Question on happiness

Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema crdbronx at erols.com
Fri May 4 08:13:50 PDT 2001


I'm 99% sure Doug's comments are right on target. It would be interesting to know the questionnaire protocol, and just how superficial it is. I would anticipate that if we analyzed the questions, and then tried them out on focus groups, we would find that their form and content would tend to arouse an anxiety that participants would almost immediately defend against by asserting that they were "happy," mostly because the question would tend to suggest that their position in the society, if they let themselves think objectively about it, is really shitty, for the reasons Doug factually lays out. Many people are aware, without knowing the complete data, that they are economically struggling and insecure. However, their position is so subordinate and powerless that acknowledging it would be unbearably depressing. Since American exceptionalism means that there is no great tradition of a collective response to this in the US -- i.e. no history of class politics, class parties over and above the individual -- the usual response is what Samuelson documents: cynicism, mindless defensive optimism.

Notice that those who are most objective about social reality in the US are people whose subordination and oppression has a clear-cut, socially recognized basis. Most of all this includes the targets of racism. I suspect that the reason why people of color tend to be more politically progressive than Euro-americans of similarly deprived economic position is that there is a way of understanding their situation that is comprehensible in the dominant culture's terms.

Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema

Doug Henwood wrote:


> Jacob Segal wrote:
>
> >Forwarded article from Robert Samuelson in this week's Newsweek. He refers
> >to a study on the "happiness" of people in the US versus Europe. My
> >question is what do people think about the validity of self-reporting on
> >happiness, given the being unhappy is something of a mark of shame for many
> >people in this culture.
>
> Pollsters say answers to "global" questions are extremely unreliable.
> And answers to one as loaded as this one - it's un-American to be
> unhappy! - has to be extremely unreliable.
>
> > By and large, Americans see the United States as a more "mobile
> >society than Europe," write Alberto Alesina and Rafael Di Tella from Harvard
> >and Robert MacCulloch from the LSE. Americans think they "have more
> >opportunities to move up (or down)" than Europeans, who are more fatalistic
> >about their place on the economic ladder.
>
> Yeah, they think that but it isn't true. American society is no more
> mobile than European societies.
>
> >The United States is a middle-class nation, and most Americans want
> >it to stay that way.
>
> Another untruth. Measured in income terms, the U.S. has a smaller
> "middle class" (hi Carrol!) than any other First World country. All
> those bad redistributionist social democracies have much larger
> middle income brackets than the Land of the Free.
>
> > No one wants a society starkly split into "haves" and
> >"have-nots." The obsession with "rising inequality" plays to these fears
> >without addressing them. It is mostly a moral self-indulgence: a way of
> >demonstrating superior "caring."
>
> I hope there's a special circle of hell for people who make arguments
> this spurious.
>
> > It implies that the rich are somehow
> >responsible for the plight of the poor
>
> Heavens! Not that!!
>
> Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list