Happiness Institute: Reflections on Happiness, Political Strife, Inequality, and Relationships
I had a number of initial thoughts on the Happiness Museum presentation and data in Copenhagen and I decided that instead of publishing what was a free-form reflection, I should maybe edit myself a bit. I felt like the entry in its entirety had valid starting points for consideration, but with the state of sensitivity around US political topics, I did not want to risk my initial thoughts being misconstrued as solidly formed opinions. It’s still a lot though, and heavily unedited. The disclaimed that these are initial reflections still is relevant.
Below are a few reflections on topics surrounding how happiness levels impact politics, dating, leadership, and relationships within countries, as well as a reflection on happiness and leadership. My thoughts end with a brief statement of the idea that humor can serve as a short-term remedy for happiness inequality, when the inequality is not too polarized. Each of these sections deserves more attention and more detailed analysis or examples, such as cases to examine and reflect upon.
The Happiness Research Institution and other global and economic institutions have been studying global happiness extensively. Years ago, I read one of the initial popular books on global happiness that cited Bhutan and Denmark as top countries in happiness, with Bhutan tracking a “gross happiness index” with 33 indicators across 9 domains. The UN’s World Happiness Report states that differences in happiness not only explained by GDP, but also by:
- healthy life expectancy
- freedom to make life choices
- good governance
- generosity
- social support
Applying Happiness Factors for Policy Decisions. With the data showing that happiness is encouraged by healthy life expectancy, good governance, freedom of life choices, social support, and generosity, couldn’t we take each potential policy and create a table that weighs the potential positive impact all of those factors and decide from there? I’m sure Denmark has an Excel sheet we can borrow. Even if there would be differences in interpretations, wouldn’t that at least get US politicians operating out of a similar and more measurable framework? The sad state of the country is that I think it would still be manipulated at the federal level, but perhaps more likely to be used well at the state or local government level.
The idea of well-being inequality driving polarity struck me as a very American issue, with our economic divide of course causing problems, but continued differences even among those of similar income levels demonstrating there is another inequality to examine.
- Well-being inequality. If developing quality of life and thus happiness is the main duty of political leaders, what does the hatred, resentment, and fighting in US politics mean about the state of the US citizen’s collective well-being? Based on my day at the museum, I would propose that the US has conflict among our politicians and citizens partly because of our inequality of well-being/happiness.
- For example, although there are unequal incomes throughout the US, there are also well-being inequalities, such as unequal freedom of choice. For example, limited freedom to make life choices, a key happiness factor, can be seen in controlling abortion policies that are primarily in the south. They take away the “freedom of choice” happiness factor and are a reflection of historically confining women to specific gender roles. Thus a history of lack of freedom of choice and perhaps, in turn, reduced social support in the case of making choices against the cultural norms. A rolling disaster in creating happiness. The polarization isn’t really big versus small government anymore, it’s with wanting to regulate different things.
- Perhaps less related to politicians and policy, there is inequality is in uneven levels of willingness or education to support translating economic prosperity into wellness (ie. therapy, social support groups), despite financial means. I guess that would be under the happiness factor of “good governance,” being “good self-governance.” If our government isn’t translating our wealth into happiness, I supposed we require the support and awareness to do so ourselves.
- Well-being inequality. Where we are in terms of psychological, community, and financial safety affects what we want out of government policies. I would postulate that people in the US who are higher in happiness, or want to be higher in happiness factors, (prolonged life, freedom in life choices, generosity, support systems) are searching for better social policies that would propel them into more supportive lives, such as the life of those in Denmark who have helpful childcare policies, employment security, and other social support that they see would help themselves and others. Those “happy” people and politicians are up against people with lower happiness, who are operating out of fear, conflict, and struggle, perhaps unknowing or unwilling to understand the factors shown to improve happiness.
- Happiness elevates towards being values-centric. In addition to attending the museum, I also browsed a dating app to see what the scene was like here in Copenhagen. It stuck out that people’s dating profiles here were highly values-centric. The US tended to be based on appearances and activities, while Copenhagen profiles had many people sharing their value of empathy, time offline, and positivity…I also saw way more interest in things like board games and cafe hopping, which, personally, is great for me. Perhaps I have a nice warm appreciation about Copenhagen profiles after putting myself through what I am realizing was a very painful relationship in which the other party almost entirely avoided values topics. (an aside…the topics were avoided to the point where it was essentially gaslighting, closing off the opportunities or initiatives to discuss, despite feeling entitled to the benefits of a serious relationship).
- If only I had been raised in Denmark with the highest levels of trust between people, I would bet that level of trust translated to learning to trust oneself. Or if only I had been raised in Denmark, where people had generally solid home lives that allowed them to elevate to exploring values rather than hiding hurt, resentment, and harmful related values that would make most potential partners run the other way. If only! Luckily, I am here in Denmark now to explore, learn, and appreciate what I have recently been missing, or failing to enact and prioritize, due to my own ignorance of a better way.
- Happiness and Trust. In exploring, learning, dating, and understanding the US, I have a bit of a reflection on how recently, my examination of partners has become more of an investigative screening to make sure they are emotionally well (a screening that has become more rigorous). While Denmark is a country with some of the highest levels of trust between people, in the US, I’ve had to taper my trust. For years, I had trusted we were all on the same page of being open and respectful, at the least, but the last few years has been full of partners not able to show up as their genuine true selves (again, probably because the wounded true self needed professional care). I allowed the person’s words and explanations to leave me having trust in them, which is what you would do with someone trustworthy.
- Who was I to not believe what someone said? Or to call it quits because I felt their resentment was a bigger problem than they realized or could admit to? It is a strange lesson to learn to trust what I saw in another person over how they presented themselves, owning the sad idea that their presentation could be fraudulent, whether purposefully or neglectfully.
- Unhappiness and Disordered Relating. Although trauma and family problems are not unique to the US, those issues do not seem to be as much of an issue in countries where people and children have support (and higher levels of happiness) like Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark. It seems like the experiences that probably lead to situation-developed narcissistic/self-centered coping mechanisms rarely exist in happier locations (those damaging coping mechanisms also aren’t expanded upon with a culture of materialism and anti-intellectualism that the US experiences).
- What a treat it must be to start a relationship with real, mutual trust and openness. It makes me think that the seemingly conservative way to date by making sure someone came from a “good family” doesn’t necessarily mean the family has money or status, but is about making sure that potential partners are most apt to be emotionally healthy individuals and have the friends, family, or other social support to help them through trauma or life challenges.
- It’s not shaming someone who came from a hard place, nor being an elitist, but I think what I’m describing are social systems that aim to develop healthy people and don’t put it on a romantic partner to carry, resolve, and be on the receiving end of someone’s very deep struggles.
- Correcting/Healing with Happiness Principles. To look at myself and the individual, how am I healing with happiness principles (freedom to make life choices, good governance, generosity, and social support)? If I don’t want to be equally damaged or put my hurt on the next real partner, what does it look like to face things with a “happy” mindset?
- In terms of social support, I have leaned on incredible social support. I’ve learned to be open with my feelings and comfortable with those of others’. This has allowed me to support others through their hard times, and created an openness that they are also available to support me. I’ve developed a relationship with a therapist who is there if circumstances require a little more professional support and guidance than friends or family can provide.
- Per the recommendations not to rely on GDP for happiness, I’ve learned to translate my financial means into well-being through fitness, fun things like surf equipment that provide a fun activity, vacations to learn and connect, physical therapy, and meditation retreats with friends.
- I’ve enacted my freedom to choose by being more selective with who I pair up with. I also look forward to choosing my next career that aligns with my strengths and values. In the principle of generosity, I have bought my friends dinner in gratitude and care and welcomed their purchases for me. I’ve put together art events that provide others space to share and also reciprocally develop social support.
- In choice, I’ve chosen to live in California, which has its problems and expenses, but overall, I live in a town that is governed in a way that supports its citizens in operating with happiness principles, and there’s a lot of shared support and joy. I know that not everyone has the opportunities to enact all of the happiness principles, because in the US, there is a financial aspect to them, but I think I have done well with the converting my wealth into opportunities to support happiness in myself and my community.
Happiness and the Organizational Leader. And what does happiness mean for leadership? Going back to the role of politicians to be the people enacting policy that helps the country run and supports their people’s well-being, I think that modern leaders are on a similar course. Their role and contract is to make sure their team is working towards achieving its mission and that people have what they need to be supported and thus happy. That isn’t a simple task and has many competing objectives and tensions. As described by one of the participants in my study, the role of the leader is to create that harmony between accomplishing the mission and making sure people are content and motivated:
If people are productive, they feel good about it. They’re motivated, they have harmony, then you’re going to succeed…I don’t want to say “happy,” but they are content.
That was a lot of initial thoughts. I’ve gone around happiness as related to politics, regions, relationships, a touch on leadership. When there is a drastic inequality in our happiness, it doesn’t seem like we are playing the same game or operating in the same framework.
Potential of Humor. Besides therapy and building social support, which take time, what’s something that’s a more immediate equalizer? To conclude this exploratory reflection, I would propose that one equalizer is humility developed by humor. If we can’t all have access to healing or be willing to go through a long process of reflection, perhaps we can at least relate through comedy. While it still doesn’t seem like a great solution for strongly polarized division, perhaps it can further bond people who are towards the middle and make that middle a stronger source to support people all around.
