The empathy code

 

If we want to participate in public life in any capacity and find happiness as individuals, we must allow all realities to overflow into one another instead of compartmentalising our existence

There was a time when many of us could go about our lives with very little care about what was going on beyond our circle of existence. The use of the word, ‘our’, in the first line is specific. It refers to the socially privileged middle and upper classes. For those in this group who had financial difficulties or limitations, making ends meet and the aspiration for a better life shut out the outside world. For those who lived far above the common financial tree line, the real world was immaterial. Personal, emotional, and psychological struggles covered the entire spectrum of society although the causes may have been different.

Knowledge about happenings in the larger world were first received through announcers who went around villages. Then came posters, newspapers, radio, television and so on. The time it took for information to reach individuals depended on their location. The further away people were from a city, the probability that they got to know of worldwide happenings was lesser. When news did reach after a couple of weeks, what it really meant to them was also different. The understandings of space and time have been constantly changing. When someone in Thanjavur said ‘from the North’ about two hundred years ago, he was probably referring to Vijayanagaram or thereabouts. Today, when the same expression is used, it transports our imagination to the Red Fort. The inverse is also true. The idea of what is local has also expanded. Even if the extent of this comprehension varies from region to region, there is a universal understanding that all of us inhabit the local and the global simultaneously and our actions are all inter-connected.

The internet has played an enormous role in collapsing our world. Images, moving pictures and words travel the earth at the speed of light, offering people living on two ends of the planet glimpses of each other’s realities. Today, a person living in Maputo, Mozambique, can learn about the forest fires in Australia and a resident of Angamaly in India can gain insights into changes in go­vernment in South America. Even though all these happenings are available online and algorithms do their thing, the thirst to know more needs to come from the individual. Let us proceed with the assumption that this effort has been made.

Along with the innumerable joyful events, we are also constantly witnessing violence of various shades. There is a war in Ukraine, Gaza is being bombed insistently, Afghanistan is a land of oppression under the Taliban, and there are civil wars in Syria and in Lebanon. Within India, Manipur is still a place of deep division and aggression, Muslims and Dalits are targets of brutality, the number of activists and journalists being arrested is ever increasing, and constitutional institutions are under attack. In my state, Tamil Nadu, Dalits are targeted by powerful caste lobbies, honour killings are rampant, there is continued corporatisation of public services, and degradation of our environment. Then, there are local issues that engulf my city and ultra-local troubles faced by people in my suburb and street. I have listed those problems that come through my social media feed and interactions. I am certain they are mediated by my priorities and, therefore, ignore many concerns of others.

With so much information reaching us instantly, there is a thought that comes to the mind of any person engaged in this wider world dominated by hurt, anger and destruction. We wonder, at least occasionally, whether it is okay to find happiness, laugh at the silliest of things, and actively seek pleasure. I am not suggesting that people should remain permanently remorseful or live in guilt. But there is indeed a real emotional contradiction. At one moment, we read about a child being hacked to death and, then, within an hour, we are celebrating a victory in a cricket match. Even reading these two events in the same line is deeply disturbing. We can ignore this entire train of thought by speaking of separating the personal and the public or of the need for self-preservation. But this is escapism. A deeper discussion about this dichotomy is required without choosing sides between perpetual guilt and utter insensitivity.

What might be needed is to allow this contradiction to play out without judgement while we take part in both, completely and seriously. Happiness is also a serious business. When we stumble upon preciousness while spending time with our family or when we laugh hysterically at a meme, we should commit to those moments. Similarly, when we are learning about the horrors unfolding in others’ lives, even if it is via news bulletins, it must be a committed act. The problem is that both these activities are half-hearted. It is not only to protect ourselves from sadness but we are also unable to celebrate life. It is this overall state of dis-earnestness that needs to be discarded. When we give ourselves to whatever we are doing, there is honesty. With honesty comes pause and measure. This results in a tempering of our privileged lives. No one can prescribe temperament levels, but an inner compass becomes operational.

The jarring part of these shifts in states is the suddenness of the switch. When we look back at our day, we are uncomfortable with how we behaved. The lack of any flow in these transitions is reflective of the need to wish away or forget. One can understand the want to erase the unpleasant, but why would we do that to the pleasant? The presumption that we want to hold on to all happiness is flawed. If happiness is a product of, or results in an affirmation of our ‘self’, like when we receive appreciation, we will hold on to it. But if the delight is for someone else, in which we are partaking, it is only a passing phase. The reduced involvement in the happiness of others and the need to forget the negatives of life are two sides of the same coin.

As participants, we are also under pressure from within to react to all that is going on around the world. This is not to counter whataboutery, but to satisfy our own sense of equivalence. This urgency diminishes the intensity of our learning; whatever we say or do is thus superficial, if not trivial. This is, once again, not about the suffering of the people whom we speak of or for, but more about feeling better about ourselves. It might be wise to remain silent and let response take its own course. When it comes from such a place, it naturally gives the stage to those who need it while we remain on the sidelines as allies.

De-centralising life from our personal needs helps in finding a way to navigate the contrasts thrown at us. Empathy is not just about feeling another’s pain; it is as much about rejoicing in the celebration of others. Democratic values are born from empathy and collective happiness also finds its soul in empathy. If we want to participate in public life in any capacity and find happiness as individuals, we must allow all realities to overflow into one another instead of compartmentalising our existence.

T.M. Krishna

Source: The Telegraph, 27/10/23

A Happy Life~I

 Some Western international agencies bring out annual indices of happiness to rank different countries according to parameters devised by them. These rankings only reflect their own cultural, racial or civilisational bias without bearing an iota of truth, and are intended to generally demonstrate the so-called superiority of the West which is now slowly decaying politically, morally and also economically over the rest of the world.

All human beings ~ men and women, young and old, rich and poor, well and unwell, want to be happy, so much so that happiness has been equated with the meaning and essence of life, reason of our existence, our ultimate destiny.

“The purpose of our lives is to be happy”, as the Dalai Lama has said. The idea of power and wealth, fame and recognition, position and status, all become meaningless before that supreme state of being called happiness, even though these very things often bring happiness to the minds of ordinary mortals.

But many also believe, like Marcus Aurelius that, “Remember this, that very little is needed to make a happy life.” If you are happy, that is an end in itself and nothing else is needed in life.

But what is happiness, that impossible and unreachable El Dorado we all seek and strive to reach at every turn of our lives? To be able to analyse anything, we need first to define it, and here we find that it is impossible to define happiness.

There are many definitions available though, and most of these are clichéd, like the oft-quoted definition given by 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon: “It is not how much we have, but how much we enjoy, that makes happiness.” Philosophers and spiritual leaders have told us that one’s happiness is derived not from material possessions, neither from sensual pleasures and nor from anything outside of oneself, but relates to one’s state of mind. William James, regarded as the founder of American psychology, wrote in 1902: “If you can change your mind, you can change your life.”

But the problem is that the mind cannot be permanent in an equilibrium state ~ it is ever changing. Hence happiness cannot be a constant state of euphoria, but rather a balance of emotions that somehow brings a sense of meaning, purpose and fulfilment. It is not an end or a goal, but only a state of “being”. Happiness is often equated or confused with “well-being” which is produced by interplay of a number of extraneous factors like income, health, education, basic liberties, choices available, relationships, physical and social security, etc. But even then, it is a subjective sense of well-being, which is neither measurable nor quantifiable.

Yet some Western international agencies bring out annual indices of happiness to rank different countries according to parameters devised by them. These rankings only reflect their own cultural, racial or civilisational bias without bearing an iota of truth, and are intended to generally demonstrate the socalled superiority of the West ~ which is now slowly decaying politically, morally and also economically ~ over the rest of the world.

A New York-based agency called Sustainable Development Solutions Network brings out an annual World Happiness Report, whose 2023 version has ranked India at 126th position out of 136 countries, much below strife-torn countries like Palestine (ranked 99), Iran (101), Sri Lanka (112), Myanmar (117) or Ethiopia (124), many of which ruthlessly suppress the civil liberties of their people. Their rankings depend on six parameters: per capita income, social support, life expectancy at birth, freedom to make life choices, charity, and perceptions of corruption.

It does not require superlative intelligence to divine that all these parameters are derivatives of a single parameter, i.e., wealth of a nation, and hence will always favour rich nations over poor ones. So, the richer you are, the happier you are; in other words, income is synonymous with happiness, an assumption not validated by facts, just as happiness cannot be equated with success in material terms. Happiness research is primarily based on people’s perception which can be assessed through surveys.

The mind is influenced by social and cultural factors; hence how we perceive happiness also depends on these factors. In collectivist societies like Japan, people reckon happiness more as a shared experience rather than individual satisfaction with life, whereas in individualistic societies, people perceive happiness more in terms of individual satisfaction, and also in comparison to others. Happy people increase the happiness of others around them; hence bonding within social groups and families contributes positively to happiness. But is happiness a choice in the sense that we can exercise control over it?

Buddhists believe mediation gives one control over one’s mind and hence over happiness. There are infinite websites that tell us how to be happy through mindfulness, feeling of gratitude towards “universe”, focusing on the “inner self”, replacing negative thoughts, etc., none of which sounds practically very convincing. Sociologists, scientists and economists bring another paradigm ~ they believe happiness is more the outcome of institutional and economic forces shaped by power differences between groups rather than a matter individual choice.

Thus, black people in America are less likely than whites to feel happy, a fact corroborated by studies. Groups with lesser power, income, wealth or influence are generally less happy than those who have more of these. Studies have found that income inequality is one major cause of unhappiness of people at the lower end of distribution.

A 2011 US study found that as income inequality grew, people in the lower half of the income range felt less happy. In recent times a movement called positive psychology, which treats happiness as “subjective well-being”, is gaining ground by focussing on the positive events and influences in life, rather than the negative and dysfunctional ones.

It lays emphasis on positive experiences like joy, inspiration or love, positive traits like gratitude or compassion, and positive institutions that apply and encourage these principles. But positivity has its own negativity too, as Edgar Cabanas and Eva Illouz explored in their book “Manufacturing Happy Citizens:

How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control our Lives”. They showed how happiness has been woven into the very fabric of power by a neoliberal alliance of psychologists, economists and self-help gurus.

Propped by influential institutions and multinational corporations, these “experts” often force governments to use oppressive policies and interventions to change people’s behaviour for what they believe are more successful, meaningful and healthier lives. In her 2007 book “The How of Happiness”, the positive psychology researcher Sonja Lyubomirsky describes happiness as “the experience of joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is good, meaningful, and worthwhile.” Each of the terms here lends itself to varying interpretations.

To avoid such possible confusion, Aristotle had said much earlier, “Happiness depends upon ourselves.” Without trying to define, the British-American anthropologist Ashley-Montagu had said, “The moments of happiness we enjoy take us by surprise. It is not that we seize them, but that they seize us.” It is perhaps a functional definition, because we all experience such “surprise” moments that bring happiness.

Thomas Hardy has said, “Happiness is only an occasional episode in the general drama of pain” surrounding us, like tiny islands of hope in a vast, dark and desolate ocean. There are many who think that happiness consists in having a stream of small joys and pleasures to fill our days, and that happiness can be understood only on a daily basis, because there is no enduring, permanent, everlasting happiness.

“And they lived happily ever afterwards” is only a cliché, much too overused and meaningless. Most of us have everything we need to live happily ~ a nice family, successful kids, a good home, maybe a car too, a reasonable income, a reasonably good professional career ~ yet we are very unhappy at times. Events outside our control, like natural calamities, disruptive technologies, global financial crises, mental health issues etc. can completely overtake us, ejecting us out of our orbit of happiness. There is no linear pathway to happiness that can insure against all insecurities, and, in fact, it has ceased to be an individual choice.

Happiness is today measured by society, not by the individual. Society measures happiness by one’s ability to achieve more, accumulate more, hoard more, consume more, display more. In this unknown and enchanting land of “ever mores”, there is no rulebook, no ethics, no morality, no bounds whatsoever.

The brave new world equates happiness with success and success with happiness, and success is equated with limitless “more”, to keep pace with a restless world that is changing too fast ~ indeed, much faster than our ability to adapt and find peace in its swirl of uncertainty. Penny Locaso, an Australian entrepreneur and author of the book “Hacking Happiness: How to Intentionally Adapt and Shape the Future You Want” said, “Happiness is not a destination. It’s a state of mind, and you don’t need to be in it every moment of every day. Not only is that impossible, but it’s also unhealthy. Life is complex and uncertain. Ups and downs are normal….

How do you experience happiness if you don’t know sadness and pain?” Is sadness and pain, then, integral to happiness? It would be the ultimate incongruity if to understand happiness, first you have to go through pain and suffering, despair and frustration.

But the reality is that many people who have suffered devastating financial or emotional catharsis, have overcome their losses and their fears of uncertainty, and learnt to live simpler, balanced and fulfilling lives.

Psychologists refer to this as “emodiversity” ~ the ability to experience a diverse range of emotions in equal measures. But it is always the human connections that play a definitive role in human happiness.

GOVIND BHATTACHARJEE

Source: The Statesman, 25/05/23

Happiness, beyond measure

People are jumping on to the Gross National Happiness bandwagon, in an attempt to capture something that remains elusive

What is common to Bhutan, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Madhya Pradesh? All of them have a ministry/department for happiness. Bhutan is talked about the most, with the idea of GNH (Gross National Happiness) presented as some kind of alternative to GDP (gross domestic product). GNH is built into Bhutan’s constitution, in Article 9, on Principles of State Policy. What is invariably quoted is Article 9.2: “The State shall strive to promote those conditions that will enable the pursuit of Gross National Happiness.” However, this follows Article 9.1: “The State shall endeavour to apply the Principles of State Policy set out in this Article to ensure a good quality of life for the people of Bhutan in a progressive and prosperous country that is committed to peace and amity in the world.”

Operationally, what does this mean? Those who mention Bhutan talk about GNHI (Gross National Happiness Index), administered by the Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Research. GNHI is based on four pillars (political, economic, cultural and environmental) and nine domains (which can be skipped for present purposes). There were surveys in 2010 and 2015 to determine how Bhutan performed on GNHI. Hence, along a happiness/unhappiness continuum, progress could be measured and one had an aggregate measure that was an alternative or supplement to GDP, based on subjective responses to questionnaires that were then aggregated. To state the obvious, Bhutan has a population of around 7,50,000.

But I don’t think the alternative or supplementary summary measure is the point. The point is the Planning Commission and Committee of Secretaries being subsumed in the Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC). In other words, feedback received from GNHI surveys is factored into government policies and public expenditure priorities, reflected in central and local body plans. More than the aggregate measure, if I have understood the idea right, this suggests decentralised planning to me. Ascertain the needs of gram panchayats/urban local bodies. Use those local plans to aggregate and move up to a block level, district level and national plan. If we get too fixated on the alternative to the GDP idea, we lost sight of this process, the operational and much more important part.

After a lot of sarcastic comments and dark humour in 2013, I haven’t heard much about Venezuela’s vice ministry of supreme social happiness. Perhaps it just vanished, because of chaos and general uncertainty. The initial idea seems to have been to converge anti-poverty programmes directed at disabled, homeless, poor and old-age pensioners. Unlike Bhutan, you don’t ask people what their priorities are. Given the ideology of the government, you know what people want, or should want. At best, you synergise across schemes. This also illustrates why discussions on happiness that mention both Bhutan and Venezuela in the same breath are misleading.

I don’t think it is fair to place UAE in the same bracket either. In 2016, UAE announced a new ministry (and minister of state) for happiness. It may be early days, but so far, all this ministry seems to have done is to train officers from federal and local government to become “chief happiness and positivity officers”. I am not sure the UN General Assembly Resolution of July 19, 2011 was a very good idea: “(1) Invites Member States to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies; (2) Invites those Member States that have taken initiatives to develop new indicators, and other initiatives, to share information thereon with the Secretary-General as a contribution to the United Nations development agenda, including the Millennium Development Goals”.

Irrespective of what is done to public policy formulation, people are jumping on to the bandwagon of measuring and pushing something that is, at best, elusive. The UN’s World Happiness Report, an annual feature since 2012, is based on diverse indicators across GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make choices, generosity and perceptions of corruption (trust). Measure a country’s distance from the perfect dystopia and you have a rank and a score. In 2016, India had a rank of 118 out of 150 countries.

If citizens are happier in a certain country, presumably people would want to migrate there, given a choice. In 2016, the top three countries were Denmark, Switzerland and Iceland and both Nepal and Bangladesh have higher ranks than India. It is worth checking out the number of Indian immigrants to these five countries. Among India’s states, Madhya Pradesh was the first one to start a happiness department in 2016. It is early days there too. At the moment, the focus is on volunteers training people to positively impact the lives of others. This is thus an attempt to bring about behavioural changes in people, not behavioural changes within government.

Such disparity across three countries and a state should remind you of the clichéd blind men and the elephant and perhaps of John Godfrey Saxe’s poem too. Most people will remember how the poem starts. “It was six men of Indostan..” And this is how it ends: “So, oft in theologic wars/ The disputants, I ween/ Rail on in utter ignorance/ Of what each other mean/ And prate about an Elephant/ Not one of them has seen!” For happiness too, theology is a good expression, because that’s what the fetish about measurement has reduced it too. The means of measurement have become more important than the end.

The writer is a member of Niti Aayog. Views are personal

Source: Indian Express, 16-02-2017