Happiness has become big news. Most people pursue happiness: some have a pretty good idea how their happiness can be achieved; others don’t have a clue what makes them happy, knowing only that they are not happy; and there are those who don’t assume happiness is their destiny and are leaving happiness until after they are dead.
Last week the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced that from April 2011 the Office for National Statistics would be measuring happiness. This mind-boggling task has to be admired: not only does Cameron want to have an idea how the country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is looking, he would like to have a grasp on how happy British people are. So why does this initiative leave me feel feeling uneasy?
When announcing this initiative Cameron qualified what he was proposing by saying ‘you cannot capture happiness on a spreadsheet’ as well as ‘you cannot reduce happiness to a statistic’. However, he went on to contradict this by claiming that this Index will give ‘a general picture of whether life is improving’ and ‘will help the government work out with evidence the best way to help people’s well being’.
Is it possible for a government to promote happiness? In the remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan the government must consider every policy for its impact not only on GDP but GNH (Gross National Happiness): consequently there is no advertising, limited television and no plastic bags. This Shangri-La whose population is less than 900,000 was an absolute monarchy until 2008 when it had its first election. This is a country about to grow up.
Cameron’s initiative also smacks of Victorian philanthropists, such as Titus Salt who had an idea how people could be happy. Alongside his Yorkshire wool mills, Salt built a town with neat houses for the workers, institutes for improving classes, but no pubs.
Both of these utopias rely on a population of submissive people who embrace the idea of someone else working out with evidence the best way to help people’s well being. Whilst I embrace the discussion Cameron has started, can someone who is also balancing the country’s books assess happiness and not interpret the statistics to suit their actions?
Perhaps what makes me most uneasy is that our experiences will be collected, added up and divided out to tell us how happy we are. An index of happiness will move away from the individual to give us a score for collective happiness. If the score contradicts how we are feeling, this will further our isolation. If the ‘evidence’ denies the experiences of the marginalised it will exaggerate feelings of being out of step with society and being insignificant.
The state has a duty to provide good health care, security, education and justice – these are the foundations of wellbeing. After that it is up to us to discover what makes us happy: there are as many versions of happiness as there are people in the United Kingdom in 2010. For adults, meaningful happiness is not donated but chosen and earned.
Jane Curzon
Psychotherapist and Counsellor
Regent’s Practice in London W1
www.regentspractice.co.uk