I was aware of the Minister of Happiness in the UAE and Bhutan's concept of Gross National Happiness before reading this book - and I had thought these ideas rather quaint and benign while maybe a rather positive (if limited) indication that there is some recognition in some places that standard economic growth measures are not the final arbiter of a successful society. But I was wrong. This is a really excellent and important book that argues that the happiness agenda is anything but benign.



I

I was aware of the Minister of Happiness in the UAE and Bhutan's concept of Gross National Happiness before reading this book - and I had thought these ideas rather quaint and benign while maybe a rather positive (if limited) indication that there isrecognition inplaces that standard economic growth measures are not the final arbiter of a successful society. But I was wrong. This is a really excellent and important book that argues that the happiness agenda is anything but benign.I opened it with a little trepidation, as one of the authors is Eva Illouz - an important sociologist - whose Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism I read recently and found interesting but quite difficult. Manufacturing Happy Citizens: How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control our Lives is, in contrast, more accessible and readable - maybe because it is jointly authored with Edgar Cabanas whose other work I have not read. I think I maybe should have read these two books in reverse order.The book begins with an overview of the Positive Psychology paradigm and its interdisciplinary relative, Happiness Economics. Rather rapidly, one learns that - far from a societal driver that foregrounds individual and collective (this is particularly important) flourishing, these legitimise "" and "" (p. 9). This resonates and aligns with neoliberal conceptions of the individual - as the endlessly quoted Hayek-ian phrase of Margaret Thatcher "" summarises. What lies behind that statement was her understanding that economics is also ato change hearts and minds (towards a less collective, and more individual and atomised society). This motif - the focus on the individual and the primacy of individual responsibility - is ever present throughout the book.The positive psychologists adopt various scientific methodologies that are highly contested, and this is discussed in some detail, but epistemological criticisms apart, one central "discovery" (which is something that we all knew anyway) is that happiness does not necessarily correlate with such things as personal wealth. But a legitimised so-called "scientific validation" of this is grist to the neoliberal mill - and it can be used to justify more-or-less any inequity one pleases. Moreover, in placing the responsibility for happiness upon the individual, any failure or weakness is understood to be personal. And not just failure but also dissatisfaction: what a weapon of obedience for organisations and institutions. This trick - turning a lack of correlation into a norm - is the heart of the matter - and one that can be (and is being) used to drive policy.Once the contours of positive psychology are outlined, the reader is likely to think rather quickly of numerous ways in which this all appears confused and reductive. As the book progresses most of those are cashed out in detail. For example who is the paradigm individual to whom this is addressed? Roughly speaking it looks to be a somewhat alienated middle-class employee - with, perhaps, no job satisfaction and a life replete with various fairly typical personal crises. When pushed, however, the positive psychologist is not afraid to dive as far down as slum dwellers. They quote Barbara Fredrickson ", which turns the truism into a devastating politics. But, mostly, the target is(pp. 150 - 157). It is clear, for instance, that the target audience is not, let's say, the billionaire - if these observations are true, generalisable, and have political implications, might we raise income and wealth taxes to eye-watering levels and use the same decoupling of wealth and happiness to justify this? Arguing perhaps that the former billionaires change their attitude to their new circumstances?Then there is the absolutely awful conceptual analysis. Richard Layard the happiness economist writes "" (p.37) - which makes you think immediately (surely) of the happy faces on the photographs of lynching in the southern states of the US. Indeed, Martin Seligman the father of the discipline says: "" (p. 53). He understands thataction can be called an instance of happiness and lists serial killing among other examples. While condemning such activities he says this can be done only on other grounds, noting that positive psychology is descriptive and neutral. The authors see this as a massive contradiction "" (p. 54). In any case, it would seem that at no point do any positive psychologists or happiness economists or self-help gurus who thrive on this, ever write anything which doesn't in fact assume an alignment between what makes one happy and what is perfectly moral.It is, perhaps, the chapter entitled "" that contains the most penetrating critique. Here, in contradistinction to Martin Seligman's recognition of theof alignment between happiness and the moral, we have Gretchen Rubin justifying and connecting happiness directly with the moral: "" To this our authors respond that this is a "" (p. 149 - the quote is by Alenka Zupančič ). Indeed - perhaps the situation warrants complaint and annoyance.The clear message is just how over-simplistic, reductive, and confused this whole happiness enterprise is. Think about it in Kantian mode: the is/ought distinction is here atransition (see, for example, the excellent books by Susan Neiman such as Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-up Idealists and Why Grow Up?: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age ) and the emotions are fundamentally implicated in the transition - we feel a certain way about whatthe case, and our reactions to that lead us to imagine whatto be. What might make us happy might be one possible and legitimate reaction - the authors say clearly "" - and, yes, it is possible that Gretchen Rubin's character complains and gets annoyed too much. These ideas - that it makes sense for us to reflect on our lives, make honest assessments, and set ourselves goals - are sensible and hardly new - they are part of what Socrates meant when he said that the unexamined life is not worth living. But, of course, by "life" he meant much more than simply looking inward towards are own. Similarly, there are many other emotions that might warrant an investigation into how what is might inspire a vision of what ought to be: directly after I had finished this book I picked up Timothy Snyder's new book Our Malady: Lessons in Liberty from a Hospital Diary which - inspired by thehe felt while possibly dying of sepsis earlier this year (p. 6 of that book) - examines theof current US health care and explores whatto be. What he wasn't doing in his hospital bed was some sub-Stoic navel gazing. Other examples of course proliferate - the poverty of this thin gruel of happiness alone is so easily exposed. But the attraction of such a reductive philosophy is so easy to see in a world dominated by neoliberal individualism: if you are not content at work then it isas is the case if you have no job at all. Such views will make for good corporate citizens but rule out the possibility that this discontent is well warranted on other grounds - and worth addressing on the basis of other emotions - that also, possibly,In a way, the entire book might be summarised by the tag quote from The Varieties of Religious Experience for chapter 5 (p. 146) "