Monday, July 21, 2008

How happy are we?

The piece below appeared today in the Oregon Daily Emerald, the University of Oregon's student newspaper, where I'm a summer columnist. I'm re-running it here less as a means for shameless self promotion (no, really) and more as a way to gather more responses on the question it poses, which has become a minor obsession lately. Start asking around. You'll be surprised at what people say.


Take a second and answer this question: on a scale of one to ten, how happy are you?

I’ve been conducting an informal survey this week, asking friends, housemates, co-workers, and my family that question. There are several categories of responder, I’ve found. There’s the optimistic wiseass, who provides a high score to three decimal places; the cautiously hopeful, who decides on a number somewhere in the upper half; the blunt realist, who notes the big picture and scores in the middle; and the exhausted tool of ill fate, who has just been having a bad day/week/year and whose number is bargain basement low.

The numbers themselves are interesting, but what really fascinates me is what happens next: people want to offer an explanation for their score. Some get quiet, or defiant, and others think aloud at length about the way they arrived at their answer. But In every case, I learn something about the inner life of the people I’m surrounded by. Everyone has something to say about how they measure their own happiness, or lack thereof.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about happiness lately. Happiness and, well, death. You know your life has taken a bizarre turn when you find yourself spending three hours on a sunny summer morning writing obituaries. But such is my existence these days. My desk is covered with envelopes marked “In Memoriam,” often in shaky, elderly handwriting. Inside, newspaper clippings and notes composed on the world’s last remaining typewriters spell out the lives and deaths of people who graduated from the University long before my parents were born.

As the summer intern for Oregon Quarterly, the University’s alumni magazine, I’m in charge of reducing these already-brief life stories into even shorter sketches, a task that’s rather like making a topographical map of the Andes out of orange Play-Doh: the result feels ridiculously simplistic.

But like a map of the mountains, I put in the highest points, those easily quantified and admired. Degrees, jobs, awards, children, spouses, years of service. I write about ninety birthdays, fifty anniversaries, all those big round numbers.

Universities, like obituary pages, run on accomplishment the way I run on nonfat lattes. The march toward a degree, a professorship, an ever-longer list of awards and grants and big shiny research buildings is what consumes all of us here. Last week the Emerald had the heartbreaking duty of reporting student Todd Doxey’s untimely death. Our sadness, like at the passing of any young person, was in part made of the knowledge that he won’t compile his own list of the deeds of a long and fruitful life.

Binding up happiness too closely with that list seems dangerous, though. Ambition and joy are both important. A horizon, goals, something to work for and a sense of making progress are all important to my personal happiness quotient. But I keep trying to find the delight in small moments as well as big accomplishments. It’s not good fodder for obituaries, but it’s what keeps my own score on the happiness scale buoyant.

And when I think about Doxey, a young man I never met, I think he might understand that idea, too. Even though leaping into the cold river’s swift water on a hot afternoon ended so tragically for him, I hope wholeheartedly that in the moment he spent suspended between the bridge and the river, Doxey was filled with a profound sense of joy. I hope that if he been asked the happiness question in that brief midair instant, he would have yelled “ELEVEN” into the bright July air of his last day.

6 comments:

Ruxton Schuh said...

Figuratively or realistically speaking, I've never arrived at anything in my life, in which case providing a gradated quantification of my happiness doesn't seem right. People often consider happiness as a point of arrival, and too often is a point of arrival that they never reach. In that sense everyone is on a trajectory to 10, therefore their answers should better reflect where they think they are in relation to their ideal destination. Like I've said way too often lately, I think this too fits into a paradigm based on antiquated social parameters. Happiness is likened to the greater good and is in stark contrast to the great evil that is sadness. As Todd Doxey's story demonstrates, there are just too many intangible circumstances poised to alter the linear trajectory of our lives to allow for any purposeful use of a happiness hierarchy. In a sense I can sympathize more with a zen mentality of life being the journey and not the destination (insert an irreverent "blah blah blah" here for use of cliche, no discredit to the message), but that still insinuates a path. While I think our intellectual growth takes that sort of journey, taking satisfaction in our lives themselves need not play out like an epic. We set ourselves up for failure with too high of expectations. Living a good, honest, and simple life is more than enough for anyone and defies any scale.

That said, I'm probably a 5.7 as far as attitude is concerned. Well split with a slightly better chance of smiling.

Zach Wallmark said...

Great piece, Blue-Eyed Wonder...I wish I was in Eugene to read it in print. I had a few thoughts reading this:

I share both your and Ruxton's skepticism of looking at happiness as a point of arrival. On both a personal and a collective level, advancement in education, wealth, etc. don't correlate at all to how happy you are - in fact, often desire just begets more desire and it becomes a treadmill with no arrival in sight. The more one strives for happiness (in the form of a new BMW, lucrative career, Ivy degree, etc.) the more unattainable it becomes.

I find it fascinating that in recent years a number of "happiness institutes" have been founded around the globe to measure happiness statistically. Some of these data might be of interest to M&M readers, both in demonstrating how different cultures think about the concept of happiness and what sorts of patterns emerge around the nations that claim to be most happy. One interesting finding: a nation's wealth does play into the happiness equation, but not as much as we might expect, and not as much as some other factors. It appears that social cohesion and interpersonal interconnectedness play a much larger role in determining the professed happiness of a nation than GDP.

To me, happiness is a lot like a Richter scale. There are occasional extreme moments (the metaphorical equivalent of a 7.5 earthquake), but most of the time the line squiggles above and below the baseline (5 on Mindy's scale), and all these minor fluctuations add up to a net zero. Both happiness and unhappiness are fleeting: in the morning, you might read an email from a friend (or a blog post on M&M) that makes you happy; then someone cuts you off in traffic and gives you the finger; then you find a dollar on the street, etc. It's a constant up and down. I am happy on many occasions during my day; I am also unhappy on many occasions. The net result of all this fluctuation, however, is the baseline of 5. Then occasionally an earthquake comes along that disrupts this equilibrium.

One last thought: it is awfully hard to gauge happiness in the moment - you almost always need some retrospective examination. Right now is deceptive; perhaps you'll look back five years from now and think about how wonderfully happy you were. Or how that was a dark spell. Sometimes life offers us periods that are so good or so bad that we know in the moment how time will reflect upon it; but most of the time, we don't. We just go along with the business of living, as Ruxton says. I find it interesting though that most times perspective turns everything in the past into something happy. I get all nostalgic now talking about middle school, which was at the time a horrific and cruel experience. Now we laugh about it over a beer.

chris bailly said...

If Mindy's happiness scale is some sort of absolute linear scale, then I disagree with both Ruxton and Zach's baseline of 5. In my own life, I think I have the potential to be a lot more unhappy then to be a lot more happy. A score of one seems to be the worst possible situation: starving on the street, all my friends and loved ones dead, constant pain, and oh I don't know let's throw in leprosy or some horrible disease as the clincher. That is my score of one.

So to say my life is a five would be to acknowledge I have the potential for as much additional happiness as I do for additional unhappiness. I think that is just not true, probably for everyone who writes on this blog.

Of course, Zach's point is also true, in that happiness is extremely relative. You can't really say that you are a 9 or 10, because what happens when you feel elated? Where are you at when you laugh at a great joke, have a great meal? What about falling in love? You have to have somewhere to go, happiness-wise, for those extremely happy moments.

Maybe my happiness-scale one alter-ego finds a nice meal on the street, or finally gets a good nights sleep despite his chronic illness, or wakes up to a nice day in the middle of winter, one where he won't freeze. His relative happiness to his condition might be a 7.

In addition, I think that the flip side is also true. A well-to-do American teenager who by global standards has everything she could ever want might genuinely feel a 2 or 3 after breaking up with her boyfriend. Sure, she isn't in a country torn apart by war and genocide, but she is feeling deep, real emotions that to her relative emotional scale are very strong.

In other words, the question of how happy are you needs clarification.


Thanks, Blue-Eyed Wonder.

Ruxton Schuh said...

Keep in mind Zach that the Richter scale is logarithmic, therefore your 7.5 boom of happiness is ~ 600x greater than your 5.

I think Zach originally stated and Chris brilliantly supported the necessity for a chronological analysis of happiness juxtaposed upon a happiness magnitude. Another thing to consider, however, again citing the paradigm of polar opposites, is how we need unhappiness to define happiness. That is one of the essential paradoxes that stilts up even God. Without the promise of absolute evil and eternal suffering in hellfire, there is no epic glory in an infinite deity that embodies goodness. That suggests that a happiness scale factor of 10 is impossible. If you cannot define happiness without unhappiness there is essentially some degree of unhappiness inherent in any form of happiness. As Zach brought up magnitude as a means of experiencing happiness, you have to consider that being in a manic state also requires an equally depressed state to have occured at some time. If you consider the myriad of arguments against a perfect deity, this goes along the same lines. Perfect happiness isn't possible. However, without degrees of unhappiness to define happiness, everything is just copacetic or robotic.

That said, I suggest that happiness isn't a scaled quantification over time, rather it is a series of measurements taken by your emotional structure to assist in analyzing your present environment.

chris bailly said...

Ruxton: "I suggest that happiness isn't a scaled quantification over time, rather it is a series of measurements taken by your emotional structure to assist in analyzing your present environment."

Or as Mr. Swartout once put it to my English class: when asked what the best time of his life was (is), he said every period of his life was at the time the best period of his life for different reasons.

I hate to use the reductive "there are two types of people" but if you will indulge me I think you can roughly say that one type of person is never quite happy where they are at, and are always looking forward (or backward), and the other is more "in the present". What Ruxton's sentence that I quoted suggests that he is in the latter category. I don't disagree with his assessment, it reflects my own experience as well. But I think that rather than framing his perception of happiness and time as an absolute, it is more likely an experience shared by some people rather than all.

Erin said...

Beautiful post...