiness. All three research designs used in the first article (Dunn et al., 2008) produced conclusions in favor of the hypothesis that spending money on others rather than on oneself promotes happiness. The data from the second article (Aknin et al., 2011) concluded that spending money on people we know, rather than on acquaintances, leads to higher levels of happiness. Furthermore, there are two key findings in the third article (Snippe et al., 2017). The first revealed that prosocial behaviors and positive affect reinforce each other in daily life. This means that engaging in a prosocial act sustains emotional well-being, and in turn, positive moods may encourage more prosocial acts. The second key finding concluded that people higher on neuroticism experience a bigger effect of prosocial behavior on PA (Snippe et al., 2017). Extraversion, on the other hand, did not seem to moderate this effect. This finding also provides support that people experience more happiness from prosocial behaviors, but people higher on neuroticism have an even bigger effect size.

The articles display progression in their hypotheses and conclusions; nonetheless, the third research article (Snippe et al., 2017) differs from the first two, as its focus is on the reciprocity of prosocial behavior and positive affect in daily life more than on prosocial spending towards others in general. The articles do not have very strong external validity and they are not without limitations either. Nonetheless, in conclusion, the fact that prosocial behaviors increase happiness is supported by all three scientific articles. We experience an increased level of happiness after engaging in prosocial behaviors, especially if they are directed towards family members or friends rather than co-workers or acquaintances. More specifically, prosocial behavior and positive mood levels reinforce each other in daily life – and this is especially effective for people higher on neuroticism.

Have you ever thought about what truly is happiness? I believe that at one point in time everyone would have come across this question. Everyone would like to be happier, including me. Happiness is important to me because it helps to protect my mental well-being. In this essay, I would like to explain my definition of happiness, which is a combination of good feelings and desire satisfaction, as well as setting goals as a way to achieve them.

Happiness, in my opinion, is a mixture of good feelings and satisfaction of all your desires, which is one of the major theories of happiness. It is not enough to just feel good, as it tends to be short-lived. In order to feel happy for longer, you have to experience and achieve something that you desire, which gives you a sense of achievement and therefore a sense of contentment. As Haybron (2013) describes in his book, having real-life experiences gives me a better sense of achievement, thus humans do not only want to experience things, but they want to do things. This is supported by the experience machine, where humans are unlikely to be plugged into it, even if they can pre-program their life experiences (Nozick, 1974), suggesting that in the virtual world desires are not satisfied as humans only have the experience but did not do it themselves. Thus, feeling good is the first step, but fulfilling your desires with your own actions is the next step to become happier.

The way to achieve happiness is by setting realistic goals for what we want to achieve. This ensures that we have desired end points to work towards, and when we accomplish them, it makes us happier. Of course, this will only make us happier if we feel good about ourselves. While working towards our goals and satisfying our desires, we should try not to be overly stressed over work. For example, Singapore, which ranks 34th among the happiest countries, and Singaporean workers are the most stressed in the world (Neo, 2019). When we are stressed, our level of happiness is lower than it could be. Therefore, we should stay in a good mood while achieving our goals so that, having achieved them, we will be happier.

In summary, this is my definition of happiness and the way to achieve it. All in all, an important part of happiness is to first feel good, so we should always stay positive and not feel too stressed.

Introduction

One of the first and foremost problem in our society is the Family. Ever since the beginning of civilization, family served as the main support for physical, emotional, and psychological guidance. Nevertheless, it is also said that these days the family and its function for helping individuals in their formation of normative values have declined due to a combination of an encroachment from other players such as the media (aka mediatization) (Hjarvard, 2008), and external factors such as the failing economy and disparity between the different classes of society (Cherlin, 2016). On one hand, it is said that through the process of mediatization, the roles of traditional institutions (e.g. religion, family, and school) are gradually becoming subsumed under the logic of media, thus making them more independent on these new forms of expression. On the other hand, the external factors in the economy and culture, has also made the problems within family relationships more persistent as it correlates to a ‘radical shift’ in the family’s social structure as characterized by an increase in the number of “cohabitating” couples as compared to those engaged in traditional marriage systems. From this perspective, it could easily be seen that the increasing dominance of mass media could’ve led to the increase in the number of couples who are cohabitating together. Nevertheless, based on the seminal work done by Cherlin (2014), he identified that one of the greatest reasons for this shift in the family structure is education. In his study, he was able to identify there exist a “marriage gap” between individuals who were able to finish a 4-year Bachelor’s degree as compared to those who were only able to finish a high school degree or lower. Nevertheless, looking at a much wider perspective, the author of this article believes that while education could present as one of the strongest factors for the increasing marriage gap, it is the overall structure (i.e. the economy and culture) which creates the disparity in terms of the opportunity for education and employment. Thus, leading to a shift in the traditional structure of the society, a phenomenon called by Durkheim as Anomie. In line with this, this article would focus on the work of Vance, as an example of this phenomenon of ‘normlessness’, especially with regards to the traditional family structures. The next sections would also incorporate the works of Macionis, Wilson, Brooks, and Cherlin, in order to discuss particular topics in class and race, relating to the topic on the ongoing shift in family structures. The said section would also include a discussion about the plight of the working class as discussed in Brook’s lecture, and what we can do to be able to increase our level of happiness. Lastly, the author would also suggest ideas about the role of the state as an over-arching traditional institution and the potential policy programs that it could ‘initiate’ in order to reduce the numbers of couples who are cohabiting together, and thus increase the likelihood for a family to develop a much more conducive environment for the development of a child’s well-being.

Hillbilly Elegy and the Economic Crisis of Marriage

The Seminal work by Vance, entitled Hillbilly elegy, narrates his life in the small town of Jackson, Kentucky, which is primarily a coal country of southeastern Kentucky (Vance & Vance, 2016). From the article, he described how he grew up with his mamaw and papaw, and started to develop “a sense of community” with the hillbilly people. The story starts when Vance was only a child and was adopted by his grandparent’s mamaw and papaw in order to help him continue his studies. Just as many children living in the United States, Vance was then conflicted with the problem of a “broken family”. Specifically, he experienced living with five different sets of fathers, and all while re-marrying a different one, their family moves from one place to the other. In Vance’s words, he said that this circumstance left him saying that he has no “address” when people ask him where he lives. Nonetheless, when asked where he finds a mental image of his own “home”, Vance would always have a picture of living in Jackson, Kentucky, together with his mamaw and papaw. While Vance’s story is interesting and eye-opening for many people with regards to the pertinent issues of the family today, the most important part is that it reflects the very reality of today’s pattern in Marriage Gap. In the book written by Andrew Cherlin (2014), entitled Labor’s Love Lost, he discussed the correlation between an individual’s amount of educational attainment and his/her tendency to marry or simply commit to a “co-habiting” relationship. In his study, he was able to find out that as one’s educational attainment increases, the less likely are they to commit to a cohabiting relationship and decide to have kids without getting married. Particularly, his data showed that for couples with less than a High school degree, 30% of this population are in their first marriage, 42.3% for those with high school degrees, 42.6% for those with some college education, and 61% for those with bachelor’s degree or more. From this data, Cherlin argued that as the educational attainment of individual increases, the less likely will he commit to a relationship and have kids, without getting married first. Interestingly, Cherlin also found out that the main reason as to why those with more a bachelor’s degree marry and decide to have kids later in their lives is because they know that they would still be able to do so in the future. Knowing this, most of them invest in themselves, establish their reputations, and seeks to augment their knowledge by taking up post-graduate degrees.

In relation to the social problem posed above – shift in the dominant family structure – the author of this article believes that Cherlin’s and Vance’s work are both crucial in understanding the negative repercussions that co-habitation has in our society. On one hand, Cherlin presented data showing that couples who are cohabiting are most likely to have kids break up within five years. In a recent survey done in the United States, they found out that about 51% of all the pregnancies where the parents are not married where due to cohabitation. On the other hand, Vance’s work shows a case study of the very nature of our problem, providing greater affirmation for Cherlin’s studies.

In his book The Economy, The Family, and The Working Class Disorient, Cherlin showed how economic forces and cultural forces tie up to create this enormous shift in the family structure. Although economic forces are much more influential, cultural factors still come into play. This fact was taken as Cherlin compared the Marriage Gap in the United States with other wealthy countries in the European Nations. In his estimates, he found out that there for Children in the United States, there is an 8.2% chance that they would experience living with more than 3 maternal partners as they reach the age 15, as compared to other nations with only about 2% in average.

The second chapter, in Vance’s book, shows a clearer example of Cherlin’s findings. As papaw narrates his “romantic” journey with mamaw, Vance figured out that his grandparents were only 13 when mamaw got pregnant. However, due to financial constraints and the fear that mamaw’s cousins would hurt him, both of them eloped and tried to find a place where they could raise the child together. While this chapter shows a tragic twist – the child died within a week having been born – it also detailed out the economic forces for the migration of the hillbillies to the Appalachian to the Midwest, since the WWI has left most of these people without jobs in their rural areas.

In the third chapter of Vance’s book, this idea of a broken family was even more exemplified. Particularly, it was in the third chapter when papaw told Vance that both of them has serious quarrels before since papaw was a drunkard and that mamaw would react violently to this habit. In one instance, mamaw even doused papaw in gasoline and lit him on fire as he fell asleep drunk on their couch. This domestic instability has then left Uncle Jimmy and their mother, in a state where they would repeat this instance towards their future families. However, by the end of the chapter, it would show that mamaw and papaw would eventually reconcile and live a happy life. In a deeper analysis of their story in relation to Cherlin’s findings, it could be said that perhaps another reason why having higher educational attainment leads to less domestic instability is because marrying later in life also leads to more emotional maturity, just as exemplified by mamaw and papaw as they grew up.

In the fourth chapter of Vance’s work, the relationship between economic constraints and lack of education is detailed out. While telling his story, papaw narrated how the policies on home ownership of presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush led to the housing crisis in their town. He even said that many of the residents in Middletown have bought houses that have already accrued too much debt, that no one even wants to buy them anymore. As for the quality of education back then, papaw told Vance that during those days high school teachers have not given much when it comes to teaching as they see the students as if they’re “destined to fail academically”. As for the students’ perceptions of reality, they always see two sides of the opportunities that face them in the future. On one hand, they aspire to work for the local company, despite the fact most of their fathers work there. On the other hand, they also see Armco – the local company which was only recently saved by Kawasaki back then – as a safety net, where they could always fall back and finds a relatively safe job in any case where they fail their higher aspirations.

The Sociological Imagination and the Formula for Happiness

Following from the ideas of Vance’s fourth chapter, the author of this article believes that we could glean a sense of C. Wright Mills’ concept of the “Sociological Imagination” from the students own aspirations. Specifically, Mills described the “Sociological Imagination” as our ability to think of ourselves away from the familiar routine of our immediate environment. Thus by the virtue of the high school students in Middletown’s, ability to think of themselves in situations that are not similar to the persisting trend during those times, they were able to make themselves as agents of their own fate (Isaksen, 2013). In relation to Professor Brook’s idea of happiness, our ability to fulfill our sociological imagination encompass 12% of our ability to become truly satisfied with our selves. This is, in turn, a big chunk of “agencies” ability to become happy, since it is estimated that 88% (40% genetics; 48% life-circumstances) are attributed to structures that we cannot control (Brooks, 2014). While this is a great example that could be found in the chapter, the whole story of Vance is an even more specific case of Mill’s concept. Particularly, this is because as Vance grows up, he also aspired to contribute more the general society, by aspiring (and achieving) to become a lawyer someday.

From the ideas provided in the discussion above, it could easily be seen how both economic and cultural factors act as the most dominant factors for this shift in family structure. Following from this, the next section would expound on the relationship of the economy and culture in creating this phenomenon characterized with fewer opportunities as discussed in the ideas of Harvard Professor William Julius Wilson and Durkheim’s concept of the Anomie.

Race, Education, and Opportunity

William Julius Wilson is a Harvard Professor who dedicated his life to studying racism in great detail. In his book “More than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City”, he detailed out a unique way of looking at the issues of the causes and the effects of Racism. Particularly, he said that since most studies focus on the structural aspects of the issue, one of the most critical aspects – culture – is usually left out. By combining an analysis of both the structural and cultural aspects of racism, he pointed out that we could develop a more precise methodology of not only studying but resolving the matter. Wilson’s argument is that the reason for criminal behaviors and non-normative acts of the ghettos in black neighborhoods is not only the lack of opportunity for them to pursue their studies and get a decent job but also because of the inherent culture that persists within that neighborhood. As we could clearly see, this argument differs from most of the studies that state that the lack of opportunity and discrimination towards black people are the main cause of the rising crime rates in black neighborhoods. From his analysis of causes of racial inequality, he concluded that due to the intricate combination of cultural and economic factors in increasing racial segregation, the only way to change this status quo is to reform the very institutions (e.g. media, education, and the state) that reinforce it.

Anomie

In line with the previous discussion on Cherlin’s and Vance’s works, a thematic similarity could be found. That is, culture and economic forces play a crucial role in the emergence of “deviant behaviors” such as “crime and cohabitation” (Macionis, 2015). However, this thematic similarity shows a much larger picture in our society. Specifically, it shows that both of this phenomenon are simply linked to an even greater shift in the ideologies and mindsets of our society and culture, that is characterized by a negligence in the existing norms. In the field of Sociology, this lack and/or persistent negligence in the established norms of society by the society itself, a social group, and/or an individual is what we call as “Anomie” (Macionis, 2015). Popularized by Durkheim, while studying suicide behaviors, he said anomic actions comes “from the breakdown of the social standards necessary for regulating behavior” (Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 2014). In other words, there exists an absence or a confusion for commonly held values and beliefs throughout the society. To further this argument, the author of this paper would like to attempt another causal relationship between the underlying structures of our society and this persisting state of anomie, as discussed in the next chapter.

The Anomic Cause of Alienation

In discussing the concept of alienation, it is most likely that there would be a disagreement especially due to the fact that the three forefathers of sociology – Marx, Durkheim, and Weber – have different ideas about how this persists. In this article, however, the concept of alienation would be discussed in relation to Max Weber’s idea, that alienation is tied to what we call as a “legal rationality”. As used in his idea, legal rationality refers to the idea that the law (including its characteristic of bureaucracy) should be obeyed at all times, for the fact that it is “rational”. However, going back to the discussion of Wilson, while we try to solve our problems using the instrumentalities of our laws, we fail to recognize the fact that it is perhaps, the law itself, which is the one flawed and disorganized (Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 2014).

Discussion

In the previous chapters, we have discussed that there exist a persisting relationship between the structures (economy) and the anomic characteristics of our society today (e.g. co-habitation, crime rates, and racism). Some examples of this anomic attitudes perpetrated by the structures are the case of Vance’s family (where his mamaw and papaw has eloped at a very young age, because of the economic constraints) and the ever-increasing crime rate in the black neighborhood across the United States. Nonetheless, while we think that we are trying to resolve this through our own actions against the structures, Wilson argued that the reason why we always fail to change the status quo is that we also fail to recognize that these structures include culture itself. In response to this, Wilson also added that the state should have the greatest responsibility when it comes to reforming the very structures of our society since it is also the one with the monopoly of power over its individuals. This has already been proven especially by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he pushed reforms in public policies including the Family Assistance Program of 1969.

The discussions provided above simply showed that despite our greatest efforts to resolve the anomic tendencies of our society today, one of the mistakes that we continue to do is based on our own understanding of society. Nevertheless, as exemplified by the numerous studies by Wilson, Vance, Macionis, Brooks, Cherlin, Weber, and Durkheim, among others, our use of sociological lens and theories could give us an insight of what really is happening deep inside our society. All in all, what follows is this article’s author’s suggestion that these insights are not left as such. Rather, he strongly suggests that we must take a proactive stance towards reforming the very structures (not in a chaotic way) through peaceful reasoning and administration of strong public policies.

References

1. Brooks, A. (Director). (2014). A Formula for Happiness [Motion Picture].
2. Bureau, P. R. (Director). (2015). The Vow Factor Briefing: Andrew Cherlin [Motion Picture].
3. Cherlin, A. (2014). Labor’s Love Lost. Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Cherlin, A. (Director). (2016). Andrew Cherlin – ‘The Economy, the Family, and Working-Class Discontent’ [Motion Picture].
5. Choklay, T. T. (Director). (2010). Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Meet the Press [Motion Picture].
6. Cross, C. o. (Director). (2015). The Other America: Then and Now — William Julius Wilson [Motion Picture].
7. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2014, November 26). anomie. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/anomie
8. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of religion – A theory of the media as agents of religious change. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 6(1), 9-26.
9. Isaksen, J. V. (2013, April 29). The Sociological Imagination: Thinking Outside the Box. Retrieved from PopularScience.com: http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/04/29/the-sociological-imagination-thinking-outside-the-box/
10. LaBier, D. (2010, May 10). Why The So-Called ‘Marriage Gap’ Is Good For Your Relationship. Retrieved from PsychologyToday.com: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201005/why-the-so-called-marriage-gap-is-good-your-relationship
11. Macionis, J. J. (2015). Social Problems, Books a la Carte Edition Plus.
12. Vance, J. D., & Vance, J. D. (2016). Hillbilly elegy. New York: HarperCollins.
13. Wilson, W. J. (Director). (2011). William Julius Wilson: Being Black & Poor in the Inner City [Motion Picture].

Despite the thousands of years that separate Aristotle and Confucius from Martin Seligman and Sonja Lyubormirsky, they all highlight that the key aspect to achieving happiness is helping others. They all state that helping others increases our own happiness levels due to the feeling of helpfulness and knowing that we are using the skills and knowledge we have to aid someone. According to Lyubormirsky’s study, ‘Count Your Blessings’, by recapping your recent experiences of someone helping you or you helping someone doubles your levels of happiness over a period of six weeks. Confucius claims that by following in the idea of ‘Jen’, being concerned for the well-being of others, such as our friends, is a simple and easy way to achieve this feeling of happiness through helping others.

Both Aristotle and the two psychologists agree that friendship is key to happiness, but for slightly different reasons. Aristotle views friendship incredibly highly even about such traits like justice and honor, the most virtuous friendship is where both people wish only the best for each other, regardless of other emotions or circumstances. He believes that this type of friendship is the one that brings you the most joy and satisfaction. However, Aristotle does highlight that to maintain such a rewarding and virtuous friendship requires a lot of time and effort from both parties, and that it is impossible to have a high number of friends. Martin Seligman’s viewpoint of friendship and its importance has the most striking difference to Aristotle’s. Seligman focuses on what makes extremely happy people different to the rest of society, and claims that one of the reasons why is because they are never alone. He expands that extremely happy people are always in a romantic relationship and have a large group of friends. By being exceedingly social it means they can assist many individuals, meaning you get a bigger boost of happiness. Seligman research of this highlight the vast difference between Aristotle’s time and ours today, that with our ever-increasing connectivity allowing us to become friends with people from all around the globe and the demands of everyday life, meaning we’ve developed distinct friendship groups (i.e., work friends, school friends, football friends, internet friends, etc.), which was not possible during Aristotle’s life. Our meaning of friends has changed and adjusted over time, which means that it isn’t always possible to put in the amount of effort Aristotle claims we need to put into a friendship for it to become virtuous.

Both Sonja Lyubormirsky and Confucius view happiness as a journey to achieve through the different stages of our lives, and that’s how we sustain it. Lyubormirsky speaks about maintaining happiness through different happiness interventions to make sure we are always remembering and savoring the high points within our lives, as well as what we have done to improve others. This provides us with a sense of gratitude, which in term presents itself to us as happiness. By maintaining these interventions, we maintain and sustain our happiness. Lyubormirsky highlights not only the positive mental health impacts of learning to sustain our happiness, but the physical as well, for example a happy people are less likely to die from all causes up to twenty-eight years later. Confucius also sees happiness as a journey to improve our overall character. By learning and developing our place in society, it will allow us to sustain our happiness because we will be improving ourselves and thus the people around us. For example, joining clubs and groups and becoming an avid member of society allows you to invest in friendships due to the social interaction which brings all the benefits as mentioned above of friendship. As well as developing a good moral character by helping your local community by offering your time, and by helping it makes you feel good for knowing you are playing an active part in society. Confucius additionally points out that happiness can be achieved on the journey of your career, by being dedicated to your education, the better the opportunities of reaching a better job and wealth earned from hard work. Traditionally, Confucius believed that having money provided you with a higher social status, which allowed and lead to you being happy.

In contrast, Aristotle and Martin Seligman see happiness as the final destination, an end goal for humans. Seligman sets out this theory of happiness in the three lives: the pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life; although described as a journey to develop from one life to the other through the advancement of your character, such as recrafting your skills to improve other people’s lives, as well as your own. True, complete happiness, according to Seligman, can only be achieved in the meaningful life, where you use your highest strengths in service of something greater than yourself, i.e., helping others and the community. He states that by employing our strengths into a bigger purpose gives us the greatest sense of fulfilment, and that only then will our happiness be sustained. However, as previously stated our natural greedy nature as humans can cause us to push too hard and eventually lose satisfaction from the thing that used to bring us joy, we could begin to see our highest strength as a burden and a societal expectation. Additionally, as Lyubormirsky highlights, Seligman claims that once the meaningful life is achieved, happiness is the sustained reward, but yet there is no research that this is the case, and with the likelihood of pushing too far, is it a possibility to retreat back into the good life or even the pleasant life? Similarly, Aristotle points out that happiness can only be seen as the end goal for humans, because everything we do in our lives is with the hope and aim that it will make us happy either in the short or long term, and nothing more. As shown with the example above, the pursuit of other interests, like relationships, is only deemed important because we know and expect the outcome will make us happy. This approach can be applied across all scales, for example, we choose to eat a slice a cake not because we need to eat, but because we want and expect it to make us happy once we’ve eaten it. Furthermore, we decide to start a family not because society expects us to or because you’ve found ‘the one’, but because the outcome, the baby, will make us happy.

Despite both the philosopher’s and psychologist’s viewpoint of what happiness is, who do we follow? How can one determine who is right and wrong? Is it based off scientific research because if it is, we have to discard Aristotle and Confucius’ opinion on happiness as they have no evidence to back it up? But yet the overlaying similarities between their views and Lyubormirsky and Seligman’s viewpoints show that despite the thousands of years separating them they still believe similar things like friendship provide us with happiness. Therefore, if we cannot base happiness on scientific research, is it based off the individual or society? Confucius would argue it’s our place in society that creates happiness, by having a sense of duty and responsibility within society, it fills us with a purpose and meaning, consequently, creating happiness. Whereas Aristotle sees it as the individual who causes happiness by always selecting and following the path that will lead to the greater good. He states that happiness is the supreme good for man and that its down to our every action if we get rewarded with happiness at the end. In comparison, Seligman and Lyubormirsky refuse to squeeze happiness into either the individual or society, claiming that it’s more a feeling we all strive to feel continuously throughout our lives. Their research and theories illustrate the ways to achieve happiness and sustain it through various activities, as well as improving ourselves to aid others and our community. To conclude, each individual highlighted above show how complex and difficult it is to answer the question, what happiness is. With so many factors at play and with society constantly changing and adapting and the present of different religions and cultures, one believes it is impossible for one simple conclusion to be met, instead it’s important to strive for what we want in life, as like Aristotle states we only go in pursuit of other interests in the hope of that bringing us happiness and joy.

Taking Aristotle, Confucius, Seligman and Lyubormirsky’s theories and approaches, one can state that parts of them all can be applied to our modern society. One may believe that by improving ourselves, as Seligman states, we should to achieve the meaningful life, is necessary as not only does that enhance our lives, but also allows us to feel a sustained sense of achievement and joy. But it also allows us to help others, something all four individuals make very clear is key to living a happy life. However, it can be disputed that happiness can only be attained at the end of one’s life, as the final goal of man. In my opinion happiness is a working progress everyone is working towards and everyone reaches at varying points of their lives, although this happiness isn’t usually sustained, it persuades us to continue on our happiness journey because we want to feel that sense of happiness again and again. But the pressures of modern life are something all four fail to mention effectively, with our pace of life being the fastest it’s ever been and the constant pressure to portray the perfect life to the outside world, happiness is usually pushed to the side. Such things like stress put strain on our emotions and well-being and can delay all attempts to increase our happiness, like writing a gratitude journal. Despite all this negatively, one thinks it is important for society to change to allow the individual to pursuit happiness by joining clubs, by creating new valued friendships, by carrying out mindfulness activities, by recrafting our strengths and by helping others. Our pursuit of happiness is a long way from being achieved, but it’s also a long way from being scrapped. Society will have to change to allow people to embrace happiness, and as Lyubormirsky has shown happiness comes with a numerous amount of physical and mental benefits. Into the future, our search will continue, and with more people being open about their mental health and the pressures of everyday life, the more society will listen and will change for the better; but it’s down to the individuals to want to hunt down happiness before the roller-coaster of emotions can start.