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?
This is not constructive comment. For a view of why happiness is such a limited concept see my essay "The Poverty of Utilitarianism." I would say that the drivers of one man's happiness may not be compatible with another's happiness. We are not really talking about capitalism here: coercion exists at all levels of society, within families and within organisations large and small. When coercion oversteps rational boundaries it becomes destructive and a source of conflict which may become internalised and manifest itself as 'stress'. Counselling helps, but it will be just as destructive if it is based on a flawed understanding of human psychology. I believe economists are only starting to throw off their utilitarian strait-jackets and that at present they should be wary of stepping into this debate.
Posted by: Chris | Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 12:08 AM