Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Happiness: A Collective Enterprise?

 

Once a person acknowledges that happiness does not simply arise out of positive personal perceptions and attitudes the door opens to mutual responsibility for individual happiness. It is here, we believe, that the interactionist perspective has the most powerful implications. In the context of co-responsibility happiness is not a “self-help” pursuit but is, rather, a collective enterprise. 

Ahuvia et al

It is so beautiful out side my window right now...the sun has once again found its way through a heavy cloud cover that was our experience for the last few days.  The sky is blue and nature is out there rejoicing in it.  So, so much music in my part of the world on a beautiful spring day.  I missed the strawberry moon yesterday only because of the cloud and rain  but knowing it was there was kind of exciting too.  Nature is so miraculous in its presentation, in its abundance.  I am re-listening to an audio book by Thich Nhat Hanh entitled Fear. In it, he tells a story about how he was walking one day and felt, almost visualized, a long umbilical cord connecting him in his body to the sun, the river, the trees, the farmer, and all the other beings around him. We are so connected to nature in all her glorious abundance.  We are connected because we are a part of her.  We are her. As I sit here listening to that music out there, I am reminded of that.

A Research Article Leaves Me Pondering

Anyway, I read an interesting research paper yesterday on the interactionist perspective when it comes to understanding happiness and well being, in which Matthieu Ricard ( who is teaching the part of the course I am currently on) is one of the many authors /researchers. Interactionism asserts that happiness is  not exclusively due to an internal perspective, nor is it due  exclusively to an external one  but rather to a combination of both. In a sense, it is felt,  happiness is due to a balance of inner and outer world factors that allow for a sense of well being.  

Huh? 

An externalism perspective will assert that our happiness is solely dependent on our external life events.  If I have money, for example, I will more likely be happier than a person who didn't have money.  To solve the problem of my so called "unhappiness"attributed to a lack of money, then, I would seek ways to make more money or get more money from the external world. 

Internalism would find fault in that approach, claiming that this will actually take us farther from happiness. An internalist, which I tend to be, would also say that my happiness has nothing to do with my life circumstance. It is my reaction to this life event  that is the problem.  Happiness is a purely inner experience. I should be able to be happy with or without money; with or without my ability to meet basic needs or maintain a sense of safety and security while I moved around in the external world. As you can tell by my recent blog entries...I make it a point not to blame  my almost desperate financial situation  right now  and all the external factors that lead to it  as the source of my so called "problems".  I see the problem, if I perceive I have one, not as this life event but as my internal reaction to it. I take ownership and seek to  find peace and happiness despite my  challenges by improving my inner world which starts with not reacting to my present reality.  

Do you see the difference in these two approaches? 

Is the Purely Internalistic Approach the Road to Happiness? 

Up until yesterday, I did not question my approach.  I do believe that a purely externalistic approach is unhealthy and that of the two, internalism is not just more "spiritual', but also more  practical and effective.  Whether I am just suffering from a bad case of spirituality superiority or seeing clearly,  I believed wholeheartedly it was the right path and thought I was fully  understanding Buddhist, Yogic and Christian doctrine in regards to this. I thought they were teaching that the goal is to become happy despite my external life challenges. Accepting them graciously was the key.   I was actually feeling a bit "unwholesome" and "unskillful" whenever I wanted things to be different or when I caught myself saying, "Oh man...things have been so tough and challenging for so long now.  I wish my outer circumstances would change just enough to give me some relief...if  I can't improve my health, or the well being of my children, it would be so great if I could just sell something I wrote, or earn a little money so I could help alleviate some of the other many outer world challenges I seem to be facing. At least I wouldn't have to worry about losing the house or what will happen when I do." This guilt and shame for failing, or at the very least..."slipping back" in my spiritual quest, to these thought streams,  just  adds to my sense of unhappiness. So in an attempt to be the perfect internalist, I have been stuffing, suppressing, denying and resisting this deep emotional desire for things to change. 

How spiritual is that, I wonder? 

"At least" , my desiring mind would ask the powers that be when it thought no one was looking..."could you just slow it down a bit when it comes to the challenges? I don't need to be free of challenges but could you   just slow down the presentations enough for me to catch my breath, so I don't feel I am in the ring with the young  Mohammad Ali 24-7...jab after jab, after jab.?" 

Money, the lack of,  just seemed to play a part in my sense of struggle and unhappiness with what is. So though I work diligently to accept and allow this into my life experience, and find my calm and my peace despite it,  the thought that  the bills need to be paid, still come up. My reality reminds me that  I cannot keep going in debt to pay my mortgage and bills without consequence and that my  ability to help my children and others would be improved if I had more money and less stress in regards to a lack of money. So... though I so want to do the mind work and take the spiritual path, I will  often forgo my internalistic mission and push myself physically to "fix"  things out there. I will "do" things like...teach classes on days I am  having chest pain or spend way too many hours getting  my submissions together and out there with the very slim possibility they might sell...(just like I worked longer than was healthy for  my body and mind in the job I left). ...just to earn money. I do this even though yoga and writing, to me, are  not something I want to do for the sake of earning money...I still have this compulsion to give more classes away then I charge for and I don't seek monetary gain for most of what I publish other than my books but sometimes, sometimes I have this sick hope that these things I love to do may lead me from my hardships.  I am also  looking for jobs "out there" that pay and am dreaming non stop at night, it seems,  about going back to work to gain that income that seemed to bring  so much safety and security with it. And in these dreams there is this voice that says, "You have come so far, you don't want to go back to  pushing yourself to exhaustion." But the feeling of having that income in my dreams feels so,so good. It relieves so much of this pressure.

Interactionalism 

So, I guess what I am saying, is that though I so see the wisdom in internalism and so want to live that way...it isn't easy when so much of me has to function in the external world.  And this is what the interactionists take into consideration. The external world, they propose, does have something to do with our happiness or lack of. 

It is a well validated theory. It is, after all,  a combination of scientists, psychologists and Buddhist Monks that propose this theory, and suggest that it is  the approach to take if we want happiness. They suggest that we still want to live by intrinsic virtue and seek to find the internal peace  but external variables, though not wholly responsible, do play a part in our ability to attain and maintain happiness. If we go back to my example of  the money situation I am experiencing, the writers of the article have this to say:

For people living in poverty, the data tell a rather straightforward externalist story in which increased income allows people to meet their basic needs, and thus dependably leads to increased happiness... 

Studies of non-poor populations, however, tell a much more interactionist story. Higher levels of income generally lead to higher levels of satisfaction with one’s income, which in turn leads to higher overall life satisfaction. (Page 8)

 I was once very satisfied with my income. And going from this income that brought satisfaction to one that takes me below the poverty line certainly makes it challenging to maintain that level of satisfaction.So though I know I cannot and will not return to work at that level,  my dreams are calling me to do so.  They are making me question my internalistic perspective. I am so confused.  

Aristotle

My buddy Aristotle clears it up for me a bit. Aristotle, the article, shares was a great interactionalist Though he had great contempt for seeking the good life through wealth and honor, he also often compared the notion of stoically accepting what is, to trying to  lead the good life while strapped to the rack.  Though I am not strapped to some torture instrument while Life attempts to pull me apart into pieces, it is more than a little uncomfortable  at times dealing with these external challenges, and I am not sure I am being completely honest when I say, "It is all good!  All good!  All good!" I still believe , if I am being even more honest with myself, that a positive  change in my external life situation, just a bit even, would make it easier for me to be happy and well. 

A Changing Perspective

So I am just pondering, if maybe the interactionalists have it right. Would it  be skillful to change my perspective just a bit and lean a little toward the need or advantage of effecting change in my outer world as I still work diligently on attaining and maintaining serenity and peace inside?  Happiness, which was never a word I liked that much anyway, may depend on both a stable and unchanging inner world which would foster   a "peace no matter what" perspective,  as well as a little reliance on "help" from the external environment. 

What do you think?


All is well! 

Ahuvia, A., Thin, N., Haybron, D. M., Biswas-Diener, R., Ricard, M., & Timsit, J. (2015). Happiness: An interactionist perspective. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(1), 1-18. doi:10.5502/ijw.v5i1.1 

No comments:

Post a Comment