LatinScribe

"Happiness: a state of mind or feeling characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy."

From Wikipedia

Yesterday an article appeared in the New York Times entitled "New York Ranks Last in Happiness Rating" about a study made by two economics professors, newly published in Science magazine, that compared American's sense of their own happiness.

Based on extensive research, the two professors — Andrew J. Oswald from the University of Warwick in Britain and Stephen Wu of Hamilton College — came up with a guide to happiness ranked by state, including Washington, DC.

On this scale, New York State reportedly ranked 51st - dead last.

Which is not to say the state didn't have (miserable) company: New Jersey and Connecticut residents, NY's two closest neighbors, apparently don't consider themselves any happier, coming in 49th and 50th places, respectively.

These scores were based upon a survey of 1.3 million Americans done over the course of 4 years by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which asked people "objective questions" about their health as well as quality-of-life issues regarding climate, taxes, living costs, commute times, crime rates and education.

As it turns out, the state-by-state rankings were not the primary focus of the study. However, that's what has inevitably drawn the most attention. 

Based on these findings the top 10 states on the happiness scale are, in descending order: Louisiana, Hawaii, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Alabama and Maine.

Say what? Aren't the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Montana and Maine among the poorest in America? Mississippi, in fact, is the poorest.

To a New York Times reporter (or nearly any self-respecting New Yorker) this was a flabbergaster. How can people in relatively impoverished places be happier (at least according to their own reckoning) than the inhabitants of the greatest city on earth?

Which clearly explains why the writer's first reaction was to question the veracity of the interviewees' testimony. "Are these people truly happy?" he asked. "Or are they wearing  a 'What, me worry?'" smile?"

Which implies of course that the "happy residents" of Maine were either not telling the truth or just posturing for the interview (whereas the average New Yorker spoke his or her mind).

The reporter's second argument, that happiness was overrated, wasn't much more convincing. "Seriously, " he states, "isn’t restlessness, even outright discontent, often a catalyst for creativity?"

He cited the case of Italy versus Switzerland. “In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias there was warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance" whereas Switzerland - despite 500 years of democracy and peace - only came up with the "cuckoo clock".

In this view, creativity becomes the endgame and (as a face-saving consequence) New Yorkers outshine their out-of-state counterparts.

Or is it the weather? Warm rays of sunshine equal happiness, no? The only problem is that Montana, Maine, Alabama and South Carolina are not particularly warm in winter.

Weather and creativity notwithstanding, why (asks the reporter) would so many people decide to live in New York if it were so devoid of happiness? This seemed to be his last fledgling attempt at reconciliation, miffed absolutely by the idea of people living happier lives in Lousianna.

Which of course belies the real question. There's such a complex relation between New York and the world -  hundreds of years of immigration, to begin with - such an enormous tapestry of family ties, nationalities, ethnicities and cultural links (not to mention opportunities) that the mere fact that New York is more crowded than ever bears almost no relation to its inhabitants' happiness.

In a sense, this piece goes to the root of New York arrogance: a complete misinterpretation of basic data based on outright prejudice. In fact, the reporter doesn't even consider the possibility (so remote from his liberal East Coast sensibility) that people in poor places may actually be happier; nor does he seriously contemplate the idea that access to opportunities, career development, material wealth, glamor and culture doesn't necessarily translate into greater fulfillment.

As a case in point, several months ago (Aug 14, 2009) an article appeared in the NYT about Dresden, Germany entitled "In Dresden, High Culture and Ugly Reality Clash" which describes the stabbing murder of a pregnant Egyptian pharmacist in a Dresden courtroom in front of her 3-year-old son, reportedly by a German man appealing a fine for having insulted her in a park.

Dresden is portrayed in the article as "one of the great cultural capitals of Europe" yet chock full of xenophobia, skin heads and right-wing extremism. "One wonders how to reconcile the heights of the city’s culture with the gutter of these events," comments the reporter.

The reporter's conclusion was just the opposite of yesterday's article; namely, that what one normally expects based on material evidence is not always what you get.

Which means that creative types may require a certain amount of "unhappiness" to nurture their restless spirits, but it's also true that conditions under which happiness thrives (freedom, friendship, independence) may not be enabled - at least not adequately - in New York, New Jersey or Connecticut.

Let's take freedom, or rather its many manifestations: freedom from want, freedom from nagging bosses, freedom from traffic, stressful hours, crime, neurotic co-workers...

If freedom could be represented as a bundle (with each freedom being a single strand) why is being happy in Montana or Maine so unimaginable, despite the population's relative poverty?

My hunch is that most New Yorkers would characterize freedom as a fuzzy, non-definable concept that: (a) is immeasurable, as opposed to net worth or average income; and (b) is incomparable to the treasures of the Met or the NY Public Library; Wall Street salaries or dazzling Fifth Avenue merchandise.

According to this materialist view of the world, freedom could not possibly tip the balance in favor of poverty.

Or could it? Isn't love intangible? Wouldn't the same New Yorkers admit that love plays an important - at times crucial - role in happiness?

What if Louisiana folks (by virtue of their relative poverty) had more friends, closer family, better neighbors (in a word, more "love") while at the same time, much less to worry about? Does greater material wealth, business aspiration and opulence necessarily mean greater happiness?

Or would it be safer to assume that Louisianans don't really know (or just aren't forthcoming) simply because poor people ipso facto can't be happier than wealthy, educated achievers?

Again, I refer to the conclusion of the Dresden piece: great material wealth + cultural treasures don't necessarily translate into great human values.

"The truth is, we can stare as long as we want at that Raphael Madonna; or at Antonello da Messina’s 'St. Sebastian'... or at the shiny coffee sets, clocks and cups made of coral and mother-of-pearl and coconuts and diamonds culled from the four corners of the earth... But it won’t make sense of a senseless murder or help change the mind of a violent bigot." (italics mine)

Perhaps the jaded New Yorkers (and others) who simply assume that wealth equals happiness should think about what happiness actually means.

If not, they seem doomed to forget a hard-earned lesson: happiness (like culture) is by nature impractical, fragile and - at its core - non-material.