One can’t erase history, nor would one necessarily want to. In many, perhaps most, societies in the course of human history there have been hierarchies organized into the haves and have-nots, although the point that Quiggen is making is that the vast majority of people simply did not have much, nor did they aspire to more. Most people, today, embrace a life of increased comfort and less physical toil that has been brought about by modern technology. People can be more productive and waste less energy in backbreaking labor or tedious toil. However, for the average citizen, the change to an age of great prosperity has brought about a case, on a large scale, of citizenry jumping on the “hedonic treadmill” (adapting to what you have and wanting more). This is due largely to the perception that if you don’t keep attaining more in the way of material goods, your neighbors, the Joneses, will have more than you. The perception that you have less leads to “economic unhappiness.”
Given that Quiggins is writing for an education journal, one solution to “economic unhappiness,” for him, lies in education, and he discusses the ideas of Bartolini, an Italian economist, at length. Bartolini argues for an education based on the “intrinsic enjoyment of learning and creation rather than on the “extrinsic goals of money, jobs, and social status.” With a renewed focus on testing and “no child left behind” policies, perhaps this is seen as a new idea. As an educator and former teacher myself, I can’t conceive of any good teacher not being concerned with inspiring in children a love of learning for its own sake. In addition, education is no panacea. Naturally, it’s a good place to try to implement societal change, but education and those being educated tend to reflect the larger society. There’s only so much that can be placed on education in terms of reforming a society.
A different kind of education is promoted by Buddhism and the Dalai Llama. This is the education and training of the mind through meditation and disciplined action. In the Dalai Llama’s book, "How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life," he states that to be happy, you should aspire to simplicity in food, clothing, and shelter. Much as I revere the Dalai Llama and his teachings, I know I am not ready to embrace Buddhism entirely. I am not yet ready to relinquish my preoccupation with eating well (healthy, organic, vegetarian, gourmet), trying to dress stylishly in my own very modest way, and working (together with my husband) on our very old and very comfortable house in order to maintain and improve it. What is life without the small daily pleasures? We live comfortably (something I am grateful for every day), but relatively modestly. We live in keeping with the style of the majority of our neighbors, i.e., a middle class life style. We do, in our way, I suppose, “keep up with the Joneses.” But I do worry; I worry that this style of life is unsustainable (the environment) or unfair (the poor and unfortunate). So every day, despite my grateful attitude, I have a guilty conscience, and wish I could do with less, especially if it meant that those who suffer would suffer less and that the environment could be saved. With the exception of those special people who fully live their convictions, most people live with conflicting values and lives full of contradictions. I certainly do, how about you?
To return to the idea of the economics of happiness (or unhappiness) on a larger scale, there is the idea that countries should adopt GNH (gross national happiness) as an alternative to GDP (gross domestic product) as a measure of a nation’s well-being. The tiny nation of Bhutan has done just that, and Nicolas Sarkozy (president of France) and Gordon Brown (British Prime Minister) are also interested in adopting GNH as at least part of their measures of national well-being, according to the article, Strategizing the Goals of GNH. Would you be in favor of the United States following suit? I know I would.
