Alan Jacobs writes:
Meghan is reflecting on Will Wilkinson’s reflection on a Newsweek article on how having children doesn’t make people happy. The assumption all around seems to be that this tells us something about the costs of having children. But shouldn’t we also consider the possibility that this tells us something about the costs of monitoring our own happiness? Or the costs of having defined happiness in such a way — and having organized the structure of our lives around the pursuit of happiness in such a way — that having children compromises it? It’s interesting that we’re more willing to do a cost-benefit analysis of having children than to do a cost-benefit analysis of eagerly participating in a culture of narcissism.
I find it fascinating that Jacobs thinks the opposite of the child-centric culture is a “culture of narcissism,” rather a than, say, a culture that openly promotes human flourishing over human production. Personally, I’d prefer a more open and pluralistic conception of a worthwhile life than either of these extremes. But if we didn’t already live in a heavily natalist culture, it might be less acceptable to call men and women who seek fulfillment outside of reproduction “narcissists.”
UPDATE: Jacobs has a thoughtful response in comments.
Kerry, perhaps I was unclear about this, but I actually didn’t say (or think) anything about a “child-centric culture.” Nor do I have any dislike or disapproval of people who decide not to have children. My complaint is with people who make momentous decisions — the decision whether or not to have children being just one of these — on the basis of an unexamined notion of “happiness.” *That’s* what I think is narcissistic: not the decision, but the grounds on which the decision is made. Those who decide to *have* children because they think children will make them happy are committing the same error, I believe.
I should add that I do think — I’m not absolutely certain about this, but I’m pretty sure — that openness to having children is intrinsic to Christian marriage, but I don’t see a way to extend that claim to other kinds of relationships.
But in this conversation the notion of happiness just isn’t unexamined. Megan, Will, Kerry, and Newsweek are discussing a body of research whose conclusion is that having kids makes you less happy. How to define and measure something like “happiness” is a central question of this body of research. The conclusions are surely contestable and in many cases I hope refutable (I’ve always wanted kids). But contesting it with a Dylan quotation is just childish. These guys have methodology and data — you don’t have to be a scientist to offer compelling criticism of that.
Hi Alan!
I’m afraid I’m still not sure what you’re saying. When you lament the way we “structure our lives,” I take you to prefer a world in which children do not impose costs that might make us less happy (at least according to the way we currently measure happiness.) And I took that to be a more child-centric culture, as opposed to the narcissistic culture of which you disapprove.
Are you saying that it is narcissistic to measure happiness in a manner you consider inadequate? Why is that self-obsessed rather than merely uninformed? Why bring ego into it?
Kerry, I’m packing to go on vacation so I’ll have to answer too briefly. Apologies in advance. My point is that if we perceive having children to be at odds with being happy — which many people clearly do — then one possible and eminently reasonable response to that situation is to look critically at our notion of happiness. With apologies to the lyrical Mr. Porter, that’s what the article on which we’ve been commenting doesn’t do — the research behind the article may or may not, but many people are reading and commenting on Newsweek, very few on that research. (I only know bits and pieces of the research itself.) At least some of the researchers seem to identify happiness with the experience of “positive emotions,” which strikes me as superficial, especially when they talk about how children give parents a sense of “meaning and purpose” as though that’s something completely *different* than happiness.
A “culture of narcissism,” in Lasch’s sense, is not a culture made of of egotists, but a culture that promotes incessant and ultimately enervating self-monitoring. People who are continually monitoring their own happiness are almost certain to be unhappy, and the article (I won’t speak of the underlying studies) seems oblivious to this likelihood.
I’m just trying to point out that when we’re making big decisions — whether to have children, whether to get married, whether to move to Bangladesh, whether to move to Chicago, whether to take that new job, etc. — there are questions we *could* ask other than “Will this make me happy?” And if we are determined to ask whether our decisions will make us happy, we could at least spend some time thinking about what our concept of happiness is, and not just assume that “positive emotions” and “negative emotions” have self-evident meanings and values.
And one way to do that is to invoke (as Dylan did) the Hebrew concept of “blessedness,” which suggests a wholly different way to think about human flourishing than the usual contemporary senses of “happiness.” If the attempt to think beyond the categories dominant at the moment is, as Mr. Porter says, “childish,” then I cheerfully plead guilty to childishness.
(Not as brief as I thought.)
As one who took pleasure in Alan Jacob’s post at American Scene, in sympathy with in particular his emphasis on blessedness, and followed his link here, I offer the suggestion that the happiness being researched is short-term happiness.
The challenges and chores of raising children can be terribly taxing, and I know several people who I’m sure are better off childless and whose potential children are best prevented from suffering their erratic terrors and irrational enthusiasms, (shaded narcissistically).
My own three, 31, 34, and 37, who did not present the sorts of challenges, physical or emotional, burdening many, are a source of enduring happiness (though not the sort to lift me out of clinical depression).
As I engage the terms, blessedness is present more often than happiness and is a matter of gratitude for Grace (=‘unmerited favor’ in the formula with which I was raised). As I understand it, it is the proper relation between creature and Creator.
In this understanding happiness too is a gift, but its elation is most closely associated with the successful exercise of mastery in an activity suitable to a person’s talents and in which said person finds delight.
The central disagreement would seem to lie between a belief in Divine ordination and the total spuriousness of any such notion.
FWIW.
[...] if the desire for flourishing is narcissistic? How do we parse our way out of that paper [...]