Cultivating Affluent Societies

On Happiness and Nature Relatedness

in Western Societies.

BA Thesis

Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology

Leiden University

October 2013

Supervised by

Drs. Lea Zuyderhoudt

Written by

David de Witte

s1056913

Daffodils

I wandered lonely as a cloud

That floats on high o'er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,

A host, of golden daffodils;

Beside the lake, beneath the trees,

Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine

And twinkle on the milky way,

They stretched in never-ending line

Along the margin of a bay:

Ten thousand saw I at a glance,

Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they

Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:

A poet could not but be gay,

In such a jocund company:

I gazed-and gazed-but little thought

What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils.

by William Wordsworth

(1770-1850)

Contents

Acknowledgments 1

1. To live wisely and agreeably and well 2

2. Questioning our happiness 5

1. The supposed belief 5

2. Western societies 6

3. Subjective well-being 7

4. Nature relatedness 11

5. Biophilia 12

3. A dash of happiness 14

1. The ideals and relationships that reanimate the world 14

2. The economics of happiness 15

3. Lessons in life 17

4. A change to come 22

4. Dancing with daffodils 25

1. A forgotten legacy 25

2. Between the old and the new 26

3. Loving nature 27

4. Finding joy and meaning 28

5. Visions and revisions 31

References 40

1

Acknowledgments

Writing a thesis can be challenging and therefore I would like to thank some people who helped

me in the process. Firstly, I would like to thank Drs. Lea Zuyderhoudt for her enthusiasm in every

meeting we had to supervise this thesis. I may not have fully succeeded in her recommendation to

‘write like Shakespeare’ but I appreciated the fact that the bar was laid high. Secondly, although

most of them were not so much involved, I would like to thank the other professors I came in

contact with during the three years of this bachelor. Some were a true inspiration. Thirdly, I

would like to thank some good friends I’ve made during these last years. Chris, the person with

the thorough native-English eye who checked my spelling and who was a valuable co-

philosopher on the subject. Thank you. Micheline, having you as a housemate and the many

coffees we shared over the last weeks has given me so much joy. I hope we may continue to do

this for a long time. Both of you and the wonderful others that I have met along the way, you

have been my happiness over these last years. Finally, I wish to thank a very special person who

will always be close to my heart. Maureen, when all else seemed grey, you have been my

inspiration to better myself and to go for a happier life for you believed in me. Nothing that I can

do will ever be enough to make amends with that. You are the main reason for the happiness in

my life today. You are the reason that this paper even got the chance to come into existence.

Thank you so much.

2

1. To live wisely and agreeably and well

Does being in a close relation to what we are fond of bring us a sense of happiness? William

Wordsworth’s poem Daffodils somewhat suggests so but many other poems on happiness give

away other ideas to what can make us happy. I am convinced that we all aspire to be happy but

fewer are committed to go into research and look purposely for the answers, and for that reason

there may be the question now as to why I have come to choose this subject.

However, through self-reflection as “a condition for the contemporary study of culture

and society” (Eriksen 2004: 15) it may become clear how the scholar and her/his academic study

are part of one another. Self-reflection asks us namely to rethink ourselves and reminds us not to

take certain notions in our research for granted. As such, it became clear that my intention to

learn more about happiness is to be seen as a part of my desire to understand contemporary

Western societies. Furthermore, it may also be understood that it is only through relatively recent

developments in anthropology that I could have the room to look into a topic as happiness, and

study and share my interest.

Studying this particular subject can be seen as both a personal and academic response to a

generally shared belief that contemporary ‘Western society’ is a deeply troubled world wherein

its general, innate way of living is hazardous to our happiness.1 However, to take this belief as a

given could be unreasonable for life may actually not be all that bad. To agree upon or preferably,

to contest the downhearted outlook on Western life may be a matter of what we believe happiness

is to be and how we perceive the world around us.

Societal beliefs lie at the core of any anthropological research and despite that being

happy is to some extent a personal matter, there is an equal strong correlation to our social

relations which give meaning to our lives. Anthropologists know well that “social reality is first

and foremost created through relationships between persons and the groups they belong to”

(Eriksen 2004: 9) and one should therefore not go past the understanding of the existing external

factors which influences our happiness. Any anthropologist will agree that these factors will vary

among places and groups but as we partly are going to address the obscure total of Western

society – for this brute accumulation of various places and groups is not-done and unjustifiable in

1 The serious business of creating a happier world

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/united-nations-happiness-conference-bhutan, last

consulted on 22-10-2013.

3

anthropology – we will still for example see that in mainstream Western economics there is an

emphasis on striving and as a result we have to some extent forgotten to enjoy. In addition we

may look upon the fact that social cohesion suffers from a breakdown and within that process we

are confronted with problems concerning trust and belonging. As we would take these matters in

consideration, it could be believed that we have somehow lost sight of what it truly means to “live

wisely and agreeably and well” (Keynes 1972: 328).

Not surprisingly, the topic of subjective well-being (the scholarly term for happiness) has recently

received increasing attention in research and further discussions. It has in fact become a lively

topic in academic discourses as well as on policy level. One significant signal for the growth of

attention to subjective well-being is last year’s publication of the first UN World Happiness

Report. According to the UN report, reasons for the growing interest are partially based on

concerns on “realities of poverty, anxiety, environmental degradation and unhappiness in the

midst of great plenty” (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 3). Still, questions comes to mind as how

to measure these subjective concerns. Which broad-spectrum parameters can be used for a

heterogeneous group as the ‘Western world’? Anthropology has its methods and theoretical

frames to get to know and to compare various perspectives and in the end, to bring these all

together (Eriksen 2004: 7) but surprisingly, the discipline of anthropology is at the low-front on

the matter. Aside that happiness is unquestionably a social matter, specific groups dynamics and

the diversity within is explicitly part of an anthropological focus and thus relevant to the study of

happiness. Happiness does not for example only bring people together, it may be an incentive that

steers a group in a certain direction. Moreover, as being happy depends greatly on our personal

relations with others, what efforts are being made to public society and how these come back at

us personally, it may be said that levels of happiness to some extent portray the quality of a

community.

Nonetheless, at this point it remains a question as to how happy we are. The way wherein we can

precisely define, measure, and understand happiness is still a difficult thing to do. We can agree

upon that the existence of questionable levels of happiness within a society arguably is an

indicator of something being wrong. That is because, if we all aspire to be happy and yet we have

not accomplished this, it can be further argued that our perceived way of getting there is flawed.

Both socially as academically it may thus be time to start unpacking this notion and see what can

be learned. What eventually is to say will be deduced from present day literature on happiness.

4

To go on researching this topic is not self-evident. We need to go into the theoretical concepts

which will be used throughout this paper for they form the basis whereupon everything else will

be built and on the other hand we need to unpack these concepts further into the wider study of

our main topic. We need therefore a framework in which this can be done. To unravel these tasks

from one another I divided this paper into four sections.

Firstly, a theoretical frame will highlight some of the concepts which lay at the basis of

this paper. This allows us to elaborate on the concepts Western societies, subjective well-being,

nature relatedness, and the concept of biophilia. Though the last two may seem somewhat out of

place, they are there to demonstrate that although happiness is partially a personal issue and we

may believe that several external factors do not apply to us, there are some which should not be

ignored for their strong, yet unforeseen effect on our well-being. Secondly, we will take a look

into how we may flavour society as well as the discipline of anthropology when we add a dash of

happiness to our focus. We will look at how economics and society influences our happiness.

Additionally, there will be a closer look into the persons and institutions which have advocated

for attention to the matter. Thirdly, an elaboration will be given on nature relatedness. As nature

is an external factor from which some may believe not to affect us, it will be argued that being

close to nature and disbanding of the human-nature dichotomy is beneficial for our happiness.

That herein a link is made to the original affluent society will furthermore portray a historical link

between society, wealth, and nature. As a final, everything will be brought together as a whole

and we will look upon what we, as I personally, have learned in the process.

Happiness is among many things situational. It is a specific process to be looked at. Aside that

point, it will be shown that although there may be reasons to believe that we in Western societies

have succumbed to unhappiness, we are in overall not doing so badly. Yes, some things could be

better. There are some improvements to be made. We could actually be happier. However, now

more attention is given to the matter from different angles, we may understand happiness as an

important factor better and better today as we equally learn more about the discipline of

anthropology through the topic’s contribution to it. Our goal within the discipline is to have a

good understanding of our societies as ourselves and through this paper we may hopefully get

somewhat better as we can also hope that things will turn out better in overall and we will be

living more affluent lives than ever before.

5

2. Questioning our happiness

1. The supposed belief

This research is based on a hypothesis which is inherently subjective and leaves therefore a lot of

room open for investigation. To answer the question as to how we may begin studying the theme

of this paper, it is believed it may be well to start with having a critical outlook on how Western

societies perceive happiness or subjective well-being.2 Closely related would be to question what

supposedly determines happiness. As a result, it is the idea to look upon what supposedly makes

people happy. What are societal suggestions saying? Can we for example blindly believe that a

better economic position will make us happier? Is happiness to be found in that one recently

purchased novelty that is supposed to be a must-have? What about a sabbatical to finally make

that trip around the world and rediscover ourselves?

Though Western societies are believed to be the lands of milk and honey in some parts of

the world, others believe that the milk has gone sour and the honey has dried up. As such we may

wonder as to what really is going on. Are Western societies truly enjoying prosperous and joyful

times? Even with our best intentions, there are moments where it seems that we are set to

sabotage our very own happiness through some self-destructive behaviour that Western societies

are showing. Can it then truly be said that people have a clear understanding of what should bring

happiness? All these reflections are part of wider debates on what brings happiness, how we are

living, and how happy we are as communities, societies, and nations. Essentially, it is a matter of

questioning ‘our’ levels of happiness. It is a matter of asking:

How trustworthy is the supposed belief that Western societies experiences

questionable levels of happiness?

In the anthropological fashion to unwrap a society to uncover its nuances, unfolding every

possible matter, it is not merely enough to ask a question but perhaps more importantly, to reflect

on why we are asking it. The stated belief of questionable levels of happiness which we for

example can read about in the UN World Happiness Report (Helliwell, J., R. Layard & J. Sachs

2012) is believed worth questioning for any validity to this matter represents significant

weaknesses in the Western way of living. In addition, it asks us to look at what could be done in

response.

2 Though the first is the common name and the latter the scientific name, both terms will be used arbitrarily

throughout the remainder of this paper and as such, I will refer to them both as to refer to the same thing.

6

Sub-questions are here to aid in our understanding of the research question;

1. What lies at the basis of happiness within Western societies?

2. How do these fundamental factors express themselves today?

3. What can be said about the cultural variation to happiness in Western societies?

4. Who is asking for attention to the matter and why?

5. What effect does the Western nature-human dichotomy have upon Western levels of

happiness?

To start answering these questions, we will now look into several concepts – Western societies,

subjective well-being, nature relatedness, and biophilia – which lie at the basis of our research.

2. Western societies

Western societies as our focus are defined in Oxford Dictionaries (as in the literature on

happiness) as “the Western part of the world or of a specified country, region, or town; (usually

the West) Europe and North America seen in contrast to other civilizations”.3 This contrast may

be explained by the standard of affluence that Europe and the United States have enjoyed over

recent generations in comparison with the rest of the world.

Important is that the use of this concept is, as noted before, problematic and unjustifiable

within the discipline of anthropology. In the common use of this concept, people refer to a group,

a way of life, to notions of progress and modernity, and in a political sense in order to partially

refer to nationalistic ideas.4 Still, in perspective to measuring and to elaborate on happiness in

Western societies, it is important to note that norms and expressions vary among cultures in the

West. In Wierzbicka’s (2004) cross-linguistic and cross-cultural analysis, she notes that “nations

differ markedly in happiness” (2004: 35). The way wherein people express it, talk about it, and

therein fill in the meaning and give gravity to its meaning is culturally determined. Wierzbicka

equally points out that one has to be attentive to the variety of groups and people within a place as

she in the example of America points out to “distinguish between all Americans and all people”

(2004: 40). We need to be aware that a collective geographic noun as Western societies exists of

3 Oxford Dictionaries - West

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/west?q=west, last consulted on 02-05-2013. 4 "The West": A Conceptual Exploration

http://www.ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/crossroads/political-spaces/political-ideas-of-regional-order/riccardo-

bavaj-the-west-a-conceptual-exploration, last consulted on 26-10-2013.

7

various layers which are not immediately accounted for in its wide used meaning. Nevertheless,

though the term is acknowledged now as faulted, it will nonetheless be used throughout the

remainder of this paper as other authors have used the term, and for simple convenience reasons

for there being a lack of a better collective noun.

In perspective to further literature study, it is at this point more importantly that a critical

look at Western societies will reveal that happiness does not simply correlate with the general

standard of affluence of Western societies. As will be seen, there is an inconsistency between the

two and affluence does not simply guarantee happiness. One important point to make here is that

happiness is only partly an societal matter and thus only partly influenced by the affluence of a

country. Subjective well-being is partly determined by the provisioning of basic and safety needs

by a society. For another substantial amount is subjective well-being determined by the

psychosocial needs which are more linked to the individual (Tay & Diener 2011: 362) but these

are arguable evenly a result of the societal and cultural shaping of the individual. Western cultural

living conditions (Veenhoven 1984: 388) thus partly determine levels of happiness and these will

mainly be our focus.

3. Subjective well-being

What subjective well-being (SWB) or happiness in fact is has been a philosophical question for a

considerable time. From the time of Aristotle there has been discussion on the nature of it as

Aristotle believed that the goal in life should be the pursuit of eudaimonia, a form of happiness

wherein the practice of virtue and a philosophical life was the right way to live. Simply said, the

good life is the happy life. Jeremy Bentham5 continued and evolved with the notion by giving his

perception on happiness and therein argued for the ‘greatest happiness principle’; which is the

actions of every person which brings forth the most happiness to all. He argued that the best

society is one wherein all citizens are happy – a principle which is still strongly present in current

Western societies. Others have more recently also made efforts to define what happiness is.6

Nevertheless, the question remains whether how important it is to come to a definition.

As it comes to the motivation to define subjective well-being, Feldman (2010) argues that “before

anyone can undertake empirical research into the cause of happiness […] or the measurement of

happiness, there must be some shared understanding of the nature of happiness” (2010: 8).

Nevertheless, apart from the given fact that proclaiming a theory of subjective well-being is a

5 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) – English jurist, philosopher, social reformer and founder of modern

utilitarianism. 6 See for example; Bok (2010); Lucas and Diener (2008); Feldman (2010): attitudinal pleasure; Kahneman

(1999): remembered versus experienced well-being; Csikszentmihalyi (1997): the experience of flow.

8

somewhat paternalistic act (2010: 221), Feldman argues furthermore that individual, different

things are the primary causes for being happy and only the notion of happiness itself is universal.

Lord Richard Layard7 (2005) argues in a similar manner as though happiness is for everyone the

same, causes vary between people (2005: 249).

Relevant to this point of measurement is that one important condition is to be met in

order to go onwards. Though definitions vary, there are two ways to define and to measure

subjective well-being and this is by looking at affective happiness or evaluative happiness

(Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 6; Feldman 2010: 8-9). As such, it comes down to whether we

want to look at a brief emotional state or whole life satisfaction. In order to assess key factors

which may assist in good research and good policy making, it may be understood from Helliwell,

Layard & Sachs (2012) that it is better to look at whole life satisfaction for it addresses a holistic

range of factors which persons have to deal with throughout their lives (2012: 21).

In final consideration to all the previous points, Layard may give us the most wisest

recommendation in that what really matters is to separate out the important factors which lay at

the basis of happiness (Layard 2005: 6), and I believe a definition of subjective well-being should

be built on those grounds. In respect to empirical research on SWB, a definition and variables to

be measured should come forth by understanding what happiness exactly means for a particular

group one does research on and, that may again come from understanding what key determinants

that one group finds important.

In further analysis of subjective well-being literature, general key determinants can be divided

into two groups; external factors and personal features. As a result, a division is made between

the outer and the inner self (Layard 2005: 235). As said before, it is important to understand that

external factors are more closely related to one’s society, and that positive feelings, i.e. personal

features, are more an individualistic matter. Though both can be measured, policies mostly

influence the external features for they are easier to change, but policies may become more and

more sensitive to some personal features in the future as for example the acting for gender

equality has shown.

As we start looking at external factors, we may start with a broad scope comparison between

states by Adrian White, a social psychologist from the University of Leicester. Herein, he

analysed a multitude of data and put together the first ‘World Map of Happiness’ in 2006 (see

7 Lord Richard Layard – leading economist and co-founder of the movement Action for Happiness.

9

Appendix A).8 Therein he noted three significant factors to happiness and ranked these to

importance; (1) health levels, (2) wealth or the level of poverty, and (3) access to basic education.

Yet, these results have already been changed and updated, and there is more to be told today. In

‘The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index’, more factors are being compared and addressed for their

importance. 9 These include; economy, entrepreneurship & opportunity, governance, education,

health, safety & security, personal freedom, and social capital. These comparisons suggest that

there are certain requirements which can be seen as general or universal basic human needs. In

the following paragraphs, a closer look will be given to the factors economy, social relations,

governance, health and education. These are chosen specifically as they effectively encompass all

the other factors compared by the Legatum institute.

At first we may agree upon that the economy or the level of poverty of a country is a

significant determinative factor for one’s happiness as it not only determines the assurance of our

basic needs (see for example Maslow's hierarchy of needs – 1943), poverty is equally

determinative to other dimensions of human life through its correlations. As some mistakenly

believe, money is not a warranty to happiness but it does contribute to being happy. The Easterlin

paradox (Easterlin 1974; 1995) shows for example that in reasonably affluent countries such as

most Western societies, higher income levels would be expected to promote greater happiness.

However, as the average national level of income rises in a society, feelings of happiness do not

necessarily follow (1995: 44). This phenomenon is mostly attributed to the fact that people

quickly adapt to an improved living condition and compare themselves to others. For reasons to

be accounted for later but at present can be said it arguably being linked to Western notions of

ego and self-esteem, persons need to feel a bit better off than certain other persons in their close

environment. In the end, money only really makes us happy up to the point where we have

enough to modestly sustain ourselves. Beyond that point, we come upon another factor which is

our social relations.

Our social relations10

are, when income is fairly guaranteed, arguably the external factor

to our subjective well-being. Social relations are comprised of interactions of all kinds. Work,

8 University of Leicester Produces the first ever World Map of Happiness

http://www.le.ac.uk/ebulletin-archive/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-

28.html, last consulted on 06-05-2013. 9 The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index

http://www.prosperity.com/Ranking.aspx, last consulted on 06-05-2013. 10

Though the report by the UN uses the concept of ‘social capital’ (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 69), I

refrained myself from using this term for I want to address the matter as a resource free from any

capitalistic or power connotation. Furthermore, as Fine (2007) pointed out that social capital has become an

iconic word within policy-making (2007: 567) wherein its meaning has been stretched so far to multiple

aspects of life (ibid), it arguably means at this point too much and consequently, nothing.

10

family, friends, community, etc.. For example, Robert E. Lane (2000) believes companionship to

be the “principal source of well-being” (2000: 326) as he states that “satisfaction with family life

is the greatest contributor to life satisfaction” (ibid.). Hruschka (2010) in turn has looked into the

matter of friendship and believes friendship to be a “special kind of reciprocal altruism’’ (2010:

6). The level of connectedness to a person and how we see that person determines our opinion of

viewing someone as a friend and consequently our willingness to for example aid that person.

Interestingly, Hruschka notes that in answer to the question to who makes a person the happiest,

people usually refer to their friends (2010: 219). Social relations have correlated further on with

matters of pro-social behaviour, trust, and feelings of being safe and secure. Additionally, there is

freedom and equality – meaning to be able to make your own choices and the presence of mutual

respect. In summary, it can be said that “higher life satisfaction is correlated with having a more

intense relational life in general” (Helliwell, J., R. Layard & J. Sachs 2012: 69).

A factor which is strongly linked to the economy and democratic notions as freedom and

equality is governance. A good quality of governance is essential for a country’s stability as well

as for the well-being of its inhabitants. A hostile environment which for example occurs in

presence of war is indisputably harmful to feeling good or happy. Moreover, governance can

assure policies which are in favour of subjective well-being by for example guaranteeing pro-

social behaviour. As will be shown in due course, this proactive approach for promoting

happiness policies as for example demonstrated by the UN report is fortunately becoming more

common. It is also in the best interest of a country to ensure its citizens’ happiness, for it benefits

not only its economy, but equally the social cohesion of the country.

A more personal but equal social factor is physical and mental health. Good governance

is not only attentive to it; it seeks to ensure that access to good health care is available through its

policies. Physical health is without a doubt important for it determines how a person will feel and

though people will generally adapt to a physical handicap, it may have a remaining impact on

levels of happiness. On the other hand, mental health is potentially of greater importance. Mental

illness does not solely affect our own health. As it demobilizes us, it equally affects the people

around us. Layard (2005) notes in correspondence to this matter that most of the misery which

can be found in Western societies is to be attributed to mental illness (2005: 181). Fortunately,

there have been great advances in the treatment of mental illnesses over the past decennia (2005:

182). Today one can recover from it through medication or the training of positive thinking as for

example through cognitive behavioural therapy. Subsequently, there is more to be said about

training or education.

11

Education leads from an obvious point to the greater possibility of finding and holding on

to a job, which contributes to happiness for it brings an income and as hoped, a sense of purpose.

Additionally, education may inspire to meaningful goals and may in turn prevent people from

becoming involved in criminality and may equally lower the rate of those giving birth at young

ages. Layard (2005) points out that “happiness depends profoundly on our attitudes and these can

be learned and practiced” (2005: 199-200). Certain education can have a strong influence to us

being happy. As there is the idea that we need to develop new behaviours in order to have more

sensible lives, arguably this change in behaviour is likely to be achieved by acquiring sensible

‘happiness knowledge’.

As to look at the matter of personal features for a moment, we look at happiness in another way.

Personal features can be divided into two categories, those of the body and those of the mind.

However, it can also be said that the two are strongly linked to one another which for example

can be seen with somatisation – the expression of psychological distress through physical

symptoms. An obvious and not so harmful example is that people start sweating and can become

red when they are nervous.

Though the focus of this paper lies on the outer self and thus the societal context, it is

important to stress that our environment partly determines our behaviour, our personal attitudes.

In order to give an example of this, the second part of this paper will look at a factor which is

partly determined by our environment but also by our personal features. It will look at how

Western societies experiences nature relatedness and what the relation is to subjective well-being.

Consequently, in the last paragraphs of this chapter, we will take a look into what nature

relatedness exactly means and how certain scholars adhere to its relevance.

4. Nature relatedness

“Humans have lived the vast majority of their lives embedded in nature, belonging

to the natural world in very real ways” (Mayer et al. 2009: 635).

Nature itself is an external factor to subjective well-being but nature relatedness is arguably a

personal feature which may be looked at in the biological manner (for we are biological beings)

and the metaphysical manner (as through feeling a connection with it). From hereon I will refer to

it in the non-biological way unless otherwise stated. At its core we may see that nature

relatedness is “one’s appreciation for and understanding of our interconnectedness with all other

living things on the earth” (Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy 2009: 718). Though its importance may

12

lie partially in the fact that some regard nature as a place to reflect and come to rest, Mayer et al.

(2009) goes somewhat further by pointing out “how people need to feel a sense of belonging to

something larger than themselves” (2009: 635). This appreciation may vary evidently as Western

discourses for example partly exist of the nature-human dichotomy but it is through the concept

of biophilia that nature relatedness may be more important than most of us perceive. Several

scholars believe biophilia to be an innate need, formed by human evolution and many base their

theories upon this following concept in support of nature relatedness.

5. Biophilia

The concept of biophilia was originally formulated by the German humanistic philosopher and

psychologist Erich Fromm (1900-1980) but it was socio-biologist E.O. Wilson (1984) who

elaborated it. Together with social ecologist Stephen R. Kellert the biophilia hypothesis (1993)

was formed and as a form of environmental ethics, it gained significant popularity within the

community of conservation biologists.

Humans have for a long time in history lived in or at least been close to natural

environments and it is only recently in the course of evolution that humans have lived separately

from it. A presumed outcome from this is biophilia, i.e. persons having an ‘innate need’ to be

close to nature and as such to be close to life-like processes (Wilson 1984). This is a matter

which stands in contrast to the more static and lifeless character of urban settings more common

today and may explain contemporary problems to subjective well-being. Spencer Wells advocates

for this point in his work Pandora’s Seed (2010) as he points out the dangers of the nature-human

dichotomy, concluding that “saving ourselves will mean accepting human nature, not suppressing

it” (2010: 210).

In Kinship to Mastery (1997), Kellert states that it is through our bond with nature, and to

what lives, we are inspired to grow in a healthy manner and presumably to live healthy and happy

lives. He phrases it in that biophilia, or more precisely certain values towards nature, “enhanced

our capacity to survive and prosper physically, emotionally, and intellectually” (1997: 6).

Yet, scholars as Joye and De Block (2011) dispute the notion partly in that they believe

the concept is too open to interpretations. Furthermore, they have strong doubts in the

evolutionary sense of the concept as they believe that there is a weak basis for it, arguing instead

that “the bulk of the ‘philia’ in ‘biophilia’ is the result of culture and (social) learning” (2011:

199). They take a critical view of the ‘innate’ part of the concept, without fully discarding the fact

that people can indeed feel a connection to nature (2011: 208). In response, I do believe a mistake

is made by Joye and De Block as they go past the biological part of it. Granted, the phrasing of

13

the concept may indeed come short and I propose to say that biophilia is the innate need to

affiliate with our natural origin. Herein I do not mean the ‘natural state of man’ (2011: 201) for

this has evolved like everything else but the plain fact that we are biological beings. To view

biophilia as such, it means that we have a need to come to ourselves. On the one hand it means

coming in understanding with what we are in our genes, which could arguably make biophilia

again an outcome of evolution. On the other hand it means that we are social beings, as most

other beings on earth. We may thus believe biophilia to be an interaction of genetics and cultural

learning.

14

3. A dash of happiness

1. The ideals and relationships that reanimate the world

What can the discipline of anthropology do with something as happiness when even

anthropologists say that “happiness is in the heart and not in the eye of the beholder” (Johnston

2012: 8)? 11

I would like to claim a lot.

As anthropology looks at learned group behaviour within a society, anthropologists may

look at the societal thoughts on what brings happiness. Correspondingly, research can be done on

hazards to happiness, such as for example the proclaimed consumer-based culture (Sahlins 1996).

Anthropologist Elizabeth Colson backs up the possibilities for anthropology in stating that

“perception and experience of happiness is hugely varied and influenced by social and cultural

contexts” (Johnston 2012: 15). Another point is that when individuals form groups through a

mutual motivation to undertake something, it may arguably be done to reach some sense of

achievement and happiness in the end. Anthropologist Carolyn Nordstrom substantiates this claim

by saying that “happiness helps forge the ideals and relationships that reanimate the world”

(Johnston 2012: 14). The word ‘relationships’ is herein also noteworthy because subjective well-

being or happiness has many linkages to many aspects of life. It may actually be said that our

happiness depends greatly on the multiple relations we construct in life. The more we interact

with all what we hold dear, the more joy it brings us.

As we move through this chapter, I hope to make some of the multiple interconnections

clear and this will be done in three steps. Firstly, we will take a look at how economics influences

subjective well-being. Economics has a determinative strength through its correlations with social

and cultural matters but before these latter points will be addressed, the economic basis will be

laid out. Subsequently, the social and cultural dimensions of happiness follow. Thirdly, as we

along the way see several issues which could be improved, the last part will discuss who is

advocating for change and for what reasons.

11

Barbara Rose Johnston asked this question to several anthropologists in the Vital Topics Forum and

comprised their answers in her article ‘On Happiness’ (2012).

15

2. The economics of happiness12

Economics and happiness are linked to one another in a vicious circle. Though economics may

have the upper hand because of its clear cut power over so many, levels of happiness within a

society influences the economy equally but arguably in more subtle ways.13

A manner wherein the economy affects us all is within the provisioning of our basic

needs – water, food, shelter. These “lower needs” and more precisely their provisioning as Tay

and Diener (2011: 362) argue, is influenced by one’s country. Psychosocial needs, as for example

respect and a sense of worth, are on the other hand believed to be more an individual matter

(ibid.). This said, it may imply two things. Poor countries that have a harder time providing the

basic needs are more prone to having lower levels of happiness. Yet, as Tay and Diener (2011)

also argue, people in poor countries may realise their psychosocial needs before their basic needs

are completely met and may as a result be experiencing some levels of happiness whilst even

being poor (2011: 361). Nonetheless, as Veenhoven (1984) discussed, this doesn’t give less

carrying weight to the point that income matters significantly and this is respectably truer for poor

societies in comparison with wealthier societies (1984: 383). Layard (2005) supports this claim in

stating that an extra dollar means more in poorer countries in comparison to the more affluent

(2005: 52), and bring therefore more happiness with it. Diener and Seligman (2004) confirm the

marginal effect of extra income in addition to a moderate level of income with a 0,08 correlation

as they calculated the correlation between average life satisfaction and GDP per capita of U.S.

nations with a GDP above $10,000 (2004: 5). This in itself demonstrates the point that every cent

above a moderate level of income marginally increases our well-being (ibid.).

We may conclude herein that money isn’t everything in respect to happiness. Its

importance is determined by the perceived value within societies and though economic growth is

believed to be a worthy goal and frequently is spoken of during elections, it has come with an

inconsistency in well-being. This inconsistency can be noted throughout an incredible paradox

which confronts Western societies today.

12

This title refers to the documentary equally called The Economics of Happiness. This praiseworthy

documentary has been an initiative from the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC) and has

partly been a great inspiration to write this thesis. For more information on the documentary, see:

http://www.theeconomicsofhappiness.org/, last consulted on 4-09-2013. 13

Macroeconomics influences us all and as to be able to attain a job wherein we make sufficient income to

modestly sustain ourselves is an example herein. On the other side, as Diener and Seligman point out in

their article Beyond Money (2004), happiness influences the economy in that the well-being of employees

for example may result in “positive organizational citizenship, customer satisfaction, and perhaps even

greater productivity” (2004: 12).

16

In comparison with 50-60 years ago, Western societies have become far richer and the average of

people within have gradually been living more comfortable lives. Nonetheless, despite the

absence of bad living conditions, there is strong evidence that not only people have not become

happier, the level of depressions has risen dramatically (Diener and Seligman 2004: 16). When

we for example look at American happiness, there is a peak in the 1950s and no real development

has occurred since then in comparison to a steady rising of GNP (see appendix B).14

This in itself

evidently raises questions on how this could be and I believe the answer lies partially in two

noteworthy points.

Firstly, we may look at some words by Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946). As a British

economist, he is considered to have been the most influential economist of the 20th century

(Davis, Figgins, Hedengren & Klein 2011: 135) and is referred to by several scholars (Diener &

Seligman 2004, Lane 2000, Layard 2005, Vernon 2010) for his insights to subjective well-being

in relation to economics.

In his essay Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren (1928), Keynes makes his

case by stating that through the increase of technical efficiency and the improvement in the

standard of life – this mostly to be attributed to the industrial revolution – Western societies

would overcome their economic problem (1972: 321), i.e. the struggle for subsistence which has

been the human’s race main concern since the dawn of mankind. In respect to this matter, Keynes

points out that “if the economic problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its traditional

purpose” (1972: 327) and could presumably be exposed to an existential crises. It is not unjust as

he asked the question; “must we not expect a general ‘nervous breakdown’” (1972: 327)? As we

notice a rise in depressions today, it seems Keynes was not too far off in his suspicions.

Layard quotes Keynes in that “we have been trained too long to strive and not to enjoy”

(Layard 2005: 164, Keynes 1972: 328). Consequently, it is argued by Keynes that we not only

will have to look critically at the true value of money (1972: 329), but that we equally will have

to learn to cope with our new found freedom in order to “live wisely and agreeably and well”

(1972: 328). I believe a good understanding of mankind’s new purpose is inherent to these last

words and anthropology can undoubtedly make a significant contribution herein by for example

doing research at what people believe to be valuable goals to pursue today.

14

The same is true for Britain and Japan (Layard 2005: 3). For Europe there is no data from before 1975

and though Easterlin (1995) argues that several countries experience a similar trend as the U.S. (1995: 38),

Layard (2005) argues that Europe does experience a slight upward development of happiness (2005: 287).

17

The second answer which may explain the income-happiness paradox in Western societies is to

be looked for in the matter of ‘externalities of market economics’ (Lane 2000: 324) – these being

for example friendships and having a sense of purpose in ones work.

As we have seen with Keynes, to surpass poverty has been the main concern for Western

economics. The focus has for a long time been laid on strict economical factors and though

Western societies have mostly progressed in their main concern today, economics continues to be

run on its outdated version (Layard 2005: 128). Diener and Seligman (2004) equally speak of

factors of well-being which are not fully accounted for by economic indicators (2004: 7) and

though they believe the impact of income on well-being is strongly culturally determined (2004:

10), they advocate for supplementing economics with social and cultural indicators (ibid.). This in

turn may be a good start to Lane’s problem as to change and “transcend the market culture” (Lane

2000: 328) which is presumed to be hazardous to our happiness.

Ironically here is that the transcendence would partly mean going back to the past.

Economic anthropologist and self-proclaimed substantivist Karl Polanyi condemned in his work

The Great Transformation (1944) how the contemporary market would take apart social cohesion,

and therein “liquidate organic society” (1944: 165) in order to make the market work. As such,

Polanyi did not only unveil this immense change in society but equally gave us a warning to the

dangers of excluding social factors from which we now again see their importance. It is also no

coincidence that several qualities of novel aggregate happiness indicators can be compared with

qualities of traditional measures of economic activity (Frey & Stutzer 2012: 666).

To let history repeat itself, anthropology could make its contribution once again by providing

perceptions on the value of money and by making clear the non-economic indicators which

groups find important today. In good order, some of these indicators will be elaborated on in the

next section.

3. Lessons in life

Whether we are happy may be determined by a multitude of social and cultural factors, and

although we for a considerable amount can choose whether these will affect us, there are some

which we simply cannot ignore for our daily interaction with these issues – for we daily interact

with our environment – and though some are more important to us than others, for the ones that

truly matter, when the presence of these factors is diminished or even absent, it will certainly

affect the levels of joy in our lives.

18

In order to point out some of these important issues, the wide spectrum has been reduced

to the three following points: social relations, purpose, and cultural learning. The choice for these

points is based on the following grounds. We are “social animals through and through” (Helliwell,

Layard & Sachs 2012: 5) and it is thus crucial that we have social relations. The way wherein

these relations are formed come arguably with a motive to belong and consequently validated

with purpose. As to come to that purpose, we need an understanding of how group behaviour is

learned and specifically, how individuals in Western societies are ‘educated’ and consequently

fashioned to act in a supposedly sensible way to participate in their own society.

It is a simple and yet important basis that we are social beings. As Layard (2005) states: “we need

other people, and we need to be needed” (2005: 66). It seems to be an undeniable fact which

verifies itself in various ways that we can notice in society. We seek out contact, we join certain

groups out of interest and companionship, and we behave in a manner in which we hope to be

liked by others. Social relations have a certain intrinsic worth which we all find worthwhile to

pursue.

Being social beings, we need trust and security (Layard 2005: 226) and we may find this

in all kinds of different relationships, as for example in marriage. Marriage is a very rewarding

relationship wherein love, comfort, and support are being shared (Layard 2005: 66). Persons

derive a lot of happiness from being married. Yet, not all of us need to be married in order to be

happy. Other relations are equally worth pursuing for, as Layard notes, “it is the quality and

stability of relationships that matter more than their form” (ibid.). Additionally, Diener and

Seligman (2004) note that “high-quality social relationships bolster well-being” (2004: 18). It is

therefore important to take notice of them but nevertheless, we see that the pursuit for good social

relationships is sometimes undermined or even completely overlooked.

That social relationships are mostly overlooked has been seen earlier in the matter of

economics and the market. However, the undermining or weakening of social ties is equally

hazardous and needs to be accounted for. In for example the United States, rising levels of

unhappiness have been seen in relation to the collapsing of social society (Diener and Seligman

2004: 7). The question remains now on how we may explain this. An explanation is namely

valuable for the collapsing of social society is brought in relation to the rising numbers of crimes

(Layard 2005: 80). Consequentially, the collapsing of social society does not only demonstrate

alienation in society, it furthermore should be clear that crime reduces the well-being of its

victims as lower feelings of security in general (ibid.).

19

One particular and noteworthy reason for the collapsing of social society is the matter of

time. Most people in Western countries are quite busy to keep up with everything and this affects

their lives. Layard (2005) points out that many families experience a shortage of time (2005: 85).

It could be argued that technology is partially to blame as it takes away valuable time wherein

people could interact personally and watching television is an example of this. As many people

spend several hours a day sitting passively behind it (Layard 2005: 86), Robert Putnam may be

right in claiming that “television must be one of the reasons for the decline of community life in

the United States” (ibid.). Hence, it is clear that we need more family/other relationships-friendly

lifestyles (Layard 2005: 85).

Consequences of the collapsing of social society are also not to be overlooked. It leads to

loneliness, feelings of low self-esteem, insecurity, anxiety, feelings of inadequacy.15

Consequently, it leads to mental illnesses like depressions from which we earlier have seen to be

rising steadily in numbers in Western societies. Additionally, the collapsing of social society may

also bring forth feelings of jealousy, bitterness, and anger. Although this arguably leads in a lesser

degree to mental illnesses, it most likely account for the rising numbers in crimes.

From a somewhat less scientific source, astrophysicist Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a

point in a YouTube video as he elaborates on ‘connectivity’ that we all want to feel connected,

relevant, being a participant in what he calls “the goings-on of activities and events around

you”.16

As we have seen what alienation leads to, can we doubt his views? We need to have a fair

amount of interaction with other persons and we need to feel as if we belong. Isn’t the weakening

of social society and its consequences something to be looked after critically? Furthermore, how

can this be done? What makes us a participant? As to come to that matter, we may take a look at

what we call belonging and purpose.

Purpose is defined as: “the reason for which something is done or created or for which something

exists” and additionally: “a person’s sense of resolve or determination”.17

I believe most people

have a strong sense of belonging, wanting to feel they may be wherever they are, wanting to feel

part of something.18

As Layard (2005) points out that “we are active agents who shape our

15

Causes of mental illness

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/mental-health-causes-mental-illness, last consulted on 29-08-2013. 16

The Most Astounding Fact – Neil DeGrasse Tyson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU, last consulted on 30-08-2013. 17

Oxford Dictionaries – Purpose

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purpose?q=purpose, last consulted on 30-08-2013. 18

An interesting side note is that religion is a great contributor herein. Religion gives persons a stronger

feeling that one’s life has an important purpose or meaning (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 72). Layard

20

situation” (2005: 73), I furthermore believe that we are so because we want to be so. We want to

be active agents. We look for a purpose in life because it makes life worthwhile. Layard supports

this claim as he mentions that setting goals leads to being happy (ibid.) and subsequently makes a

clear statement with “prod any happy person and you will find a project” (ibid.). Hence we may

see the importance of finding our place in society and a purpose to fulfil. With Keynes we have

seen that surpassing poverty has led to more freedom to do what we want. People in Western

societies have today a bigger say in what goals they want to pursue (Layard 2005: 74).

Nonetheless, to get to a meaningful goal can be somewhat difficult (ibid.) and to be submitted to

boredom has been seen as the biggest danger to people once they surpass poverty (ibid.).

We arguably find our place in society through doing meaningful activities which in the

best case serve both society and ourselves. In order to do this we conceivably need an

understanding of the place wherein we find ourselves and how we may operate therein. The

reason for this lies in that although we may be active agents, it is also the other, i.e. society that

determines our belonging. Now we will look at education and specifically to what is learned in

Western societies.

When we say that we learn from a society, we may actually say that we learn from the culture that

exists within that society. As part of it, we learn indirectly or directly how to behave therein and

what is expected from us. Diener and Seligman (2004) substantiate the point by noting that “well-

being can be influenced strongly by what other people do, and by the conditions in society” (2004:

24). As there is the idea that we need a “ very different model of humanity” (Helliwell, Layard &

Sachs 2012: 5) in which we, according to Keynes, need to learn to enjoy more, it is clear that we

need to learn new behaviours. Nevertheless, we initially need to see where the gap lies between

what we are taught now and what we should be learning.

Contemporary Western societies can be characterized with several thoughts of behaviour.

Nonetheless, the contemporary ideas of social Darwinism19

and meritocracy20

may perhaps be the

most noticeable and notorious within. Meritocracy can be an inspiring thought for it makes us

believe that the sky is the limit and if we really want to and we work hard for it, we can get

(2005) backs up this points as he notes that in studies of happiness, it is very clear that people are happier

when they believe in a God (2005: 72). 19

As the survival of the fittest, it is the idea that the superior will win of its lesser opponent when both meet

in a social conflict and thereby supposedly assuring social progress. 20

The modern idea that everyone can reach the top if only one works hard enough and uses one’s resources

in a smart and efficient manner. Thus, if you merit, i.e. deserve to get to the top, you will get there.

21

whatever we want.21

Herein we see that contemporary Western societies are strongly focused on

being successful or as we have seen with Keynes, to strive. This may be linked to that we have a

preference to keep the status quo (Layard 2005: 227), and dislike loss (2005: 168). However, this

is not where the cycle stops as our happiness can be influenced through several other social

phenomena.

Firstly, we have a tendency to compare ourselves with others (Layard 2005: 199), which

in turn, if we perceive ourselves as having or being less, we may become unhappy as we feel

inadequate. Additionally, we have to deal with social Darwinism which in itself can be

characterised by individualism which is very prominent in the United States (2005: 91) and

arguably, in other Western societies. This has led to Western societies being filled with feelings

of anxiety and distrust. Finally, to make the picture complete, we equally have to deal with

projected images on what it means and what we supposedly need to be successful through the

endless stream of advertising everywhere today (2005: 89). We need to be attentive for this for

here too it can lead to feelings of inadequacy. Moreover, we are creatures of habit (2005: 42). We

are sensitive to adaptation and this strongly counts for our possessions (2005: 49). Habituation

can go fast and what makes us happy now might strike us later as uninteresting. Consequently, we

keep raising the bar (2005: 48) and we keep putting pressure on ourselves.

Still, isn’t there some consolation to be given? In the first place it may be noted that some

groups are more inclined to social comparison than others (2005: 47) and though the same is most

likely to be said about individualism, some further anthropological study to these groups could be

desirable as to pinpoint the more vulnerable in society to be more observant of them. Furthermore,

as Layard points out a secret to happiness, we ought to “enjoy things as they are” (2005: 53). We

ought to be more thankful and count our blessings (2005: 199). We may again come back here to

Keynes in that we should not so much as strive but precisely enjoy what we have. In retrospective

to adaptation, Layard presents another secret to happiness as to look for good things you cannot

fully adapt to (2005: 49) and the bulk is most likely to be found in the realm of non-material

goods.

We need to be vigilant about contemporary Western behaviours and understand their true

value in how they contribute to our lives. Moreover, we need to understand how we can reduce

the negative outcomes of those behaviours and change them. We need to learn sensible new ones

and these may come from learning sensible life skills (Layard 2005: 270). As Layard points out

21

For more insights into this subject, there is an interesting TED talk with Alain de Botton called “A kinder,

gentler philosophy of success” wherein he elaborates on the issue and provides some interesting points. See:

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success.html, last consulted

on 30-08-2013.

22

that one of the most crucial lessons in life is learning how to be happy (2005: 254), Layard puts a

great responsibility into formal education (2005: 255). A point which is equally shared by Diener

and Seligman (2004) as they state that primary and secondary education should have social skills

in their standard curriculum (2004: 20). Consequentially, it would put the agency more into our

own hands for many stages in life are mainly to be steered through our own perceptions and

actions. A point partially verified as Diener and Seligman equally note that despite policies and

governments can influence well-being, governments have a lesser say to most problems of social

relationships (ibid.). Governments cannot for example fully prevent unsatisfying marriages, even

despite incentives to improve living conditions for spouses. What governments can do and who is

asking them to take steps in improving our happiness will be discussed in the next part as it will

elaborate on some promoters for change and the motives they use to validate that change.

4. A change to come

A change always has a starting point and although several authors earlier in this paper have

advocated for attention to subjective well-being, it may be noted that the placement of the item on

the agenda today came from within the Kingdom of Bhutan. The fourth Dragon King and former

king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck developed the concept “Gross National Happiness”

(GNH) wherein the idea is that a country’s development should also be measured in its citizen’s

happiness.22

In contrast there is the idea of measuring sheer economic growth which has been the

most common way to measure development. What followed was that in September 2010 Jigme

Thinley, then prime minister of Bhutan, said the following words during the UN Millennium

Development Goals Summit in New York:

"Since happiness is the ultimate desire of every citizen it must be the purpose of

development to create enabling conditions for happiness. As it is likely that the

relevance of eight MDGs will remain beyond 2015, my delegation would like to

propose that we include happiness as the ninth MDG."23

22

To learn more about the development of GNH, there is an informative YouTube video What is “Gross

National Happiness”? by the GNHFund.com See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zqdqa4YNvI, last consulted on 3-09-2013. 23

Millennium development goals summit: live updates, 8.00pm,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/20/un-mdg-summit-2010-

millennium-development-goals, last consulted on 3-09-2013.

23

These words were generally accepted and as a result, resolution 65/309 Happiness: towards a

holistic approach to development (see appendix C) and resolution 66/281 International Day of

Happiness (see appendix D) of the United Nations came respectively into existence in August

2011 and July 2012. In addition, the first UN World Happiness Report (Helliwell, Layard &

Sachs 2012) was published in April 2012.24

As we look at the dates above, it is clear that the study of subjective well-being and the

integration into policy is relatively new and as understood, still in its infancy (Helliwell, Layard

& Sachs 2012: 94, Frey & Stutzer 2012: 663). Dolan et al. (2008) note therein that policy-making

– although presumably further advanced today than five years ago – is difficult just because there

is a shortage on clear and genuine evidence on causality (2008: 96). This may account for the

amount of anthropological literature on the subject as there is very little.25

Many avenues and

possibilities remain open – social structures around happiness, cultures around the sharing of

happiness, the way in which groups talk about it, express it, and reflections thereon – and I hope

that one day they may be addressed. Aside from this, some additional points can be made in

respect to the collecting of data.

Firstly, though the spectrum of happiness-indicators is extensive, it is important to have a

perspective of what lies at the foundation, to have “a systematic analysis of the basic rules” (Frey

& Stutzer 2012: 663). We may in the first place request “to have some core questions” (Helliwell,

Layard & Sachs 2012: 94), which are coming into existence.26

A second point to collecting data is

the question of validity. As Johnston (2012) points out that we need to be aware of whose notion

of happiness is forced upon us and at what cost (2012: 7), we need to look critically at how

research is conducted, their results and its implementation in policy. Sumner (1996) notes that

“people’s self-assessments tend to be reliable when they are relevant, sincere, and considered”

(1996: 155). Nonetheless, Frey and Stutzer (2012) call for attentiveness as governments, public

bureaucracy, and interest groups could manipulate aggregate happiness indicators when they

become politically relevant and therein turning the tables to their side (2012: 669). Moreover, and

what could be more important is that such outcomes give a misrepresentation of why attention is

24

First World Happiness Report Launched at the United Nations

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2960, last consulted on 3-09-2013. 25

Furthermore, aside for obvious reasons that a lot of research on the subject has been done in the fields of

psychology and philosophy, it was at first hand somewhat surprising that many economists equally paid

substantial attention to it. However, this can arguably be explained in that fact that, as the concept has been

linked to development and the contemporary notion of progress is significantly influenced by economic

thought, it stands to reason that economics got involved. 26

The World Happiness Report (2012) elaborates for some extent on these questions and anyone interested

may for example look into the section the formation of policy - measurement in chapter four of the report.

24

being given to the matter and give the public false presumptions to its relevance. Nonetheless, we

may take a final look at the stated purpose by the United Nations.

Through the statement of Prime Minister Jigme Thinley it could be noted that happiness became

linked with development. The same outlook is to be found in the introduction of the World

Happiness Report (2012) as it states that “the quest for happiness is intimately linked to the quest

for sustainable development” (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 3). A result of these outlooks is

that it is now hoped that the science on subjective well-being may support the “design and

attainment of the four pillars of sustainable development” (2012: 96).27

Consequentially, we may

in the near future come to a better understanding of the four pillars of sustainable development.

Furthermore, the combination of these pillars with subjective well-being should as a result lead to

an improvement of not only development initiatives and policy but as what it should bring in the

end, an improvement of life overall.

27

The four pillars of sustainable development being: ending extreme poverty, environmental sustainability,

social inclusion, and good governance (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 96).

25

4. Dancing with daffodils

1. A forgotten legacy

In the previous chapter we have been looking at the contemporary affluent Western society

wherein several important aspects have been given attention. However, there is one aspect which

I equally believe to be fundamental but is hardly touched by previous authors and has thus not

received any attention up to this point.

Few links have been made between subjective well-being and environmental

sustainability (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs 2012: 96) and perhaps even less between our happiness

and our natural origin, nature.28

To address that origin now, a partial look will be given to the

‘original affluent society’. As anthropologist Marshall Sahlins refers herein to hunter-gatherer

populations (Wells 2010: 113), it may be noted that one particular aspect of their way of living is

their strong affiliation with nature. Any further justification for this use may be ascribed to the

fact that understanding our history aids in the understanding of ourselves and our direction

towards the future (Wells 2010: xii).

Modern Western discourse partly exists of the distinction between nature and society

(Pálsson 1996: 64), i.e. the nature-human dichotomy.29

Nature itself has become somewhat a

forgotten externality today and this may be duly noted in its absence throughout the bulk on

subjective well-being literature. However, if we would recognize our communion with nature, we

might gain several desirable benefits in return.

In the first part of this chapter I will address some of the processes which led to the social

nature-human dichotomy, therein outlining differences between the original and the modern

affluent society. Secondly, a more specific look will be given to what it means to be related to

nature and inherently, how contemporary Western societies look at nature. Thirdly, and thereby

coming to the heart of this chapter, there will be an elaboration on how nature relatedness

contributes to our happiness.

28

It should be noted that links have been made in subjective well-being research as to how the biological

body, specifically the human brain reacts to and determines our happiness (Layard 2005: 17) but

significantly less attention has been given to the metaphysical manner, thus feeling a connection with

nature and therein receiving a psychological and even a physical reward from it. 29

The nature-human dichotomy, and particularly in discourse, has its origin in the Renaissance period

(Pálsson 1996: 65) wherein rationality with objectivity came into existence (1996: 66) and nature [she]

became ‘it’ (ibid.) for ‘it’ could now be understood and controlled (ibid.).

26

2. Between the old and the new

There have been several changes in our relation to nature, to our environment. Particularly, our

standing position towards nature has changed. The original affluent society wherein hunter-

gatherer populations have a strong affiliation with nature seems to have become outdated and as

so, our behaviour has similarly changed.

In his work Pandora’s Seed (2010), geneticist and anthropologist Wells arguments that

the modern way of living is incompatible with our biology (2010: 144). Therein he makes a

compelling case that through the rise of agriculture and domestication, not only our stance to

nature changed, it equally changed our stance to one another in society. As hunter-gatherers we

relied on the “whims of nature” (2010: 24) for our survival, whilst later as agriculturalists, we

created our food sources (2010: 16). Additionally, whilst there was a relative sense of equality in

hunter-gatherer populations (2010: 53) and a fair wealth distribution (2010: 54), the growth in

agriculture gave way to new power structures. Subsequently, it encouraged the creation of

government, authority (2010: 56), and even new social statuses by material goods (2010: 57).

Food brought forth social change (2010: 57-58). Poverty resulted from expanding gaps between

socioeconomic statuses (2010: 63-65) and as we moved into greater societies, we even started our

unnatural behaviour as in to dehumanize one another (2010: 120) – as we for example remain

quiet in a full elevator with strangers as if no one is there – and which may partially account for

the increasing levels of mental illnesses of today (ibid.). It is also not fully misplaced that Wells

notes that “this is the first time in history that we are routinely drugging ourselves in order to

appear normal” (2010: 121), arguably in order to appear ‘ok’.

Many changes can be noted from above and though perhaps more is to be told and a

nuanced version would give away clearer correlations, there is an undeniable correspondence

with some points which were told earlier in the previous chapter. It was not only industrialization

and our incentive for economic growth to surpass poverty that affected society. The earlier rise of

agriculture to surpass hunger and human’s dependence on nature did so likewise and

simultaneously, it changed our stance on nature. Similar to Wells, I am not advocating for a large-

scale return to hunter-gatherer populations, only that there is a lesson to be learned from our

ancestors (Wells 2010: 195). We have had a strong connection with nature for quite a

considerable time and it should not be forgotten. How we stand towards nature at the moment

will be discussed in the next part of this chapter.

27

3. Loving nature

“We are still After Nature: still act with nature in mind” (Strathern 1992: 197). Yet, our

perceptions have somewhat changed (ibid.) and how we relate to nature today depends on “the

kinds of beings we humans are” (Ingold 2000: 25). Even more, as Milton (2002) goes beyond that

every individual is a “product of their own social experience” (2002: 148), she states that it is our

whole environment which forms us (ibid.). The outcome is only determined by how we interact

or “engage with it” (ibid.). According to Milton, we learn to feel in a certain way (2002: 149) for

how we feel during our first engagements will determine our remembrance (ibid.) and

consequently, how we will act from thereon (ibid). Consequently, our developed emotions have a

power to motivate us by making clear that which we hold dearest (ibid.).

What remains is the question on how we relate to nature and how we stand with our

“appreciation for and understanding of our interconnectedness with all other living things on the

earth” (Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy 2009: 718). As seen in the previous part, we have become

‘masters’ over nature and this has actually weakened our closeness. It may be true as Kellert

(1997) notes that “we need to return to learning about the land by being on the land, or better, by

being in the thick of it” (1997: 103). As Kellert equally points out that we are deeply social

animals (1997: 106), he notes that “we hunger for connection and kinship” (1997: 107) and it is

no coincidence that we have an “instinctive inclination to react strongly to certain elements in

nature” (1997: 148). Reasonably, we need to rethink our mastery over nature.

Pálsson is herein exemplary in that she addresses the notion of communalism within

Nature & Society (1996). In its meaning there is no mastery of nature. It is a belief in reciprocity

in human-environmental relations (1996: 67) wherein there is an emphasis on contingency,

participation, and dialogue (ibid.). This reciprocity may be seen as intimate, personal

relationships (1996: 72) wherein it is equally possible to see nature as a ‘giving environment’

(1996: 74). In her final conclusions, she points out that through modern environmental discourse,

more westerners see themselves today as an integral part of nature (1996: 78), as such going back

to “pre-Renaissance thought, the interrelatedness of nature and society […], in the original,

unified sense of the term” (ibid.). Nonetheless, this hasn’t touched yet the evolutionary aspect of

feeling related to nature.

Several scholars adhere to the notion of biophilia to support the evolutionary aspect of

their nature relatedness claim and others have contested this. The question remains whether our

affiliation, our love for nature comes from within or the external. Is it learned or is it hot-wired in

our genetics? Can it be that it is naturally learned, only by certain external triggers? In Nurture is

28

Nature, Meyer et al. (2013) point out that through our development process as a person,

“environmental influences set our neural circuitry” (2013: 164) and therein significantly influence

our emotions and cognitions (ibid.). Several parts of the brain as the limbic system and the

prefrontal cortex manage our emotions and cognitive understanding (2013: 165) but not so much

would happen in itself for “interpersonal processes (nurture) are essential for physical processes

(nature) to occur” (ibid). We may conclude that most of our emotions are learned from our

environment, hence nurture but it is our nature that provides a base to put them on.

Though nature relatedness may thus not be fully hot-wired in our genetics, I do believe it

to be an integral part of what makes us a biological being. Furthermore, as nature relatedness may

be partly learned behaviour, I believe the same can be said about our modern inclination to live in

urban settings and to be happy therein. Social conditioning which we receive from our

environment will teach us certain behaviours and the acceptance of it will be determined by

whether, as Milton said, we have a positive or negative aftertaste from our first encounters.

4. Finding joy and meaning

The one point that remains now is to see what nature can do to our happiness. Essentially,

research has proven that nature relatedness has a positive correlation with psychological and

social well-being (Howell et al. 2011: 168). Still, it is noted that we ought to look further than

merely seeing nature as a refuge from our stressful, hectic lifestyles (Mayer et al. 2009: 635).

Nature relatedness can bring us many more additional benefits.

Being in nature can for example help when it comes to reflect on a life issue (Mayer et al.

2009: 620). Herein, it is believed that it is not so much an acceptance to one’s circumstances that

individuals come to, but more an enhanced awareness (Howell & al. 2011: 170) which

presumably helps in one’s reflection as it calms the mind. Furthermore, nature relatedness equally

triggers within individuals a sense of belonging to something which is beyond one’s own

existence (Mayer et al. 2009: 635). This may be linked to that Howell & al. (2011) note that

individuals who feel highly connected may deduct a sense of meaning in life from their

experience (2011: 170) which in turn may boost their well-being (ibid.). This last point is partly

shared by Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy (2011) as they state that reflecting on our place in nature

reminds us for example that we are alive and vital (2011: 317) and this may arguably equally

boost our well-being. It can be agreed upon that nature has an aesthetic stimuli (Grinde & Patil

2009: 2334) which works on a deep intrinsic level.

29

That our relatedness to nature may be largely formed by cultural factors and personal

preferences (Grinde & Patil 2009: 2338) has been noted before. Nevertheless, there is a chance

that we make mistakes in predicting the importance of less or more trivial matters when we are

engaged with nature (Nisbet & Zelenski 2011: 1102). When we for example have pets which can

be healthy and loving companionships, or we look at the therapeutic effects of gardening

(Frumkin 2001: 236), or we even choose a place to reside which may actually affect how we feel

through for example the impact of the existing climate (Brereton, Clinch & Ferreira 2008: 394)30

,

we should be attentive to the fact that including elements of nature may significantly benefit our

psychological well-being (Gullone 2000: 315). We may derive more happiness than we could

imagine at first.

Lastly, there are some extra notes of which we should be attentive. Firstly, Kahn,

Severson and Ruckert (2009) have noted that although artificial or technological nature, like

watching nature scenes on a television screen or having an aquarium, is better than having no

nature, it is no competition for real nature (2009: 39). As Mayer et al. note, real environments

have many more attributes, “involving the sense of sight, sound, touch, and smell” (Mayer et al.

2009: 621). It is thus better to ‘get out there’ but when this is not possible, it may be good to have

some substitutes. Secondly, it is hoped that when nature relatedness would be more common, it

would not only benefit humans but equally the well-being of the planet (Brown & Kasser

2005:64). This point is also noted by Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy (2011) in which they hope that

the promotion of nature relatedness would result into more friendly environmental behaviour

(2011: 319). As Perkins (2010) slightly advocates that we should act more altruistically wherein

particularly developed nations will have to make some personal sacrifices (2010: 462),

encouraging people to care about the environment could eventually lead to a greater commitment

to protect the environment (ibid.) and making any sacrifices less hard. As such, getting a set of

personal values wherein we care more for our environment than merely for our own egocentric

needs (Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy 2011: 317). It is therefore no surprise that equally present here

there is a demand for a behaviour change (Brown & Kasser 2005:63). We mostly ought to think

twice when we think of our needs and consequently, reduce our material consumption (ibid.). A

point also duly noted in the previous chapter as being more thankful and lessen our wants will

make us happier. Only now we can brighten the planet too.

30

A frequently cited study of Ulrich (1984), titled “View through a window may influence recovery from

surgery” is another example of residence. Within this study, postoperative patients within a hospital were

randomly divided into two groups from which one group resided in a room with a view facing a brick wall

and the other group facing a garden-like setting. Conclusions were made that individuals from the second

group with the garden-like setting needed less medication, complained lesser, there were fewer nurses’

notes, and they were released earlier than the other group (Frumkin 2001: 237, Gullone 2000: 302).

30

In conclusion, it remains somewhat of a question from where our affiliation with nature

comes from. Is it nature’s own aesthetic stimuli, cultural influences or personal tastes…or is it

actually some innate form of kinship from throughout history? It remains a difficult question to

answer. Some relations can be hard to explain. What is important is that we should be aware of

the fact that nature can bring a smile to our faces and a glow into our hearts. Interacting with

nature can be a joyous and invigorating event and as our relatedness deepens, we may

additionally find a spiritual place for ourselves as we become part of the greatness and beauty that

nature embodies. That we in the process can be better care-givers to the planet is also not only a

nice extra. Through our connectedness as we live in it and as nature’s well-being essentially

safeguards our own existence, keeping the planet happy is keeping ourselves happy.

31

5. Visions and revisions

“But it will be those people, who can keep alive, and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the

art of life itself and do not sell themselves for the means of life, who will be able to enjoy

the abundance when it comes” (Keynes 1972: 328).

Western affluent societies are peculiar in their meaning. They are supposed to be thriving. Hence

being affluent. Still, can it be argued that being prosperous equals being happy? Isn’t that the idea?

Shouldn’t it actually be so? What exact meaning do we want to give to the notion ‘affluent’?

Some have expressed their doubts towards contemporary Western affluence and if they are right

to do so, how can we go on glorifying the Western pursuit of affluence? Are Western societies

thriving to be happy or have they become distracted with superfluous beliefs and behaviours? To

answer these questions, this paper started with a hypothesis on a supposed belief that Western

societies experiences questionable levels of happiness. That we needed to question the levels of

happiness within. What remains now are the specifications of this belief. Yet, before I will

address these, I would like to share how I personally have come to see what our subject,

subjective well-being is.

Happiness or subjective well-being, I believe, comes through what we do in life and the relations

we build to other people and the matters which we hold dearest. It is through getting into a flow

of reciprocity between all these, that we find meaning and gain a sense of happiness throughout

the process. This is not a definition, more as to what constitutes it and my perception is based on

several thoughts as to (1) that we need to feel connected, to feel as a participant of life, (2) that we

need at least one project to give meaning to our everyday actions – for it links ourselves to our

environment and to what we hold dear, and (3) that happiness is not a ultimate goal to be reached

but rather a condition which comes along a certain state of mind and a way of being. Descola

(1996) points out that “the entities of which our universe is made have meaning and identity

solely through the relations that constitute them as such” (1996: 99). Building upon this, I believe

that maybe we only truly live and are happy as we get into a kindred relationship with the entities

which are part of our identity, i.e. to who we are and what we live for. That our identity is

significantly culturally fashioned makes the attentive reader evidently raise the question how

culturally fashioned our happiness is? What effect has Western culture upon our happiness?

32

“Within Western societies different social classes may pursue quite different cultural goals”

(Maddox 1982: 119). Yet, though cultural variety exists, it may be said that people are equally

influenced by some commonalities (ibid.). There are some phenomena at play in Western

societies which affect all its inhabitants and therefore equally their happiness. Throughout this

paper, these fundamental features have shown themselves and we may at this point review how

these have expressed themselves.

One of the most prominent features of Western affluent societies that has been noticed is

its strong focus to strive. Accumulation of wealth is at the fore-ground and has been so for a long

time. But to what has this led? What has it done to Western societies? One side of it is that

Western societies have been living more and more comfortable lives. Sadly, it has equally led to

what Layard (2005) calls “exaggerated versions of the ‘survival of the fittest’” (2005: 232). As

noted earlier, Western societies have fought for transcendence of suffering and hunger and

somewhat later for emancipation of its economic problem, i.e. poverty. As the fight for survival

became so bold, it has actually become somewhat ruthless, and so have our societies. It would be

unjust to call Western societies inherently merciless but one is fairly obliged to measure-up and to

keep-up. When this isn’t the case, it becomes quite hard to enjoy Western society’s abundance.

People – arguably those who are more influenced by societal factors and haven’t yet developed

into more independent and self-assured aspirations for life – may feel uneasy knowing this fact

and as we have seen, rates of mental illnesses have gone berserk.

“Societies want to be happy, and for good and deep reasons” (Helliwell, Layard & Sachs

2012: 96). Still, the concept of striving needs some modifications. For one, as Helliwell, Layard

and Sachs (2012) point out that what needs to happen is that important non-market variables

should be more at the foreground of a benefit/cost analysis (2012: 22). What these non-market

variables are and why these are important has specifically been seen with our social relations.

Maddox (1982) had made some observations early on in perspective to social relations as he

stated that “in the rush and bustle of a large city, people do not speak to each other much, or even

look at each other…there is a dearth of community life” (Maddox 1982: 86). Though it can be

claimed that this statement is generally true, I carefully ask in what degree? We still do speak to

others, we still form relations, so how can it be claimed? The specificity lies arguably in lifestyles.

What we do in our hours awake determines our sociality, eventually our community life. That

some are of opinion that there is a problem here arguably accounts for that maybe we do need

more relationships-friendly lifestyles. Still, more nuanced versions of Western lifestyles may be

desired to understand the exact social worth of our actions. How can we value our actions when

we want to measure a degree of sociability? What about the cultural variation therein?

33

These question are to some degree still to be answered but arguably, the greatest cultural variation

in respect to this paper on subjective well-being is the variation between the goals we pursue. As

said before, our identities as the relations we form through the goals we pursue – as a

consequence of what we hold dear – determine our happiness and these are substantially

culturally formed. Furthermore, as our happiness is thus determined by the relations we form with

our environment, it may be stated that subjective well-being is a social matter. As “social

anthropology is about relationships” (Weiner 1988: 5), I hope by now that I have made clear that

the concept of subjective well-being rightfully deserves a place within the discipline of

anthropology, and even then, the point may be even more strengthened.

Maddox (1982) ends his work on happiness with stating that “no one can measure the

quality of one man’s happiness against another’s, but we can say that engagement and activity –

especially unselfish activity – are less fallible sources of happiness than consumption, reputation,

even social affection” (1982: 145). Aside from that Maddox equally seems to believes happiness

to be significantly a social matter, I too have noted the importance of relations, thus engagement

but we can still wonder about the cultural specificity of our engagements for which

anthropology’s methodology fits perfectly. Especially if one wants to measure the variation

between nations, countries, and communities to outline weaknesses and strengths within these

places and as stated before, to find out perceptions on what are valuable goals to pursue today.

One particular relation , namely the one to nature has been looked upon in detail. Initially

this was done to demonstrate the variety of personal attitudes towards subjective well-being and

what we personally believe to contribute to being happy. However, we have come to see that

some external factors from our environment should not be ignored for they can actually be in

some degree a commonality. Nature relatedness can significantly contribute to our subjective

well-being for it can create happier societies through revitalizing our spirits and giving

individuals a deeper sense of meaning and belonging. Although nature relatedness is personally

perceived as a symbiosis of biological and cultural traits, it remains somewhat hard to explain. If

given the opportunity, environmental anthropology may be able to distillate its true functioning.

All and all, it may be argued that it is right to question our levels of happiness, and so this paper

hasn’t been all for nought. A little earlier, the question was raised as to how can we go on

glorifying the Western pursuit of affluence? One of the most important lessons to be learned from

anthropology is that not everything is simply black and white, and the line can be drawn further

throughout the notion of Western affluence. A somewhat uneasy picture of Western societies has

been displayed and though I may have led to believe otherwise, it has to be noted that Western

34

societies are actually fairly happy. Most countries in the top 10 of world’s happiest countries

today are namely to be found in the Western part of the world.31

Granted, a significant

contribution has to be noted from having a good government, a decent economy and a fairly good

health system. As a result, Western affluence does in some degree bring forth substantial amounts

of happiness. Still, there are problems with affluence. This may be clear. As such, we may for

example wonder how to evaluate affluence aside the environmental destruction and its

consequences the planet faces today.32

We may wonder how some fail to see its consequences to

our lives and our happiness. Where do our priorities lie? How can the value of priorities be

measured? Through it social consequences on others? Can happiness be measured by the

priorities we set in life? Perhaps it may. Affluence has brought many improvements to life but we

need to be aware at what cost. As Diener and Seligman (2004) point out, we are still struggling

with “how to pursue the goal of greater well-being” (2004:25). We are still figuring out the art of

life itself. Safeguarding happiness throughout affluence is evidently a social process that

confronts us all for “improving individual life must include improving societies” (Tay & Diener

2011: 363) and within, many questions can come forth and room gets created for anthropologists

to work in. Foremost, as Kellert (1997) somewhat pinpoints the matter, we have to be attentive to

the question whether the comforts we gain through development justify to the glory of life (1997:

181). When we want to ask whether the goals set in Western societies and when these are taken

upon will bring forth a considerable degree of happiness, we may forever be vigilant to whether

we have obtained a good understanding of what happiness is and whether we are actually still

pursuing the outcomes we truly want.

Word count: 13.281

31

World Happiness Report 2013 Ranks Happiest Countries Around Globe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/world-happiness-report-happiest-countries_n_3894041.html,

last consulted on 26-09-2013. 32

"Je kind met een mondmasker naar school sturen, is dat vooruitgang?"

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/5627/Klimaattop-Warschau/article/detail/1736677/2013/11/09/Je-kind-

met-een-mondmasker-naar-school-sturen-is-dat-vooruitgang.dhtml, last consulted on 11-11-2013.

35

Appendix A

World Happiness Map created by Adrian White;

“Happiness is ...being Healthy, Wealthy and Wise”.33

33

University of Leicester Produces the first ever World Map of Happiness

http://www.le.ac.uk/ebulletin-archive/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-

28.html, last consulted on 05-05-2013.

36

Appendix B

Source: (Diener and Seligman 2004 : 3).

37

Appendix C

38

Source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/65/309, last consulted on

03-09-2013.

39

Appendix D

Source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=%20A/RES/66/281, last

consulted on 03-09-2013.

40

References

Theory Books

- Descola, P. (1996) ‘Constructing natures: Symbolic ecology and social practice’ in P.

Descola & G. Pálsson Nature and Society London, Routledge: 82-102.

- Eriksen, T. H. (2004) What is anthropology? London, Pluto Press.

- Feldman, F. (2010) What is this thing called happiness? Oxford, Oxford University

Press.

- Hruschka, D. (2010) Friendship: development, ecology, and evolution of a

relationship Berkeley, California etc., University of California Press.

- Ingold, T. (2000) ‘Letters’ in K. Milton Loving Nature: towards an ecology of

emotion London, Routledge.

- Kellert, S. R. (1997) Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and

Development Washington, DC, Island Press.

- Keynes, J. M. (1972) ‘Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren’ in J. M. Keynes

Essays in persuasion London and Basingstoke, MacMillan Press LTD: 321-332.

- Lane, R. E. (2000) The loss of happiness in market democracies New Haven, Yale

University Press.

- Layard, R. (2011) Happiness: lessons from a new science London, Penguin.

- Maddox, H. (1982) Happiness, lifestyle and environment Daylesford, Freshet Press.

- Milton, K. (2002) Loving Nature: towards an ecology of emotion London, Routledge.

- Pálsson, G. (1996) ‘Human-environmental relations: Orientalism, paternalism and

communalism’ in P. Descola & G. Pálsson Nature and Society London, Routledge:

63-81.

- Polanyi, K. (1944) The great transformation: the political and economic origins of

our time New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

- Strathern, M. (1992) ‘Recapitulation: nostalgia from a post plural world’ in M.

Strathern After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press: 186-198.

- Sumner, L. W. (1996) Welfare, happiness, and Ethics in Feldman, F. What is this

thing called happiness? Oxford, Oxford University Press.

- Veenhoven, R. (1984) ‘Conclusions’ in R. Veenhoven Conditions of Happiness

Dordrecht, Springer: 374-404.

41

- Wells, S. (2010) Pandora’s seed: Why the hunter-gatherer holds the key to our

survival London, Penguin Group.

- Weiner, J.F. (1988) ‘The Heart of the Pearlshell: The Mythological Dimension of Foi

Socially’ in Strathern, M. After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth

century Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Journal Articles

- Brereton, F., J. P. Clinch & S. Ferreira (2008) ‘Happiness, geography and the

environment’ Ecological Economics 65: 386-396.

- Brown, K. W. & T. Kasser (2005) ‘Are psychological and ecological well-being

compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle’ Social Indicators

Research 74: 349-368.

- Davis, W. L., B. Figgins, D. Hedengren & D. B. Klein (2011) ‘Economic professors’

favorite economic thinkers, journals, and blogs’ Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126-146.

- Di Tella, R., R. J. MacCulloch & A. J. Oswald (2003) ‘The Macroeconomics of

Happiness’ The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 809-827.

- Diener, E. & M. E. P. Seligman (2004) ‘Beyond Money: toward an economy of well-

being’ Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(1): 1-31.

- Dolan, P., T. Peasgood & M. White (2008) ‘Do we really know what makes us

happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective

well-being’ Journal of Economic Psychology 29: 94-122.

- Easterlin, R. A. (1995) ‘Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?”

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 27: 35-47.

- Fine, B. (2007) ‘Social capital’ Development in Practice 17(4-5): 566-574.

- Frey, B. S. & A. Stutzer (2012) ‘The use of happiness research for public policy’

Social Choice and Welfare 38: 659-674.

- Frumkin, H. (2001) ‘Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment’

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(3): 234-240.

- Grinde, B. & G. G. Patil (2009) ‘Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on

health and well-being?’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health 6: 2332-2343.

- Gullone, E. (2000) ‘The Biophilia Hypothesis and Life in the 21st Century: Increasing

mental health or increasing pathology?’ Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 293-321.

42

- Howell, A. J., R. L. Dopko, H. Passmore & K. Buro (2011) ‘Nature connectedness:

Associations with well-being and mindfulness’ Personality and Individual

Differences 51: 166-171.

- Johnston, B. R. (2012) ‘On Happiness’ American Anthropologist 114(1): 6-18.

- Joye, Y. & A. De Block (2011) ‘Nature and I are Two : a critical examination of the

biophilia hypothesis’ Environmental Values 20: 189-215.

- Kahn, P. H., Jr., R. L. Severson & J. H. Ruckert (2009) ‘The human relation with

nature and technological nature’ Association for Psychological Science 18(1): 37-42.

- Mayer, F. S., C. M. Frantz, E. Bruehlman-Senecal, & K. Dolliver (2009) “Why is

nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature” Environment and Behaviour

41: 607-643.

- Meyer, D., S. Wood & B. Stanley (2013) ‘Nurture is Nature: integrating brain

development, systems theory, and attachment theory’ The Family Journal:

Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 21(2): 162-169.

- Nisbet, E. K. & J. M. Zelenski (2011) ‘Underestimating Nearby Nature: Affective

forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability’ Psychological Science 22:

1101-1106.

- Nisbet, E. K., J. M. Zelenski & S. A. Murphy (2009) ‘The Nature Relatedness Scale:

Linking Individuals connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior’

Environment and Behavior 41(5): 715-740.

- Nisbet, E. K., J. M. Zelenski & S. A. Murphy (2011) ‘Happiness is in our Nature:

Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being’ Journal of

happiness Studies 12: 303-322.

- Perkins, H. E. (2010) ‘Measuring love and care for nature’ Journal of Environmental

Psychology 30: 455-463.

- Sahlins, M. (1996) ‘The Sadness of Sweetness: The Native Anthropology of Western

Cosmology’ in Johnston, B. R. ‘On Happiness’ American Anthropologist 114(1): 6-

18.

- Tay, L. & E. Diener (2011) ‘Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the World’

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(2): 354-365.

- Vernon, M. (2010) ‘All pleasure and no gain’ New Statesman 139(5028): 36-37.

- Wierzbicka, A. (2004) ‘‘Happiness’ in Cross-Linguistic & Cross-Cultural

Perspective’ Daedalus 133(2): 34-43.

43

- Wilson, E.O. (1993) ‘Biophilia and the conservation ethic’ in Gullone, E. ‘The

Biophilia Hypothesis and Life in the 21st Century: Increasing mental health or

increasing pathology?’ Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 293-321.

- Wilson, E.O. (1984) ‘Biophilia’ in Nisbet, E. K. & J. M. Zelenski ‘Underestimating

Nearby Nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability’

Psychological Science 22: 1101-1106.

Reports

- Helliwell, J., R. Layard & J. Sachs (2012) World Happiness Report UN.