Latest to join the happiness debate is counselling psychologist Paul Moloney, who argued in yesterday's Guardian that Unhappiness is inevitable. He wants you to feel the psychic pain, not seek to cure it through therapy:
Recent months have seen the science and politics of "happiness" endorsed by commentators of all persuasions. Richard Layard - a
consultant to the government - called for a huge increase in the number
of publicly funded psychological therapists. These therapists, he
suggests, would help to combat the personal and social malaise that
seems to be afflicting us at record levels, and their cost will be more
than recovered by savings in benefit payments to depressed individuals
who will be encouraged to return to work.
...The preoccupation with "happiness" may be convenient for a
government keen to appear caring while seeking to avoid social
expenditure. In this context, the
commandment to "be happy" amounts to a form of insidious social
control, in which we are encouraged to look inwards (and to blame
ourselves) for the causes of our troubles.
Far from being an
undesirable trait, the ability to feel and give voice to psychic pain
may turn out to be an essential asset: one of the few clear signals
that all is not well with our world. We need to develop a greater
ability to help people articulate their distress and make this the
first step to making their world a more tolerable place. This is a
political task: the superficial nostrums of the kind favoured by Layard
and New Labour can only be a distraction.
Considering he is a psychologist rather than a pill pusher psychiatrist, this does rather beg the question as to what Mr Moloney actually does
in his sessions at the Shropshire Primary Care Trust. As an active
member of the 'critical psychology' movement, Moloney says he believes
that:
...personal distress may have more to do with the properties of a malign world than of the sufferer's internal psychology
In his Guardian article, he is more specific:
These issues are nowhere more sharply revealed than in the world of work.
During the past 20 years, coercive control - in the form of stringent
targets, performance appraisal, increased monitoring and surveillance
in the workplace - has been matched by a culture of long hours and
contractual and financial insecurity, even for middle-class
professionals. For many, the prospects of falling into chronic debt or
poverty are more threatening than ever, especially for the 20% of
British citizens who live on or below the poverty line.
So work and poverty make us sick? Well, there is little doubt that
endogenous depression is triggered by major life events, which may
include losing one's job. But surely it's a stretch to suggest that capitalism
causes mental illness...
Second, his contention that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a waste of time belies a substantial body of evidence
that it is quite effective at tackling depression and other common mental
health problems. Not to treat serious medical conditions like depression with appropriate and effective care seems irresponsible.
Third, how on earth can proposals for a massive expansion in mental
health care services be dubbed "seeking to avoid social expenditure"? Richard Layard and others are clearly advocating additional health spending - though they argue it will be pay for itself in the long run.
Fourth, Moloney suggests that "coercive control" and long hours in
the workplace are a major cause of mental health problems. My reading of the evidence is that neither
deskilling/work intensification nor job satisfaction have changed much
in the past decade - so how can
deskilling be the culprit?
Stumbling and Mumbling appears to disagree.
In his post Happiness and control, Chris writes:
The
activities that make us happiest, he says, are those where we can
identify with our task - which the self-employed can do better than
alientated workers - get unambiguous and immediate feedback, and stop
worrying about what others think. Activities like playing sport or a
musical instrument are great for happiness. Such "flow" came, or comes,
from traditional craft work. But it's disappeared from the deskilled
workplace.
Chris
advocates "the abolition of workplace hierarchies". While no one likes bureaucracy, and both greater
employee autonomy and team-based working are associated with higher
levels of job satisfaction, it seems a tad drastic to abolish management in order to try and improve mental health.
Moreover, most businesses based on the 'lean production' model
(widespread in the UK) rely on supervision and work monitoring to
keep production costs under control and remain competitive. How happy
would workers be if we were to send their employer to the wall?
Recent Comments