Posts
VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY
Voluntary Simplicity (VS) is a lifestyle choice based upon a system of intrinsic values focused on lightening and unburdening one’s life from things and experiences that interfere with a higher quality of life and, instead, concentrating on the things one genuinely needs and cherishes.
This is primarily done by deliberately and mindfully reducing one's consumption of goods and services, living with fewer possessions, cultivating nonmaterialistic sources of satisfaction and meaning and developing deeper connections with one’s social and ecological community.
VS practitioners, also known as “voluntary simplifiers” or “downshifters,” work on developing lifestyles aimed at minimizing the traditional pursuit of wealth, conspicuous consumption and the acquisition of possessions and the attainment of image/status. They maintain that a VS lifestyle is more fulfilling for the individual, helps create a stronger community and decreases environmental damage.
The voluntary component of VS denotes a selection that is deliberate, purposeful and rooted in free will. In other words, a conscious choice in embracing VS over other lifestyles - in particular, the ‘more = better’ pursuit of wealth and consumption. VS is distinguished from poverty and other forms of simple living in that VS is a voluntary lifestyle choice; not one within which an individual is forced or coerced into because of economic or other reasons such as government austerity programs or imprisonment.
The simplicity aspect of VS, on the other hand, has a more fluid definition because it exists in varying degrees and manifestations, and because it is dependent on an individual’s own perspective and personal recognition of those aspects of their life that are unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome.
Although the primary motivation for an individual to choose VS may differ (e.g. global environmental concerns, social justice and equality, spirituality, physical or mental health, etc...), practitioners do generally share a common set of goals and values based upon intrinsic, versus extrinsic, pursuits.
Individuals who focus on extrinsic goals and values are marked by an acceptance and reliance on consumer culture and the organization of one’s life to revolve around the pursuit of wealth, the acquisition of possessions, and the attainment of image/status.
VS practitioners, on the other hand, strive for an intrinsic or inwardly rich life focused on personal growth, mindfulness, affiliation, and community feeling/contribution in addition to autonomy, authenticity, pursuit of fun non-consummatory activities (e.g. hiking, music), family, volunteerism, meaningful work, connection to nature, financial independence, the pursuit of self-knowledge and self-acceptance, environmental and social awareness, intimacy/connection to others, and contribution to the community. According to Duane Elgin, “This way of life embraces frugality of consumption, a strong sense of environmental urgency, a desire to return to living and working environments which are of a more human scale, and an intention to realize our higher human potential – both psychological and spiritual – in community with others” (Elgin and Mitchell 1977). VS helps “unburden ourselves [and] establish a more direct, unpretentious, and unencumbered relationship with all aspects of our lives: the things we consume, the work that we do, our relationships with others, our connections with nature and the cosmos…” (Elgin 1993). Elgin continues to define VS as “a manner of living that is outwardly more simple and inwardly more rich, a way of being in which our most authentic and alive self is brought into direct and conscious contact with living… The objective is… living with balance in order to find a life of greater purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction” (Elgin 1993).
Of course, most individuals place some level of emphasis on both extrinsic and intrinsic pursuits. The distinction is not either/or but, rather, that VS practitioners deliberately and mindfully place significantly less emphasis on extrinsic aims and consciously pursue intrinsic goals to the extent possible.
The History of Voluntary Simplicity in the Post-War Era
Voluntary Simplicity is not new. Its conceptual roots stem from Ancient Greece (Diogenes of Sinope) and China (Lao Tzu), and the ideas of VS have reemerged throughout history through the philosophies of numerous spiritual leaders, such as Jesus and Buddha, political leaders, such as Gandhi and Lenin, and the transcendental philosophies of Thoreau and Emerson, among many others.
Within several religious traditions in particular, including Christianity and Buddhism, the principles of monasticism and asceticism have been used to institutionalize a form of voluntary poverty aimed at leading a contemplative lifestyle. Practitioners of these lifestyles lead austere lifestyles, refraining from many sensual pleasures and the accumulation of material possessions and wealth. The religious roots of VS can also be traced to early American history. In the early 17th century, for example, the Puritans developed “spiritual communities that would hold materialism in check... [by instituting a] social ethic of hard work, temperate living, civic virtue, and spiritual devotion” (Shi 2003: 101). Similarly, the Quaker ethic was “designed to teach Friends how to live rather than to make a living. Simplicity would not only serve as a testament to the rest of the world against the evils of conceit, greed, and superfluity, but also promote social justice. If a few lived in needless luxury, the Friends assumed, then the masses would be relegated to poverty. Early Quaker thought rejected the notion that the extravagant habits of the wealthy were necessary in order to provide jobs for the poor. George Fox suggested that those who believed such a theory should exchange their jewels, raiments, and mansions for money and then distribute the proceeds to the needy, a considerably more direct approach to the problem of poverty” (Shi 2003: 103).
Whereas VS today has a more fluid definition, it is worth examining its historical roots and, in particular, its manifestations within contemporary American society after World War II, when the American economy and population grew rapidly. Indeed, contemporary notions and manifestation of VS are primarily rooted in the synthesis of a range of ideas and ideologies in the United States dating back to the 1960s, 70s and 80s when VS emerged into a type of social movement (the development of VS into a movement is discussed in more detail below).
The bedrock of modern-day VS was developed by followers of the counterculture movement. These Americans “sought a lifestyle that consumed and produced little, at least in terms of marketable objects, and sought to derive satisfaction, meaning and a sense of purpose from contemplation, communion with nature, bonding, mood-altering substances, sex, and inexpensive products” (Etzioni 2003: 6). In large part, the counterculture movement laid out a foundation of values and principles that still form the core ethical framework embedded in the VS movement (as will be discussed in more detail below). These ‘postmaterialist values’ emphasized quality of life over material well-being.
One survey in particular indicated a growing trend in postmaterialist values between 1972 and 1991, with the percentage of survey respondents representing postmaterialist values doubling from 9% in 1972 to 18% in 1991 and those with materialist values dropping from 35% to 16%, respectively (Abramson and Inglehart 1995). Nevertheless, personal consumption in the U.S. continued to grow throughout the 1980s, with a 21.4% increase in per capita consumer spending and halving of the personal savings rate from 7.9% to 4.2% (Lebergott 1993, U.S. Census Bureau 1994).
It is worth noting, however, that in practice, the counterculture movement embodied a more extreme form of VS. As Etzioni (2003: 20-21) points out: “voluntary simplicity, even by those highly dedicated to it, seeks to combine a reasonable level of work and consumption (to attend to creature-comfort needs) with satisfaction from higher sources. The counterculture tried to minimize work and consumption, denying attention to basic needs, and hence became unsustainable. To put it more charitably, it provided an extreme, path-blazing version for the voluntary simplicity that followed. Nevertheless, while much more moderate than the lifestyle advocated by the counterculture, voluntary simplicity, as a result of fostering satisfaction from sources other than consumer objects, still reduces the need to work and shop. As a result, it frees time and other scarce resources for further cultivation of nonmaterialistic sources of satisfaction: from acquiring music appreciation to visiting museums; from slowing down to enjoy nature to watching a rerun of a classic movie on television.”
In the last three decades, VS as an idea, behavior and lifestyle choice has become “contagious in exactly the same way a virus is” and has been spreading rapidly through society (Gladwell 2000).
In 1989, Cecil Andrews (author of The Circle of Simplicity: Return to the Good Life) lead a VS seminar in Seattle. Four people attended the event. Three years later, there were 175 people (Humphreys 1989). A few years ago, Andrews conducted a Circle of Simplicity workshop at Douglas College where participants learned about the benefits of creating simplicity circles, how to set them up and how to communicate with similar simplicity circles on the internet.
Andrews story is not unique. Interest in VS has been increasing steadily throughout the last few decades. Indeed, through the internet, books, articles, eco-villages, social “simplicity circles” and other VS networks and organizations, more and more people are choosing VS as a lifestyle choice, spreading the news about how they achieved their VS goals, describing the benefits of a VS lifestyle, and even forming intentional communities of like-minded individuals revolving around VS.
Indeed, the growth of VS can most easily be traced through the existence and growth of simplicity circles, workshops and support groups. For example, in 1997, 108 simplicity circles were listed on the Web of Simplicity website. That number grew to 210 in 1999 and expanded threefold by 2002 to 650 (Grigsby 2004).
No one knows for certain how many people live the VS lifestyle (partly because any survey depends on how VS is defined), but many observes have identified it as a large and growing social movement (Maniates 2002, Weston 2001).
A commonly cited survey on the subject by the Harwood Group (2002) found that 60 million Americans “voluntarily reduced their income and their consumption in conscious pursuit of new personal or household priorities” between 1990 and 1995. Another survey by Schor (1998) concluded that 50 million Americans have “permanently chosen to live on significantly less and are happy with the change.” Even earlier, in 1995, a study by the Merck Family Fund reported that between 1990 and 1995, 28% of a national sample of Americans reported having downshifted (defined as voluntarily making life changes that result in a lower income, reflecting a change in their priorities) (Goldberg 1995). Common changes included “reducing work hours, switching to lower-paying jobs, and quitting work to stay home, actions which often, but not necessarily, correlate with downshifting” (Etzioni 1993: 9). In 1977, Elgin and Mitchell estimated that 10 million adults followed the tenets of VS and that the figure would increase to 90 million by the year 2000 (Elgin and Mitchell 1977).
In addition, the Merck Family Fund study found that 82% of Americans believe that people buy and consume more than they need. Another survey conducted in 1989 found that 3 out of 4 Americans would like “to see our country return to a simpler lifestyle, with less emphasis on material success” (Henkoff 1989: 41) suggesting that many Americans find VS “commendable but not widely followed” (Etzioni 1993: 9).
Other indicators also point to the growth of VS as a social movement.
Public discussion of VS, for example, moved rapidly from niche books in the 80’s to mainstream media in the 90’s. By 1996, major newspapers each published an average of two stories on the subject, whereas in 1993, it was a rare occurrence. And, in 1998, coverage jumped to 6-8 stories per paper (Maniates 2002).
Books on VS also increased rapidly during the same period. Zavestoski (2002) found that more books were published over a 4 year period between 1995 and 1998 - 32 - than in the previous 22 years when only 26 books were published on the topic.
Indeed, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Simple Living appeared in bookstores in 2000: a clear sign that VS has reached the masses.
Perhaps most tellingly, however, is the approach marketers have had to the VS movement. Johnston (2000) wrote that “widespread adoption of Voluntary Simplicity ideas may create a vastly different world for consumer marketers” and Ensley (1983) wrote that “growth in the number of adherents to Voluntary Simplicity could dramatically affect current marketing practices.” If one were to ‘follow the money’ – or at least the thinking of people who do, it is clear that VS has begun to worry marketers precisely because of its growth as a social movement.
Lastly, the emergence of websites and other organizations clearly point to the reality that VS is a social movement.
The online Simple Living Network, for example, offers “tools, examples, and contacts for conscious, simple, healthy and restorative living.” In addition, the Center for the New American Dram (CNAD) “helps Americans consume responsibly to protect the environment, enhance quality of life and promote social justice.” The Slow Foods and Slow Cities movements also share many of the principles and values of VS and are, indeed, interrelated social movements.
Increasingly, as individuals “begin to realize that the promises of consumer culture are false and that retail therapy does little more than increase their credit card debt, they may become motivated to search out a different system of meaning in their lives” (Kasser 2004: 59).
Having said that, “we must wonder about the potential efficacy of any interventions as long as we remain a culture where extrinsic values are continually encourages, where intrinsic values are mentioned largely for marketing purposes, and where the media, government, and educational systems are all increasingly becoming outlets for corporate interests. If this is the state of our culture, is it reasonable to say that individuals should be solely responsible for being less materialistic?” (Kasser 2004: 62).
Nevertheless, as the New York Times reported in 1995: “Choosing to buy and earn less - to give up income and fast-track success for more free time and a lower-stress life - involves a quiet personal revolt against the dominant culture of getting and spending. Enough small revolts are now taking place, researchers say, to make [the] phenomenon... a major and growing trend of the 1990s” (Goldberg 1995: C1).
An Ethical Framework: the Central Values of Voluntary Simplicity
According to Duane Elgin and Arnold Mitchell, 5 values make up the ethical core of VS:
- Material Simplicity
- Human Scale
- Self-Determination
- Ecological Awareness
- Personal Growth
(Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 147)
Material Simplicity
Simplification of the material aspects of our lives is central VS. Within this realm, VS practitioners often ask themselves a few central questions in order to evaluate their consumptive behaviors including: “Does what I own or buy promote activity, self-reliance, and involvement, or does it induce passivity and dependence?... Do I consider the impact of my consumption patterns on other people and on the earth?” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 147). Mindfully answering these questions when assessing one’s own consumer habits tends to result in individuals consuming less in general and, in particular, consuming fewer items that are nonessential luxuries, energy inefficient, nonbiodegradable or otherwise harmful to people and the planet.
According to Elgin, these criteria are also designed to “(1) help people lead lives of creative simplicity, freed from excessive attachment to material goods; (2) aid the nation release more of its wealth to share with those who presently do not have even the basic necessities of life; (3) help individuals become more self-sufficient and less dependent upon large, complex institutions, whether public or private; and (4) restore to life a sense of proportion and balance between the material and nonmaterial aspects of living” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148).
Human Scale
A preference for “human-sized living and working environments... [over] the gigantic scale of institutions and living environments [equated] with anonymity, incomprehensibility, and artificiality” is also a central VS value (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148). Politically and economically, this is translated into the decentralization of living/working environments and supportive institutions that are enormous in scale and complexity into a more “comprehensive... manageable... [and] more human sense of proportion and perspective” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 148-149). This, of course, would allow individuals to gain a better sense of their personal contributions to the whole of society, in addition to more clearly understanding the links between their behaviors and their corresponding social and environmental impacts. Indeed, this core VS value parallels the proposals outline in the Conclusion by Bill McKibben, who advocates for a ‘deep economy.’
Self-Determination
The principle of self-determination reflects the desire of VS practitioners to assume a greater amount of control of their lives and personal destiny, without depending on large, complex economic or political institutions. For example, “a person may seek to become more materially self-sufficient - to grow his own, to make his own, to do without, and to exercise self-discipline in his pattern and level of consumption so that the degree of dependency (both physical and psychological) is reduced” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 149).
Ecological Awareness
Ecological awareness is a central component of VS. It stems from the belief that people and nature are deeply interconnected and manifests itself in traditional beliefs associated with environmentalism, such as biodiversity conservation and pollution reduction. In additions, ‘ecology’ tends to be views in a holistic sense, taking into account other human beings as well as the natural environment: “In acknowledging the underlying unity of the human race, the growth of an ecological awareness expands the vision of voluntary simplicity outward and brings with it a strong sense of social responsibility and worldly involvement to what otherwise could be a relatively isolated and self-centered way of life” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 150).
Most major texts aimed at describing or analyzing VS stress the connection between reducing consumption and helping the environment (Elgin 1993, Durning 1992, Milbrath 1989). Mary Grigsby, in her work on the VS movement, stresses the point in the very first line and paragraph of her book: “People in the voluntary simplicity movement are concerned about environmental degradation...” and “a voluntary simplicity lifestyle is more fulfilling for the individual, creates a stronger community, and decreases environmental damage” (Grigsby 2004: 1).
VS should not, however, be equated with the back-to-nature movement because it is a lifestyle choice that is equally compelling to and applicable for both the urban majority and the rural minority of the population. In other words, “an urban existence need not be incompatible with voluntary simplicity” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 152). Indeed, in many aspects of day-to-day life, it may be simpler to downshift within an urban setting than it is within a rural one.
Personal Growth
The fifth core value of VS, personal growth, is in many ways the end goal of practicing the preceding 4 values. Indeed, the other values are in many ways aimed at clearing away things and elements of our lives that are burdensome, such as possessions, dependency on complex institutions and disconnection with nature. Their purpose is to create a level of freedom within which one can explore their inner self and grow. As Simone de Beauvoir notes, “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying” (Beuvoir 1948: 74-155).
Personal growth manifests itself in a variety of ways and institutions including religion, spirituality, philosophy, psychology (e.g. humanistic and transpersonal), meditation and mindfulness, and social movements (e.g. the human potential movement).
The connection between VS and personal growth is as old as VS itself. According to Arnold Toynbee, “These religious founders [Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tse, St. Francis of Assisi] disagreed with each other in their pictures of what is the nature of the universe, the nature of spiritual life, the nature of ultimate spiritual reality. But they all agreed in their ethical precepts. They all agreed that the pursuit of material wealth is a wrong aim. We should aim only at minimum wealth needed to maintain life; and our main aim should be spiritual. They all said with one voice that if we made material wealth our paramount aim, this would lead to disaster. They all spoke in favor of unselfishness and of love for other people as the key to happiness and to success in human affairs” (Toynbee 1962). Elgin expands this viewpoint by connecting personal growth to the ecological awareness value described earlier: “unless inner learning expands, it seems unlikely there will develop the degree of internal maturation necessary for the human species to act as wise trustees of conscious evolution on this earth” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 151).
An important aspect of these 5 values is that they’re not exhaustive, in terms of the range of values that may emerge through the practice of VS, and that they will be held to varying degrees and in different manifestations by different practitioners. Nonetheless, “these values possess an underlying coherence which suggests that they have not arisen randomly but rather as a strongly reinforcing set or pattern. Just a few moments of reflection reveals how powerfully reinforcing these values are: for example, personal growth may foster an ecological awareness which may prompt greater material simplicity and thereby allow greater opportunity for living and working at a smaller, more human scale which, in turn, may allow greater opportunity for local self-determination” (Elgin and Mitchell 2003: 152).
The VS Spectrum: Degrees and Manifestations of Simplicity
As a result of the non-dogmatic process-based definition used here, it is important to point out that VS practitioners reflect a wide variety of VS manifestations and levels of intensity: “It ranges from moderately rich (in which people downshift their consumptive rich lifestyle, but not necessarily to a low gear), to strong simplification (in which they significantly restructure their lives), to holistic simplification” (Etzioni 2003: 8).
This study is not concerned in one’s precise level of VS, as there is no stable-state definition of VS. What is important is the VS process, not whether or not the goal has been achieved (or if it ever will). In other words, the individuals surveyed and studied within the context of this research may fall anywhere on the VS spectrum defined above. They may include former investment bankers that have downshifted from an enormous mansion and 100-hour work weeks in the city to a large farm house and 50-hour work week in Vermont or middle-class individuals who have rejected most of what modern society has to offer in order to go live in an intentional community in Oregon. What is of interest to this study is not where these individuals lie on the “scale” of VS but whether or not there is movement on that spectrum towards simplicity. If these individuals have adopted VS as a lifestyle choice and have actively pursued that choice for at least one year, then they qualify as participants in this study.
The only individuals who don’t qualify for this study are those that have adopted simplicity as a style, as opposed to a lifestyle. During the last few decades, there has been a shift away from “the ‘overdesign’ of the 1980s toward a world of ‘simple’ things... We like sport utility vehicles, stainless-steel Sub-Zero refrigerators, Venetian blinds, retro electric fans, sturdy wooden tables - anything plain. Extravagance has surrendered to a look that is straightforward, blunt, unadorned” (Urbach 1997: 8). As Etzioni (2008) points out: “Unadorned, but not inexpensive.” Whereas adopting a simple style in conjunction with other, more substantive VS behaviors is perfectly normal, there are many who adopt the style change without ever simplifying their lives in any meaningful way. These individuals tend to reject extravagant styles in their home and wardrobes “so long as you can display the objects of poverty in a way that makes it clear you are just rolling in dough” (Brooks 1993: 177). Of course, this is not at all what we mean by VS.
Is Voluntary Simplicity a Social Movement?
According to Grigsby (2004: 8), “The voluntary simplicity movement does not formally recruit new members, imposes no strict guidelines or criteria for inclusion, has no officially sanctioned leaders, is not centralized or hierarchically organized, and is not aimed primarily at changing public policy.” Given all this, is there any possibility that VS could ever be defined as a social movement? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is technically yes.
Social movements are social alliances (individuals connected through shared interests) aimed at preventing or affecting social change. Sociologists have viewed social movements using a variety of perspectives: movements as a response to social tensions, as a reflection of trends throughout society more generally, as a reflection of individual dissatisfaction and deprivation, and as a natural step in the modification of social institutions or generation of new ones (McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1988).
In its most basic form, a social movement is a form of collective action. Specifically, social movements are organized groups that intentionally promote or resist change through collective action (Goldberg in Kendall et al 2001). Historically, most movements progress through three distinct stages: preliminary, coalescence and institutionalization (Kendall et al 2001).
The preliminary stage is characterized by underlying social unrest and the movement’s emergent activities. Leaders (chosen or self-appointed) focus on channeling people’s dissatisfaction towards institutional and social change and creating a general or specific set of goals for the movement.
The second, coalescence or popularization stage, is where the emergent social unrest is channeled into intense collective, albeit informal, organization and action. As new adherents join, the social movement continues to grow. This stage is highlighted by the existence of visionaries: “intellectuals or others with a talent for creating a social myth to account for discontent. They develop ideas and images to account for present conditions and suggest ways to collectively establish a new way of life” (Feree and Miller 1985). During this period of coalescence, social movements are normally challenged by established authorities and institutions. This, in turn, forces the movement to define its core and peripheral elements/participants and to engage in a negotiation among all these participants concerning what, specifically, the movement’s issues, goals, principles, and methods should be. By the end of this process, leaders are better defined and more formalized structures are created so that the movement can survive beyond the initial phase of emotion and idealism. Inevitably, grand visions (and, sometimes, the visionaries that originally espoused them) are replaced with strategies and strategists. Formal leadership positions are created and filled. These leaders, in turn, use the original, underlying vision to shape the movement’s strategy and increase membership.
The final stage, institutionalization, means the movement has coalesced and evolved into a formal set of structures and rules. These elements are well publicized and known not only to the movement’s members, but also to the public at large so that everyone is clear as to what the movement stands for and how it plans to operate both within and against social institutions. The movement can then engage in and interact within the broader discourse of a society as members of it (Castells, 1983; Kriesi, et al., 1995). This kind of “terminal institutionalization” often leads to the disenfranchisement of idealistic members who may choose to move on and start more radical sub-movements (e.g. the development of groups like Earth First! in response to the perceived failure of the mainstream environmental movement). Social movements are therefore constantly challenged with finding a middle ground between the stifling effect of terminal institutionalization and the dissipative effect of too little organization (Tarrow 1994).
The History and Structure of Social Movements
In the past 40 years, the Civil Rights, peace, environmental and feminist movements have brought masses of people into the streets demanding change. These American-based movements then spread to Europe, followed by “struggles for human rights in authoritarian and semiauthoritarian systems; Islamic and Jewish religious extremism in the Middle East and Hindu militantism in India; and, most recently, antiimmigration violence in western Europe, Christian fundamentalism in the United States, and ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union” (Tarrow 1998).
According to Sydney Tarrow, however, not all of these events warrant the term “social movement.” Indeed, he reserves that term specifically for “sequences of contentious politics that are based on underlying social networks and resonant collective action frames, and which develop the capacity to maintain sustained challenges against powerful opponents” (Tarrow 1998).
Tarrow goes on to identify the irreducible act that forms the basis of social movements as “contentious collective action… [that] can take many forms – brief or sustained, institutionalized or disruptive, humdrum or dramatic” (Tarrow 1998). In addition, social movements “build organizations, elaborate ideologies, and socialize and mobilize constituencies, and their members engage in self-development and the construction of collective identities. Some movements are profoundly apolitical, and focus on their internal lives or those of their members” (Tarrow 1998). Indeed, social movements are best defined as “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities” (Tarrow 1998). This definition has four distinct empirical properties:
1. Collective Challenge
2. Common Purpose
3. Social Solidarity
4. Sustained Interaction
Collective challenge is normally contentious and manifested through disruptive direct action against elites, authorities, and cultural codes through coordinated personal resistance or the collective affirmation of new values (Melucci 1996). Increasingly, this also includes participation in institutions through lobbying, legal challenges, and public relation campaigns.
Common purpose, marked by overlapping interests and values, is the primary reason why individuals associate with movements because it allows people to mount common claims against opponents.
This then leads to social solidarity and collective identity through a sharing of interests. According to Tarrow, “It is participant’s recognition of their common interests that translates the potential for a movement into action… leaders can only create a social movement when they tap more deep-rooted feelings of solidarity or identity” (Tarrow 1998). This helps explain why religion, nationalism and ethnicity are commonly used and are reliable foundations for organized social movements (Anderson 1990, Smith 1996).
Collective action in it of itself in not enough for an event to be defined as a social movement. Indeed, social movements must progress beyond temporary solidarity (such as riots and mobs) and sustain their collective action against their opponents: “Common purposes, collective identities, and identifiable challenges help movements to do this; but unless they can maintain their challenge, they will either evaporate into the kind of individualistic resentment that James Scott calls ‘resistance’, harden into intellectual or religious sects, or retreat into isolation” (Tarrow 1998).
General vs. Specific Social Movements
In 1951, Herbert Blumer created a typology of social movements that is still relevant today and adds to the discourse presented above. His main distinction is between general and specific social movements; a distinction that depends on their focus and organization. In addition, Blumer further distinguishes movements by their quality and style. Expressive movements (e.g. fashion and religious movements), for instance, deal with personal dissatisfactions without aiming to change external social conditions. Nationalistic and revival movements, on the other hand, seek to impose on society certain idealized values or social arrangements from the past.
General social movements primarily consist of uncoordinated efforts toward vague goals or objectives. They lack formal organization, leadership, and structure. They grow gradually out of what Blumer calls "cultural drifts," which are "gradual and pervasive changes in the values of a people" (Blumer 1969). As a general social movement forms, it acquires spokesmen (authors, speakers, etc…) who develop a literature or "media of interaction" among the people interested in the movement’s core issues (Blumer 1969). Within these movements, there is little or no organized action by groups. Instead, most of the activity is on an individual basis. A general movement is created and sustained by a vague network of individuals or, as Blumer refers to it, a “mass” (Blumer 1969).
A specific social movement, on the other hand, normally grows out of a general movement. Instead of being carried by a “mass”, the specific movement is comprised of interest groups with well-defined goals. Using the terminology defined earlier, specific movements are ones that have institutionalized: they have generally acknowledged leaders, a formal organizational structure, and a well defined guiding philosophy.
Norm-Oriented vs. Value-Oriented Movements
Social movements can be even further subdivided depending on their orientation. As part of his comprehensive analysis of collective behavior, Smelser (1962) deals with two kinds of movements: norm-oriented and value-oriented movements.
Norm-oriented movements deal with norms and laws and seek to "restore, protect, modify, or create norms in the name of a generalized belief" (Smelser 1962). They are content on leaving the underlying essence, culture and organization of a society intact and primarily seek changes in laws and policy.
Value-oriented movements, on the other hand, address the most fundamental aspects of a society and often attempt to create a new culture. They include many of the movements Blumer refers to as "expressive" and "nationalist," many of the religious movements throughout history, and many of the movements based on the major "isms" (Communism, Fascism, etc…) that attempt to reorder entire ways of life.
VS as a General, Value-Oriented, Reform and Alternative Social Movement
Social movements fall into one of five types, according to sociologists:
1. Reform
2. Revolutionary
3. Religious
4. Alternative
5. Resistance
Reform and revolutionary social movements seek to change society while religious and alternative movements aim to change the individual. Resistance movements, on the other hand, oppose changes to society and/or individuals (Aberle 1966, Blumer 1974, Kendal et all 2001).
As a social movement, VS would clearly fall into the following categories and types:
- general,
- value-oriented,
- reform, and
- alternative
VS is a general movement because it remains highly uncoordinated and includes goals that are non-dogmatic and therefore vague. Although many individuals, groups and intentional communities across America and the world practice the principles of VS, those groups are not organized formally or through any centralized structure or institution, there are no generally accepted leaders of the movement itself (although there are a few well-known authors and speakers that deal with VS, such as Duane Elgin), and the principles on which these individuals and groups are based are open to interpretation. As noted at the beginning of this essay, the very idea of “simplicity” itself is subjective and depends on any given individual’s notion of what is necessary for living and what is not.
Indeed, VS fits perfectly within Blumer’s definition of a “general social movement” because it is precisely within the preliminary and coalescence movement phases marked by “gradual and pervasive changes” in people’s values (Blumer 1969). It has also acquired certain spokesmen, such as Elgin, who have been developing a “media of interaction” within the growing VS movement (Blumer 1969), using books and online resources. Nonetheless, it remains a general movement because it is primarily sustained by a vague network of individuals as opposed to institutionalized interest groups with well-defined goals and a formal organizational structure.
VS is also a deeply value-oriented movement because it aims to address some of the most fundamental aspects of society.
As a reform movement, VS seeks to improve society by changing a specific aspect of the societal structure. Specifically, it seeks to change the social structure of consumption and to improve our social and environmental relationships.
VS is also an alternative movement because it seeks to change an aspect of individual behavior. As an alternative movement, it provides resources that help individuals change their consumption patters and reduce their waste of resources and time. Clearly, their focus is not simply on changing policy, but on changing both the fundamental materialistic values that govern our relationship with the environment and the individual behaviors that negatively impact that relationship.
Voluntary Simplicity and Happiness
One of the most important claims of the VS movement is that it leads to a more satisfying, fulfilling and authentically happy life. Although this may seem intuitive at first glance, it has not been confirmed yet by science. As a result, the aim of this research is to examine the links between voluntary simplicity and authentic happiness. To begin, one must define what happiness is and the science behind it.
THE SCIENCE OF HAPPINESS
The idea of and search for happiness has intrigued thinkers for thousands of years, starting with the Ancient Greeks (e.g. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics), but it has only been studied and measured in a systematic way within the last few decades.
Aristotle sought to define the ultimate end or “good” in life. He held that all our pursuits as humans were meant to achieve a final, ultimate “good”; that of happiness: “Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims as and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and faring well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise” (Aristotle translated by Ross 1998: 1095a17). Aristotle continued his analysis of happiness: “Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else... and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Now such a thing is happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing results from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that through them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself” (Aristotle translated by Ross 1998: 1097a15-1097a34).
In other words, according to Aristotle, happiness is the ultimate human purpose of life on Earth.
In 1776, over 2,000 years after Aristotle, the United States Declaration of Independence argued for “certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” As such, America was formed on the basis of the search for happiness, and this inalienable right was deemed equal with the rights to life and freedom.
In the United Kingdom (U.K.), Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy helped popularize the idea of happiness. Bentham’s “greatest happiness principle” argued that the purpose of politics should be to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Since then, political interest in happiness has persisted within contemporary society. A recent survey found that 81% of the U.K. population agreed that the government’s primary objective should be the creation of happiness, not wealth (Easton 2006) and David Cameron, leader of the conservative party, solidified the search for happiness on the political agenda by arguing that “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB – general well-being" (BBC 2006). Indeed, well-being has already been shown to be a positive goal for nations because it produces beneficial social outcomes (Lyubomirsky, King and Diener 2004).
Furthermore, researchers recently asked a sample of college students from different countries to rate the importance of several values on a scale from 1 to 9. Happiness came out first with a score of 8.0, slightly above health and love/affection (7.9), but well above wealth (6.8), among others (Diener and Oishi 2004).
Most importantly, happiness is a central criterion of mental health. As is discussed in more detail below, happiness is associated with a wide range of tangible benefits, including enhanced physical health, superior coping skills, better social function, vocational success and even longer life.
Clearly, the search for happiness continues to be of primary political, social and individual importance in the world today.
In order to discuss the science of happiness and review the relevant literature, it is necessary to first define some terms such as subjective well-being, happiness and life satisfaction.
Subjective Well-Being, Happiness and Life Satisfaction
Subjective Well-Being (SWB) refers to how people evaluate their lives and is the most widely accepted measure of happiness and life satisfaction. Psychologists Ed Diener and Daniel Kahneman have been particularly influential in conceiving and developing contemporary notions of psychological and subjective well-being. According to Diener (2005: 2-3): “Subjective well-being refers to all of the various types of evaluations, both positive and negative, that people make of their lives. It includes reflective cognitive evaluations, such as life satisfaction and work satisfaction, interest and engagement, and affective reactions to life events, such as joy and sadness. Thus, subjective well-being is an umbrella term for the different valuations people make regarding their lives, the events happening to them, their body and mind, and the circumstances in which they live. Although well-being and ill-being are “subjective” in the sense that they occur within a person’s experience, manifestations of subjective well-being and ill-being can be observed objectively in verbal and nonverbal behavior, actions, biology, attention, and memory.”
Subjective well-being is typically measured by asking individuals a single questions aimed at eliciting a global evaluation of one’s life, such as: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” or, “Taken all together, would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” The results of these SWB measurements display “moderately high levels of cross-situational consistency and temporal stability [and] show adequate validity, reliability, factor invariance, and sensitivity to change” (Diener 1994: 103).
A positive evaluation of SWB is generally synonymous with happiness, which consists of positive emotions (a state of well-being and contentment) and positive activities (pleasurable or satisfying experience), although happiness itself has a more diverse range of meanings in popular discourse and scholarly literature: “for example, happiness can mean a general positive mood, a global evaluation of life satisfaction, living a good life, or the causes that make people happy, with the interpretation depending on the context” (Diener 2005: 3). As a result, some researchers avoid using the term happiness altogether, whereas others choose to use it frequently because of its importance in historical and popular thought.
Happiness itself has two distinct manifestations: ephemeral and authentic happiness. Ephemeral happiness refers to brief and emotional episodes marked by pleasure (such as the joy an individual may feel when they have made a new purchase), whereas authentic happiness refers to an underlying state of satisfaction with one’s life marked by pleasure, engagement and meaning (Seligman 2002). Often, what leads to ephemeral happiness at a given moment in time may not be the same as what produces authentic happiness, or long-term positive SWB.
The field of positive psychology (please see section below titled: “Positive Psychology: How to Increase SWB”) has also developed a more nuanced formula for defining happiness that supports the notion that authentic happiness (vs. ephemeral happiness) is a more holistic and valid measure of true happiness and that ephemeral happiness (or pleasure) is only one of three components (and the least important of the three) in determining an overall measure of happiness. The formula used by positive psychologists is: Pleasure + Engagement (the depth of involvement with one’s family, work, romance and hobbies or “flow”: the feeling we get when we loose track of time because we are utterly engrossed in what we are doing, or) + Meaning (using personal strengths to serve some larger end, doing something worthwhile) = Happiness. According to Seligman (???) “This is newsworthy because so many Americans build their lives around pursuing pleasure. It turns out that engagement and meaning are much more important.”
Life Satisfaction, on the other hand, “represents a report of how a respondent evaluates or appraises his or her life taken as a whole. It is intended to represent a broad, reflective appraisal the person makes of his or her life. The term life can be defined as all areas of a person’s life at a particular point in time, or as an integrative judgement about the person’s life since birth, and this distinction is often left ambiguous in current measures. It is preferable to instruct the respondent as to whether the question refers to his or her life since birth or present life across all domains” (Diener 2005: 3).
Positive affect “denotes pleasant moods and emotions, such as joy and affection. Positive or pleasant emotions are part of subjective well-being because they reflect a person’s reactions to events that signify to the person that life is proceeding in a desirable way. Major categories of positive or pleasant emotions include those of low arousal (e.g. contentment), moderate arousal (e.g. pleasure), and high arousal (e.g. euphoria). They include positive reactions to others (e.g. affection), positive reactions to activities (e.g. interest and engagement), and general positive moods (e.g. joy)” (Diener 2005: 3). Negative affect, on the other hand, “includes moods and emotions that are unpleasant, and represent negative responses people experience in reaction to their lives, health, events, and circumstances. Major forms of negative or unpleasant reactions include anger, sadness, anxiety and worry, stress, frustration, guilt and shame, and envy. Other negative states, such as loneliness or helplessness, can also be important indicators of ill-being. Although some negative emotions are to be expected in life and can be necessary for effective functioning, frequent and prolonged negative emotions indicate that a person believes his or her life is proceeding badly. Extended experiences of negative emotions can interfere with effective functioning, as well as make life unpleasant” (Diener 2005: 3).
Life satisfaction is discriminable from both positive and negative affect in addition to optimism and self-esteem (Lucas, Diener and Suh 1996). In other words, there is a distinction between experienced well-being (momentary affective states and the way individuals feel about experiences in real-time) and evaluative well-being (the way individuals remember their experiences after they are over) (Kahneman and Riis 2005). In many cases, happiness surveys focus on affect and experienced well-being (e.g. rates of smiling, feeling happy) whereas life satisfaction surveys tend to focus on evaluative well-being (asking respondents to make an overall evaluation of their lives). As a result, many SWB researchers choose to examine the affective and life satisfaction components of SWB separately for a more complete understanding of an individual’s level of SWB.
Neither SWB, happiness nor life satisfaction are synonymous with mental/psychological health, however (Diener 1997). A psychotic, delusional or schizophrenic person might be happy with his life, for example, but a psychologist would not say that he possesses mental health. As a result, SWB alone is not a sufficient condition for psychological well-being. Some have argued, however, that SWB is a necessary condition for mental health even though certain people function well in many aspects of their lives despite not experiencing overall happiness (e.g. dysphoric individuals who make significant contributions to society). The argument claims that a person cannot be functioning well if he or she is suffers from long-term or debilitating stress, anxiety, depression, etc... Nevertheless, the level of SWB that is optimal for mental health has not yet been determined (Diener, Suh and Oishi 1997).
More broadly, various authors have sought to define the diverse characteristics of psychological well-being including Maslow’s (1968) conception of self-actualization, Roger’s (1961) view of the fully functioning person, Jung’s (1933) formulation of individuation, Allport’s (1961) conception of maturity, Erikson’s (1959) psychosocial model, Jahoda’s (1958) positive criteria of mental health, and Buhler’s (1935) basic life tendencies that work toward the life fulfillment. Until now, however, these perspectives have had meager empirical impact for a number of reasons (Ryff 1982, 1985). Few of them have been accompanied by credible assessment procedures, many are absent of valid measures, the criteria of well-being generated are diverse and extensive and, most importantly, “the literature is hopelessly value laden in its pronouncements of how people should function” (Ryff 1989). Despite these conceptual challenges, however, Ryff (1989) has integrated these perspectives and outlined additional characteristics beyond SWB that are important to mental health, such as self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life and personal growth.
The Benefits of Happiness
A wealth of evidence exists demonstrating that happiness has numerous positive byproducts (Lyubomirsky, King and Diener 2003). For example, happy people have stronger social relationships (Berry and Hansen 1996, Harker and Keltner 2001, Marks and Fleming 1999, Okun et al., 1984), superior work outcomes (Estrada, Isen, and Young 1994, George 1995, Staw, Sutton and Pelled 1995), and more activity, energy, and flow (Csikszentmihalyi and Wong 1991, Mishra 1992, Watson, Clark, McIntyre, and Hamaker 1992). Happy people are also less likely to show symptoms of psychopathology (Diener and Seligman 2002, Koivumaa-Honkanen et al. 2001) and more likely to show better coping abilities (Aspinwall 1998, Carver et al. 1993, Chen et al. 1996, Fredrickson and Joiner 2002, Keltner and Bonanno 1997), to act cooperatively and prosocially (Cunningham et al. 1990, Isen 1970, Williams & Shiaw 1999), to have a bolstered immune system (Dillon, Minchoff, and Baker 1985; Stone et al. 1994), and even longer life (Danner, Snowdon, and Friesen 2001, Maruta et al. 2000, Ostir et al. 2000).
Further evidence for the association between happiness and positive mental health, physical health, and general “success” in life comes from research on positive emotions. Happiness involves the experience of frequent positive affect and infrequent negative affect (Diener et al. 1985; Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot 1991; Lyubomirsky & Lepper 2002; Lyubomirsky & Ross 1997), and these chronic positive emotions yield numerous benefits. Beyond making people feel “good,” positive emotions broaden their “thought-action” repertoires and build durable physical, social, and intellectual resources (Fredrickson 2000, 2001; see also Isen 1999).
Overall, happy individuals are more likely to be flourishing people, both inwardly and outwardly. As a result, enhancing peoples’ happiness levels may indeed be a worthy scientific goal, especially after their basic physical and security needs are met.
Divergent Psychoanalytical Methodologies: SWB vs. Clinical Psychology
An important distinction between SWB and the traditional practice of clinical psychology is the method in which criteria are assessed. SWB is defined in terms of the respondent’s internal experience, whereas in clinical psychology, an external frame of reference is imposed by practitioners. Within the SWB framework, if an individual believes they are happy, then they are (Diener, Suh and Oishi 1997). In clinical psychology, however, although weight is given to an individual’s own perceptions of their lives, their internal analysis is often overridden by the psychologist who may conclude that the individual in question has a mental health problem even if they themselves don’t realize it.
Of course, placing absolute importance on an individual’s personal beliefs concerning their well-being has both advantages and disadvantages. As stated earlier, the primary disadvantage is that SWB cannot be a consummate definition of positive psychological functioning and well-being because the individual under analysis can potentially be disordered (based on the criteria of mental health professionals) even if they are happy. On the other hand, basing the analysis on the respondent’s internal perspective, as opposed to an imposed and objective mental health standard, demonstrates a deep respect for the individual’s own point of view concerning their life experience.
In other words, the assumption behind SWB is that the respondent is in a privileged position to report his or her experience of well-being. Indeed, only the respondent can experience their emotions/feelings and judge whether they are happy or if their life seems worthwhile (Diener, Suh and Oishi 1997).
Validity of SWB Measures
Although happiness is in itself intangible, empirical measures of SWB have been shown to have high consistency, reliability and validity (Pavot and Diener 1993, Diener and Lucas 1997). According to Kahneman and Krueger (2006), “The validity of subjective measures of well-being can be assessed, in part, by considering the pattern of their correlations with other characteristics of individuals and their ability to predict future outcomes.” In recent decades, neuroscientists have been able to assess positive and negative affect using brainwave date. The left prefrontal region in particular is rich in receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine. Higher concentrations of dopamine, in turn, have been shown independently to be correlated with positive affect (Goleman 1996). In addition, electrophysiological measures such as electroencephalograms and electromyographic facial recordings also associate with self-reports of SWB (Diener, Suh and Oishi 1997).
Perhaps most tellingly, measures of SWB have been closely associated with tangible outcomes and measurements that would be expected to correlate with measures of SWB. For example, there is extensive evidence of correlations between SWB and general health (Diener 2000). In addition, researchers found that the use of medical services correlated negatively with SWB (Arrindell, Heesink and Feij 1999). This finding was further supported by a critical study demonstrating that SWB was a significant predictor of mental health levels (Eid and Diener 1999).
Frank (2003: 84) reports that SWB “is predictive of a variety of observable behaviors that most of us take to be indicative of well-being. For example, people who call themselves happy, or who have relatively high levels of electrical activity in the left prefrontal region, are more likely to be rated as happy by friends; more likely to initiate social contacts with friends; more likely to respond to requests for help; less likely to be involved in disputes at work; less likely to die prematurely; less likely to attempt suicide; and less likely to seek psychological counseling.” He concludes by stating that “in short, it seems that what the psychologists call subjective well-being is a real phenomenon” (Frank 2003: 84).
Positive Psychology: How to Increase SWB
Having shown that SWB is affected by long-term situational factors and that SWB is closely associated with positive outcomes, researchers in the newly developing field of positive psychology have focused on how to increase levels of SWB (Snyder 2002, Seligman 2006). Positive Psychology can be defined as “the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive... This field is founded on the belief that people want to lead meaningful and fulfilling lives, to cultivate what is best within themselves, and to enhance their experiences of love, work, and play. Positive Psychology has three central concerns: positive emotions, positive individual traits, and positive institutions. Understanding positive emotions entails the study of contentment with the past, happiness in the present, and hope for the future. Understanding positive individual traits consists of the study of the strengths and virtues, such as the capacity for love and work, courage, compassion, resilience, creativity, curiosity, integrity, self-knowledge, moderation, self-control, and wisdom. Understanding positive institutions entails the study of the strengths that foster better communities, such as justice, responsibility, civility, parenting, nurturance, work ethic, leadership, teamwork, purpose, and tolerance" (The University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center at www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu).
Although there is no one key to achieving happiness, positive psychology has demonstrated that there are in fact a specific set of ingredients that prove vital in achieving happiness. These include having strong, positive relationships with family and friends, believing that one’s life has meaning (normally through spirituality or some type of life philosophy), and having goals embedded in your long-term values that you find enjoyable, are working towards and employ your strengths and abilities (Seligman 2002). The shorthand formula positive psychologists have developed and continue to research is simply that pleasure plus engagement (or what is often referred to as “flow”) plus meaning equals happiness (BBC 2007).
A Behavioral Formula for Achieving and Sustaining Happiness
According to Martin Seligman, the “father” of positive psychology, there is indeed a formula for achieving lasting happiness:
H = S + C + V
In this equation, H is defined as authentic/enduring happiness, S is your set range, C is the circumstances in one’s life, and V represents factors under your voluntary behavioral control.
According to Seligman, the S variable is, in part, genetically predetermined. During the 1980s, personality studies of twins and adopted children demonstrated two interesting facts: 1. the psychology of identical twins is far more similar than that of fraternal twins, and 2. adopted children are more similar to their biological parents then their adopted ones. These and other studies demonstrate, according to Seligman, that roughly 50% of most personality traits can be attributed to genetic inheritance (even though heritability doesn’t mean the trait is unchangeable). In other words, “Roughly half of your score on happiness tests is accounted for by the score your biological parents would have gotten had they taken the test. This may mean that we inherit a ‘steersman’ who urges us toward a specific level of happiness or sadness” (Seligman 2002).
This steersman results in a “happiness thermostat”: a fixed and primarily inherited level of happiness (S, the set range) that we eventually revert to despite temporary periods of extreme joy or sadness beyond or bellow that level.
In addition, it is often challenging to raise one’s level of happiness because of what has been referred to as the “Hedonic Treadmill.” The Hedonic Treadmill refers to the tendency of humans to rapidly adapt to both positive and negative life experiences and retain a relatively stable level of happiness regardless of circumstances. In other words, this theory suggests that happiness, for most people, is a relatively stable and constant state. Indeed, studies have shown that major events, such as being fired or promoted, have extremely low correlations to happiness (Seligman 2002).
Taken together to form the S variable, one’s set range, genetic steersman and hedonic treadmill tend to prevent one’s level of happiness from increasing in a sustainable way.
Indeed, there is relatively little scientific support for the idea that people’s happiness levels can permanently change for the better. For example, the happiness-enhancing techniques proposed in the copious self-help literature generally have little grounding in scientific theory, and little empirical confirmation of their effectiveness (Norcross, Santrock, Campbell, Smith, Sommer and Zuckerman 2000).
Unfortunately, contemporary academic psychology doesn’t provide much guidance. Research psychologists have identified many predictors of people’s general or average levels of happiness or SWB. For example, studies of concurrent SWB have shown that it is influenced by a variety of factors, including demographic status (Argyle 1999; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith 1999; Myers 2000), personality traits (Diener and Lucas 1999), and goal characteristics (Diener et al. 1999, McGregor and Little 1998). These predictors are only modestly successful, however, and collectively account for just 3% to 15% of the variance in happiness (Andrews & Withey 1976; Argyle 1999; Diener 1984, Diener et al. 1999, Lykken and Tellegen 1996). Furthermore, despite these advances, little is known about how to change SWB – that is, the possibility of “becoming happier.” One explanation is that few studies have examined SWB longitudinally (Diener et al. 1999). Another reason for this neglect is the difficulty of conducting longitudinal and intervention studies, a problem that is further compounded by the dearth of applied researchers focusing on positive mental health rather than on pathology. Finally, a major reason for the neglect of this question is the considerable scientific pessimism over whether it is even possible to boost well-being.
Indeed, there is only a small amount of scientific research focused on how SWB can be increased, much less sustained.
Although some of this research has concluded that the pursuit of happiness is all but futile due to our genetic predispositions and the hedonic treadmill, some researchers argue that sustainable increases are indeed possible. Positive psychologists, for example, maintain that it is possible to make someone a happier; as much as 10-15%. In addition, Sonja Lyubomirsky believes that an “individual’s chronic happiness level is governed by three classes of factors – (1) his or her genetically-determined set point (or set range) for happiness, which is relatively immune to influence, (2) happiness-relevant circumstantial factors (such as location, income, and marital status), which are difficult but not impossible to change, and (3) intentional cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities that can influence well-being, and are feasible but effortful to deploy” (Lyubomirsky 2008). Lyubomirsky goes on to state that “It is through the intentional activities in the third class that we believe that sustainable increases in well-being are possible” (Lyubomirsky 2008).
The fact is that happiness can and does improve with time. For example, a 22-year study that followed approximately 2,000 healthy veterans found that life satisfaction increased over these men’s lives, peaked at age 65, and did not start notably declining until age 75 (Mroczek and Spiro 2005). A positive correlation between age and well-being measures has also been found in a 23-year longitudinal study of four generations of families (Charles, Reynolds and Gatz 2001) and in a cross-sectional study of adults aged 17 to 82 (Sheldon and Kasser 2001). Although these data are merely suggestive, they imply the possibility that true changes in well-being may be related to people’s capacity to resist adaptation.
This dissertation is aimed at determining whether or not there is a correlation between Voluntary Simplicity and sustained increases in SWB. If a correlation exists, then VS may potentially serve as one of many behavioral tools an individual can adopt to sustainably increase their level of happiness.
Determinants of Happiness
What is known about the conditions, lifestyles and behaviors that lead to happiness? In order to better understand the aetiology of happiness, it is important to first examine the characteristics of individuals who rate themselves highly in SWB surveys. According to Myers and Diener (1996), these individuals tend to have high levels of self-esteem; viewing themselves as healthier, smarter, easier to get along with, more ethical and less prejudiced than others. They feel in control of their lives and are both optimistic and extroverted.
Additional research has shown that personal psychological factors (including those mentioned above) account for 30% of the variation in happiness levels, 25% are attributed to life events (marriage/divorce, a birth/death, illness, etc...), 10% is attribute to social engagement (including work and marriage), and only 10% is associated with wealth (Pusey 1998).
Many happiness studies point towards social relationships (including marriage and relationships with friends and family) as the most critical determinant of happiness (Hamilton 2004: 35). Other determinants include: healthy marriage, job satisfaction and spirituality (Ruff and Keyes 1995, Csikszentmihalyi 1999, Diener 2000, Myers 2000, Ryan and Deci 2000, Seligman 2002). In addition, “A sense of meaning and purpose is the single attitude most strongly associated with life satisfaction” (Headey and Wearing 1998).
According to Seligman (2002), “if you want to lastingly raise your level of happiness by changing the external circumstances of your life [the “C” variable in the equation H = S + C + V], you should do the following:
1. Live in a wealthy democracy, not in an impoverished dictatorships (a strong effect)
2. Get married (a robust effect, but perhaps not causal)
3. Avoid negative events and negative emotion (only a moderate effect)
4. Acquire a rich social network (a robust effect, but perhaps not causal)
5. Get religion (a moderate effect)
As far as happiness and life satisfaction are concerned, however, you needn’t bother to do the following:
6. Make more money (money has little or no effect once you are comfortable enough to buy this book, and more materialistic people are less happy)
7. Stay healthy (subjective health, not objective health matters)
8. Get as much education as possible (no effect)
9. Change your race or move to a sunnier climate (no effect)
(Seligman 2002: 61)
Many of these studies demonstrate that happiness is often defined by relative factors: “Personal happiness depends on what people have compared with what they want, what they expect, and what other people have. This leads naturally to an exploration of the goals people set for themselves. In other words, the determinants of happiness are not simply given and immutable - part of the human condition and therefore beyond influence by social organisation and public policies. The goals people set are strongly influence by social expectations, which can change rapidly” (Hamilton 2004: 36).
In other words, according to Emmons, Cheung and Tehrani (1998: 391, 393), “There is a substantial research base that demonstrates that people’s priorities are prime determinants of their well-being, and that these priorities are based on their current and long-term goals, projects and concerns... The goals people strive for, the manner in which they strive for them, and their ability to integrate the goals into a reasonably coherent framework influence their subjective well-being.” A deeper discussion concerning the critical role of extrinsic vs. intrinsic goals and values in determining happiness will be continued in subsequent chapters.
