In What Sense Is The Quest For Happiness A Political Ambition, And What Lessons Can Be Learned From History About Its Chances Of Success?

Although critics argue otherwise, happiness as a concept and as a political ambition does have an apparent history. To demonstrate this point, a chronological structure will be used in the first part of this essay tracing the history of happiness and further exploring the changing nature of happiness across time periods. Within the study of different periods, analysed will be how closely happiness was identified as a goal that the government strived towards. Although historiography s general consensus argues that the Declaration of Independence signified happiness becoming a political ambition, I will argue otherwise aligning with Vivasvan Soni who suggests it was here that happiness was written out of politics.[1] Throughout the second half of this essay, the question posed will concern the success of happiness as a political ambition in different historical contexts. Encapsulated in this section will be politics that formed at grassroots levels, including feminism and the civil rights movement, which act as a counter force to the success of happiness& meanwhile giving examples of politics controlling happiness in unethical ways such as the World Wars. From this notion, the failures of politics in acknowledging, let alone achieving, happiness will be uncovered especially in the modern period.

Firstly, the application of lexicon throughout the course of this essay must be accounted for. Tracing the history of happiness as a political ambition requires the historian to stand outside their own contemporary framework, encapsulating the zeitgeist of a particular period of history& a technique Thomas Dixon successfully uses in his study of the word emotion. [2] When applying this methodology, historians will notice lexicon attached to happiness does not always involve the use of the term happiness. Aristotle acts as a primary example as instead of the term happiness, he uses human flourishing or eudemonia , yet such terms equate to what was conceived as happiness in his time. This presents how happiness cannot be identified in a singular framework, recognising how the meaning of happiness has changed throughout history. The original acknowledgement of happiness among historiography is observed in 349 BC, a period dominated by Aristotle s ethical thought. Historians who study solely the history of happiness deduce Aristotle s understanding of the term to his book, Nicomachean Ethics. From Nicomachean Ethics, historians such as Richard Layard have identified Aristotle s term eudemonia or the good life as the equivalent to what we acknowledge now as happiness.[3] Eudemonia in Aristotle s terms required virtue as the primary precept, as well as practical wisdom, contemplation and deliberation& which allowed for human flourishing. [4] Historians of happiness thus assume that eudemonia was a state of mind that encompassed happiness in a private sphere implying happiness was not a political ambition.[5]

However, this interpretation remains limited as it fails to acknowledge other crucial works of Aristotle including Politics, where his concept of eudemonia is seen continually throughout. Thus, to discern if happiness was a political ambition for Aristotle, the best approach incorporates appropriating intellectual history. Historians who specialise in Aristotle s works such as Arthur Adkins argue that Nicomachean Ethics and Politics were intended to be read together,[6] deduced through Aristotle s underlying idea that man is by nature a political animal. [7] This seems a fair assumption, as politics and happiness as well as the private and public life were incorporated into a singular sphere with the citizen count of Athens being only 50,000.[8] Hence, the appropriation of zeitgeist becomes increasingly important. When reading the two texts together, the continuity of eudemonia from his ethical thought to his political thought becomes clear. The inherent goal of his ethics is reaching the good life through eudemonia, similarly in his politics the aim of the polis equates to reaching the good life. The precepts to reaching the state of eudemonia are the same precepts that are used to reach the polis (the best city), both equally emphasising the role of virtue.

Moreover, for the individual to reach a state of eudemonia he needs to have increased leisure time for contemplation. However, this has to be facilitated by the state. So not only does the state espouse parallel precepts and conditions of the good life, the polis also makes it obtainable. From this notion, it can be conferred, in disagreement with Charles Kenny, that Aristotle s concept of happiness involved the wider community rather than the individual self. Although, contested among historiography is Aristotle s definition of a community. Referencing chapter one of Book three of his Politics, a citizen is defined on a hierarchical social basis, as opposed to including all.[9] Although this may seem primitive, this idea is mirrored throughout history which will be later discussed in relation to the civil rights and feminist movement.

As McMahon proclaims eudemonistic thought remained a continuous trend throughout ancient Greek beliefs.[10] Eudaimonia s emphasis on virtue is furthered mirrored through philosophies of the Stoics. Stoic thought originated in the fourth century BC and was led by Zeno of Citium. Zeno proclaimed that virtue was the only good, thus a modified theory of Aristotle. The Stoic s belief aligning with cynics was that life was to be lived in accordance with nature, known as prohairesis. This promoted a very simplistic lifestyle that avoided temptation and desire, which was condemned as an irrational part of the soul.

Upon first reading into Stoicism there appears to be no noticeable connection between happiness and political ambition. Yet paradoxically, many Stoics were involved in political professions, including Marcus Aurelius who was emperor in 121 AD and Publius Rufus who achieved the highest role of statesman in Rome in 158 BC. Appropriating the zeitgeist theory again, even being a philosophy teacher, as many Stoics were, incorporated a political role.[11] From this notion, it can be suggested that Stoic ideas on happiness did incorporate political ambition. With Stoics identifying the potential for all to be virtuous, they conceived human nature to be aligned with the best life thus requiring the best political state.[12] The political state thus facilitated the Stoic s definition of virtue including justice, wisdom and courage.

Epicureans, originating in 307 BC, paralleled the Stoics as they maintained that wisdom and happiness was available to all.[13] Epicureans are identified as a watershed moment in the history of happiness, stimulating a shift to a hedonistic understanding of happiness which placed primary importance on pleasure.[14] Epicureans saw happiness as the maximisation of pleasure within the realms of ataraxia.[15] Ataraxia promotes happiness as a state of extreme calmness meaning limits to pleasure were set.[16] Moreover, Epicurus relinquishes the concept of pain demonstrated in his thoughts on death, death being feared was an unnecessary anxiety that individuals and society needed to overcome in order to become happy.[17]

Yet the stance of Epicureans on politics remains somewhat paradoxical. The typical assumption, derived from Epicurus s phrase lathe bi sas meaning to get through life without drawing attention to yourself, implied the shunning of politics.[18] At the same time Epicurus encouraged a society that allowed all members to recognise their own wisdom and obtain happiness in the form of pleasure. From this notion, it can be inferred that a certain political framework was necessary to achieve such a goal. In developing this argument, Epicurus himself did not remain outside the sphere of politics, as he derived a theory of justice. His theory of justice took similar form to Mill s harm principle, evoking an agreement neither to harm nor be harmed. This takes form of a social contract that allowed individuals to enjoy the benefits of living together in a well-ordered society. He also proclaimed that laws and punishment were necessary in society to ensure all were conforming to this contract (Principal Doctrines 31-40). Hence, to argue that Epicurean s happiness encapsulated no political ambition would thus be ignorant to particular political measures that were set in place to allow an individual to achieve happiness.

Utilitarianism developed the Epicurean s hedonistic approach to happiness, presenting pleasure as the sole source of happiness. Defined through Act Utilitarian is Jeremy Bentham, who is recognised for his Greatest Happiness Principle. Historians, such as John Dinwiddy, contest the origins of the principle.[19] The principle only incorporated the term happiness in 1831, as opposed to 1776 where Bentham instead used the term utility. [20] Historians do try to reconcile this relationship between utility and happiness, identifying how Bentham evokes misery as a counterforce to happiness and utility inferring by utility he still meant happiness. The principle advocates happiness for the greatest number identifying individual happiness with communal happiness. In order for individuals to grasp a sense of what makes people happy, Bentham sets out a form of guidelines known as the felific calculus. Within this calculus, factors such as intensity and duration are presented and before engaging in an act are to be judged, hence being a quantitative study of happiness.

Bentham clearly did consider happiness as a political ambition which can be observed through a biographical study. &Originally Bentham undertook a law degree, however dropped out due to the injustice of the law system.[21] From this notion, it can be implied from the outset Bentham s Happiness Principle incorporated political ambition, acting not only as a guidance to how an individual should live but also how a government should act. Illustrating this point, is the various suggestions he made for law which aimed at prohibiting corruption, as David Manning concurs, in the eyes of Bentham humans are incapable of moral behaviour without rational organisation. [22] Thus, for Bentham, appropriating a form of representative government was a way of reaching the end goal of happiness. However, all Bentham s ideas (as well as John Stuart Mill s) were theories that incorporated happiness as a political ambition, the reality being that his ideas were not translated into the politics of the time except partially Spain. & Moreover, unlike prior periods, being a philosophy teacher was not categorised as a political role.

Mill s theory of Utilitarianism was an attempt to salvage Utilitarianism after it came under severe criticism identifiable in his 1833 essay on Bentham. Mill s theory advocates higher and lower pleasures with the by-product being happiness, advocating a qualitative approach which holds more similarities to the Epicureans than Bentham. By higher pleasures Mill contends pleasures of the mind whereas lower pleasures incorporate things such as sex, which he assumes to be less meaningful. Mill s concept of happiness in Utilitarianism clearly incorporates political ambition, which can be identified in his further texts including On Liberty. Here Mill encourages a form of positive liberty which means capacity to as opposed to freedom from, thus setting internal limits which allows everyone to have equal potentials.[23] Immediately observed then, is the translation of positive liberty into a political ambition. However, unlike Bentham who focuses on what form of government should be implemented to reach happiness, he focuses on what qualities of government compose a society aiming towards happiness. In essence, Mill claims good people formulate a good society and a good person is one who seeks higher pleasures. Inferring from this, Mill would claim those who are not intellectually capable should be allowed no role in government, as they would do more harm than good, linking to his harm principle. [24] Historians such as Fred Rosen identify Mill to be elitist, however I would prefer to use the term prejudiced.[25] Like Aristotle, Mill only identifies those who are capable of reaching higher pleasures to be involved in the political sphere and able to reach happiness, which limits potential political participation but implies political ambition.

Utilitarianism came to life in the Enlightenment period which is also associated with other philosophers including Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau s stance on happiness is probably the philosophical theory that most conforms to encompassing political ambition. Rousseau, in his Social Contract, signifies sociability as a necessary prerequisite to happiness& something the state must recognise. As Ghita Ionescu asserts, Rousseau equated individual happiness with a general will for this reason, which is formulated through deliberation.[26] From this notion, Rousseau impels that happiness is to be a concern for the legislator and the state in general. He further claims if a state is too big, it leaves no room for people s happiness implying a larger state correlates with a reduction in happiness maybe this is the problem with our contemporary society. Ironically, Rousseau s theory translates into future events, as men s happiness was equated to that of general will, specifically in the Declaration of Independence. Among historiography the Declaration is identified as the moment happiness became a political ambition.[27] However, following a similar line to Soni, I instead argue the Declaration of Independence saw happiness becoming depoliticised. McMahon claims the declaration formed the liberty to pursue happiness as a right, linking to a form of negative liberty evoking a policy of non-interference. This represents happiness transgressing from a form of public happiness, as it has been seen in previous periods, to happiness of the individual. Inferring from this, happiness was no longer something the state should have to aim towards (as with positive liberty) but was a concern of the individual. Although proclaimed that the state should provide conditions to allow the pursuit of happiness, there is nothing in the political horizon that requires them to forward it as a political ambition.

Betty Friedan a crucial figure in the second wave of feminism throughout the 1960 s implied that a woman s happiness is equated to her work.

This reflects the political failure of providing happiness to all sectors of society, further attempting to define the concept of happiness in their own ideal terms.

Regardless, happiness in this context cannot be identified as a political ambition as they do not aim to work towards the public s perception of happiness. Instead they aim to get the public to work towards their preferred ideals on happiness through various forms of coercion. Moreover, throughout history often the government chose to pursue other factors as opposed to happiness. This point becomes demonstrable by Margaret Thatcher s government in 1979, where economic wealth was made into the Central councils focus rather than happiness. This presents how the government were in actual fact, in the modern period especially, detached from the public consensus of happiness often ignoring the wider community and society in which they rule over.