Happiness: A Response to Richard
My buddy Richard recently posted some comments. Here is my response to one of them.
My main purpose in defending the term "bourgeois" was to reframe it in a positive light. In other words, I wanted to encourage people (especially my friends on the Left) to recognize the value of a middle class mentality, at least in terms of facilitating economic growth and technological innovation.
On the other hand, I completely agree that whether a particular individual or society engages in bourgeois practice has no ultimate effect on whether that person or society is happy. Happiness, as Richard points out, is a relative (and ephemeral) experience, often determined by our "place" in the socio-economic pecking order.
This is why I have argued for the value of low expecations; rather than focusing on what others have, and rather than relying on high expecations (whether they are reasonable or not), it makes more sense to lower one's expecations to a level that one can achieve (or, better yet, surpass). Thus, rather than focusing on the fact that someone else has a BMW while I drive a Honda Civic (a shallow concern, to be sure) and rather than relying on the expectation that one day I will obtain a BMW (a shallow goal), I should lower my expecations — ultimately to the point of mere metabolism; by doing so, I increase my chances of being happy with my Honda Civic.
Thus, the social effects of the bourgeoisie and the condition of any given individual's happiness are two different issues. In my view, the best situation would be one in which the bourgeoisie foment economic growth and technological innovation in the aggregate, while any given individual severely limits his/her expectations. It's the best of both worlds (at least on a material level): maintaining low expecations in a robust economy that helps one to surpass those expecations!
posted by Kevin O'Donovan @ 21:23
1 comments
1 Comments:
I was indeed surprised to look up the dictionary definition of 'bourgeois'! This is a bit tangential, but it is interesting to me how terms get redefined over time. Language shifts and evolves. Political language, especially, is volatile.
Political labels once held in high esteem may, when the contextual landscape shifts, be redefined to connote derision. This is such a popular move by career politicians that they must do it consciously: seize a change in political momentum by using a groups' own labels to demonize them, ala Schopenhauer.
We see this time and again in political life. I think of the semi-recent example of the term 'liberal' used by the right to slander the left (!). Of course, this is not limited to words. Symbols also may be treated thus. I think of the recent proliferation of American flags on SUV bumpers, which may be taken in most cases to mean: I support our current way of life, our troops, and, by extension, George Bush and the war. The flag has meant many things to many people at different times.
When the political landscape changes, a vacuity is created in the symbols and language that were used to define the old systems of power and viewpoint. This vacuity happens all the time, we are constantly redefining our views and symbols. This is a deep, deep point. However, shrewd politicians are wise to capitalize on this.
Post a Comment
<< Home