who do you think you are?
The reason/excuse for my excursion to NZ was to attend a conference on Asian Social Psychology. To prepare for the conference, I read a paper on the notion of self in Japan that has really been affecting my thinking about the nature of the self. One of the arguments that the authors made in particular really struck me - they argued that in Japan happiness is not a very strong life goal. They argued that Japanese people tend to feel most comfortable with balance, and in this way perceive that positive outcomes will be balanced with negative outcomes. Apparently, there's an expression along the lines of, "I'm so happy I'm scared," in Japanese. So, while North Americans tend to list happiness as their primary or secondary life goal, it ranks near the bottom of the list for Japanese. Instead, Japanese life goals are more likely to involve fulfilling obligations to important social entities.
Now, there are people who argue against this conclusion, and suggest that such results are because of the way the two cultures fill out self-report questionnaires (e.g., more modesty in Japan). But for the moment at least, let's take at face value what Japanese are saying about happiness as a life goal.
This got me thinking about the current grand American experiment of bringing democracy by force to the Middle East. It seems to me that an assumption behind this project is that there are certain universally valued philosophies in the American ethic that would flower if only given the right conditions. But the work noted above suggests that this is merely an untested assumption.
For example, the American constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness. And from a North American perspective, it seems like that's a right the whole world would like to have and would be a benefit of the US bombing the hell out of anything that stands in the way of that right. But what if it's true that the pursuit of happiness is uniquely American, or at least an imperative of a limited subset of cultures? Now it becomes more clear (for those for whom it was not already clear) why exporting values by force, even when the values seem so absolutely pure and universal, can be a dangerous exercise.
There's another example that goes more to the heart of exporting democracy by force. It seems obvious that people want more choice in their lives. I've been told (maybe Tim can correct me if I'm wrong) that it's an assumption of many economic theories that there is always added value in increased choice.
But, there's been research lately examining the costs of increased choice. In particular, some studies have shown that having too many choices can lead to negative emotion by increasing the perceived likelihood of making the wrong choice. It can also be frustrating and overwhelming to have too many options. For example, I heard about one study that showed that as the number of choices of 401k retirement plans for American employees increases, fewer employees participate. So there seems to be a cost to choice that is rarely considered. Of course, I'm not saying that choice is inherently bad, it's just that you reach a point as choice increases that the value added by each new choice becomes smaller, and the costs become greater.
So, social security "reform" is sold on the basis of increased choice, with the inherent assumption that such increased choice is automatically good. And of course it would be tough to be the politician that argued that more choice is bad.
But now bloody wars are fought to bring more choice to people, whether they want it or not. Of course, with the irony that they didn't choose that increased choice.
Ultimately, the point isn't that democracy is bad for the Middle East or that encouraging people to seek happiness is always wrong. The point is that these are the unspoken assumptions that pervade our worldview as a Western culture, and we risk doing great harm if we choose to export them over the bodies of the liberated.
Now, there are people who argue against this conclusion, and suggest that such results are because of the way the two cultures fill out self-report questionnaires (e.g., more modesty in Japan). But for the moment at least, let's take at face value what Japanese are saying about happiness as a life goal.
This got me thinking about the current grand American experiment of bringing democracy by force to the Middle East. It seems to me that an assumption behind this project is that there are certain universally valued philosophies in the American ethic that would flower if only given the right conditions. But the work noted above suggests that this is merely an untested assumption.
For example, the American constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness. And from a North American perspective, it seems like that's a right the whole world would like to have and would be a benefit of the US bombing the hell out of anything that stands in the way of that right. But what if it's true that the pursuit of happiness is uniquely American, or at least an imperative of a limited subset of cultures? Now it becomes more clear (for those for whom it was not already clear) why exporting values by force, even when the values seem so absolutely pure and universal, can be a dangerous exercise.
There's another example that goes more to the heart of exporting democracy by force. It seems obvious that people want more choice in their lives. I've been told (maybe Tim can correct me if I'm wrong) that it's an assumption of many economic theories that there is always added value in increased choice.
But, there's been research lately examining the costs of increased choice. In particular, some studies have shown that having too many choices can lead to negative emotion by increasing the perceived likelihood of making the wrong choice. It can also be frustrating and overwhelming to have too many options. For example, I heard about one study that showed that as the number of choices of 401k retirement plans for American employees increases, fewer employees participate. So there seems to be a cost to choice that is rarely considered. Of course, I'm not saying that choice is inherently bad, it's just that you reach a point as choice increases that the value added by each new choice becomes smaller, and the costs become greater.
So, social security "reform" is sold on the basis of increased choice, with the inherent assumption that such increased choice is automatically good. And of course it would be tough to be the politician that argued that more choice is bad.
But now bloody wars are fought to bring more choice to people, whether they want it or not. Of course, with the irony that they didn't choose that increased choice.
Ultimately, the point isn't that democracy is bad for the Middle East or that encouraging people to seek happiness is always wrong. The point is that these are the unspoken assumptions that pervade our worldview as a Western culture, and we risk doing great harm if we choose to export them over the bodies of the liberated.
posted by H. Now at 3:53 p.m.
6 Comments:
Really good set of points Mr. X (I came unbelievably close to typing your actual name there).
Choice as a good is definitely assumed in neo-classical economics, but that is really part of the assumptions that people can rank order all possible combinations of goods, and then choose the optimal one. Which are both absurd, as the 401k example demonstrates.
So then the fall back argument is that for analytical purposes we can assume that people act 'as if' they can do those things, which is only marginally less absurd...
Nice piece. What else did you learn at the conference that surprised you?
Thanks. To be honest, I didn't get a lot out of the talks themselves, except maybe one where the point was made that Eastern philosophy is largely about the nature of ethics while Western philosophy is largely about the nature of reality. I'd actually say I learned more from how the conference itself operated. In many ways, it was much more supportive than any other conference I'd been to - people were very friendly and approachable, there was more of a group than individual spirit. But there was also an interesting deference to authority - higher ranking people were often thanked for their talk before a questioner started with their questions. From my Western, egalitarian point of view, that was a bit odd.
Really enjoyed reading this post. Well done.
Thanks for the encouragement Dave.
Interestingly, in a talk given by John Ralston Saul (sp?), Saul suggested that the original meaning of 'the pursuit of happiness' actually referred more to the unrestricted freedom to pursue property, rather than happiness as we define it today (though of course many people do seem to define their happiness by their belongings, (and thus their belongingness?? too much of a stretch??;-) so perhaps it isn't that far off a definition after all...
Post a Comment
<< Home