Happiness, Sadness and Government

G Duncan

doi:10.5195/hcs.2013.130

Abstract

Policy-making that re-presents – as objects of concern and by means of statistics – the suffering or depression and the happiness of populations indicates an evolving form of governance that examines and reshapes subjectivity itself. Never before have states of subjectivity been acted upon, through surveys, statistical and policy analysis, and scientific disciplines, to the extent seen today. This article: Documents changing epistemic co-ordinates, especially in psychology and economics, that first occluded happiness in the interests of objectivity, but, in recent decades, marked out a renewed ‘science’ of happiness.Examines changes in the discursive formulation of depression, as a counterpart to happiness.Argues that, seen in terms of bio-power, contemporary concerns for happiness and depression are consistent – rather than incompatible – with one another. How can so many claim to be happy when so many, we are told, are depressed, anxious or suffering emotional pain? There is no underlying contradiction here, for two reasons: Happiness and depression are manifestations of the same political discourse (or aspects of a political subjectivity) characterized by dis-inhibition, consumer self-indulgence and performance anxiety. And, just as we needed madness in order to understand ‘sanity,’ or the prison in order to view ourselves as ‘free,’ so we rely upon concerns about depression in order to understand and act upon ourselves as subjects capable of unlimited happiness.

Highlights

Since antiquity, happiness has served a central role in political theory
While positive psychology has sought to go beyond the study of pathology, I argue that contemporary happiness studies and happiness imperatives need to be understood alongside contemporary depression, sadness and suffering
Augmenting Ehrenberg’s conclusion that depression is ‘the inexorable counterpart of the human being who is her/his own sovereign’ (Ehrenberg, 2010, p. 219), I argue that depression is the counterpart of the autonomous human being who is supposed to be capable of unlimited happiness, and whose duty is to perform and be happy

Summary

Introduction

Happiness (or eudaimonia) has served a central role in political theory. Never before have such states of subjectivity been acted upon, by means of surveys, statistical and policy analysis, and scientific disciplines, to the extent seen today. We may ask, ‘Within what epistemic coordinates did a science and a politics of happiness become intellectually possible, but convincing, or even necessary?’ I address this by observing how the rise of interest in happiness has been associated with perceptual shifts within the disciplines of psychology and economics. As social-surveying and public-health techniques expanded, the ‘inner frontier’ of subjectivity has re-appeared before the gaze of these disciplines. The recent politico-scientific concern for happiness arises in tandem with the ‘rise’ of depression. While positive psychology has sought to go beyond the study of pathology, I argue that contemporary happiness studies and happiness imperatives need to be understood alongside contemporary depression, sadness and suffering

Be Happy!

Happiness Redux

Happiness and Public Policy

The Rise of Depression

Conclusion