The Decline of Happiness: Are Freedom and Individualism to Blame?
“We may have reached a tipping point where increases in consumer choices no longer pay happiness dividends.” — Bill Gorton
Editor’s note: Faculty member Bill Gorton describes his recent
research on the decline of happiness and responds to recent media
attention he has received in Canada.
By Dr. William Gorton, Assistant Professor of Political Science
A paper that I presented in June at the Congress of the Humanities and
Social Sciences in Vancouver titled "Too Much of a Good Thing?:
Freedom, Individualism, Autonomy and the Decline of Happiness in
Liberal Democracies" has drawn a lot of attention in the Canadian
press. It was the subject of a front-page story in the National Post
as well as several opinion pieces. I’m flattered by the unexpected
attention, but I’m not sure that my ideas have been well understood.
In the paper I note that despite an average doubling of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) per capita in the world’s liberal democracies during the
past half-century, citizens’ self-reported happiness levels in these
countries have stagnated or perhaps even declined a bit. At the same
time, the rate of clinical depression has markedly increased, by up to
10-fold, and suicide has gone up, too. The causes of the stall in
happiness and the increase in depression remain unclear, but there is
some evidence that freedom and individualism may be partly implicated.
Bill Gorton
Consumer
choice — and the wealth that allows for such choice — represents a kind
of freedom. And indeed surveys indicate that prosperous societies are
generally happier than poor ones. But psychologists have found that an
abundance of consumer choice often produces more anxiety than
satisfaction. People may have more and more options when choosing
toothpaste, breakfast cereals and mutual funds, but they don’t
necessarily feel more pleased with their purchases. We may have reached
a tipping point where increases in consumer choices no longer pay
happiness dividends.
But freedom is much more than consumer choice. It also includes the
civil rights and liberties that liberal democracies claim to defend,
such as freedom of speech, religion and political participation.
Repressive societies that lack such freedoms tend to be miserable.
However, there isn’t any evidence that I’m aware of indicating that an
erosion of such freedoms in the established liberal democracies lies
behind the recent stagnation in happiness or the spike in depression.
Regarding the latter, a more likely source is the individualism that
countries like Canada and, particularly, the United States celebrate.
Individualism may be defined as emphasis on pursuit of one’s own goals
rather than commitment to the aims or interests of a group. In
societies governed by individualism, the ties of family, community and
tradition tend to erode. This, in turn, leaves people more vulnerable
to depression and suicide when they encounter serious ill fortune, such
as a death in the family, divorce or loss of a job.
My discussion of the ways in which freedom and individualism can
paradoxically undermine happiness has led some commentators to conclude
that I think freedom is bad for people and that the world would be a
happier place if overeducated eggheads, such as myself, would make
decisions on behalf of others. Let me emphasize that I think human
freedom is valuable in itself, regardless of whether it makes people
happy or not. A happy world without freedom is conceivable — think of
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World — but certainly not desirable.
In addition to depriving people of their autonomy, such a society would
also rob its inhabitants of their human dignity. In any event, in the
real world happiness and freedom generally go together. Despite the
relatively recent stagnation of happiness in the wealthy democracies,
they remain the happiest societies in the world, at least according to
comparative surveys.
The aim of my paper was principally to explore the tension between
freedom and happiness rather than to propose solutions. However, I did
briefly discuss so-called soft paternalism, an idea that has been
developed most thoroughly by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in their
new book Nudge.
Soft paternalism starts with the observation that many of the important
choices we make in life are necessarily, although often
unintentionally, biased toward some outcome. For example, when a
company hires a new employee, they often offer him or her the
opportunity to enroll in a company-supported retirement plan.
Typically, the new hire must fill out some forms to join the program.
But, often owing to lack of foresight or sheer laziness, many people
decline to avail themselves of this benefit. Soft paternalism suggests
making enrollment in retirement programs the default option rather than
non-enrollment. Employees would be automatically enrolled in such plans
but would always retain the right to unenroll themselves. Their options
— enrollment or non-enrollment — would remain the same and so would
their freedom. But this choice structure would subtly push employees
toward an outcome that would benefit most employees. If it is objected
that this smacks too much of the “nanny state,” consider that leaving
non-enrollment as the default option also subtly channels employees
toward a particular option, one that would be harmful to the majority
of them. Sometimes there is no avoiding the nanny. So why not choose a
nanny who will direct us toward options that will tend to make most of
us healthier, wealthier and, yes, happier?
Soft paternalism seems like an attractive idea to me. If it were to be
more widely adopted perhaps the world would be a slightly happier place
and no less free, which is not to say that I would necessarily endorse
every policy that flies under its banner. I doubt, however, that soft
paternalism would do much to reduce clinical depression and suicide,
which appear to be caused in part by individualism. But apart from
fostering awareness of the potential perils of too much emphasis on the
self, I’m not sure that anything should be done to rein in
individualism. This is because, while individualistic cultures tend to
be more prone to depression and suicide, they are also on average
happier than collectivist societies. Paradoxically, perhaps depression
and suicide are the high price we pay for living in happy societies.
Posted: Thu, June 26th, 2008 at 9:38AM
