Happiness: Contentment or Capital?
“…Environmental, social, economic, and political conditions provide the outer framework that supports happiness, whereas personal mental and physical health, skills, and tastes provide the inner framework for supporting happiness” (42). Spring, author of “Basic Educational Principles for a Long Life and Happiness,” argues these factors in the context of an inclusive, supportive schooling environment, are what will create the “happiest” students. But the question remains over how to define happiness, and who has the power to define it, particularly in the context of expanding these ideas to a global citizenship context. What elements of culture and schooling provide the foundation for this definition, and is it really the goal educators should be striving for?
Mirriam-Webster defines “happiness” as “obsolete: good fortune, prosperity” or “a state of well-being and contentment,” yet even these two definitions seem in competition with each other, and are reminiscent of the competing definitions found in a global context. It seems to be a very Western way of thinking that contentment comes from good fortune in the form of money and economic capital, yet other cultures may have alternative ideas to what contributes to contentment, and other ideas to the ultimate end goal all together, apart from finding contentment. I think this research helps highlight the possibility of varying goals of education systems worldwide, and in the Western world, particularly in the United States, happiness seems to be the ideal achievement.
Last week, Adam asked in our class discussion, “Why are you at Colby?” Perhaps it is because I haven’t been asked this question since applying to college, but it gave me a definite feeling of discomfort. I have been fortunate to study at the University of Burgundy in France my freshman fall, and then at the University of Otago in New Zealand last spring. Since returning to Colby, and reflecting on these experiences, I have had trouble integrating them into my daily life back in the “Colby bubble.” This question expands beyond my education classes and seems relevant in all fields at Colby: how do we integrate these global experiences in a smaller, rural setting like Waterville? Specifically, it is difficult to spend time in New Zealand, for example, where appreciation of nature and importance of the outdoors are associated with
happiness, and then return to the elite nature of a private liberal arts school in New England, where it seems that prestige and degree are equated with happiness. That is not to say that one is better than the other, but it does seem that in both instances, education systems don’t seem to allow for much flexibility in defining happiness or success, and that the end goal in both places still seems to be this unattainable idea of “happiness.”
Similar to what some of my classmates mentioned during that discussion, I would love to say that I am at Colby, and college in general, solely for my love of learning. However, I think the reasons I am here are much more deeply rooted in our cultural definitions of happiness and success, and, quite simply, to walk away with a prestigious degree that will open doors for my future career, likely in either outdoor education or adventure therapy. This reality seems reminiscent of Bourdieu’s theories on capital, and makes me wonder if in the Western world, the closest we can come to achieving society’s definition of happiness is accumulating as many types of capital societally defined as prestigious, whether it be cultural, social, economic, and the list goes on.
I have found a constant push and pull in doing research on globally elite schools. On one hand, I am aware that have the privilege of attending an elite college myself, and there are many aspects of this experience that I believe have helped broaden my worldview and incorporate new perspectives into my mindset. I have been socialized to strive for happiness in any capacity. I find tension in my competing definition of happiness with the elite community, and, although strange to criticize the social network I am fortunate to be a part of, as it will likely provide me future economic and political capital. I don’t believe these types of capital, or the sublayer of competition residing under all forms of capital, are what should be valued or pursued. Can anyone in elite schools truly say that they are not striving for a Western ideological definition of “happiness”? Or does the privilege of being supported by the economic safety net of the elite network revoke that ability to criticize this definition of happiness?